|
Please
Visit Our
Corporate
Sponsors







Be
A Corporate Sponsor
(click to access)
EcoBizport
Home
Associations
Classifieds
Congress
e-Business
Education
& Training
Employment/Careers
EPA
Executive
Office
Federal
Courts
Federal
Regulations
Legal
Local
Area Data
Local
Government
Maps,
Weather, Geo
News
& Media
Other
Business
Politics
Products
& Services
Projects,
RFPs, RFQs
Reference
Desk
Research/Publications
Search
& Portals
Tradeshows/Meetings
State
Homepages
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Other States
Issue Homepages
(click to access)
"It's the one
publication I read all the time."
-
Consultant
-
Visit Our Blog
for top-level daily posts
from the pages of WIMS Daily and eNewsUSA
(click
here).
"I find the material timely and helpful
and it frees up my time because I can rely on you to find the
current info."
- Attorney -


Reporting On
Great Lakes Protection
Issues

Reporting on all
U.S. Court of Appeals environmental decisions
All Circuits
Daily Environmental
Federal Register
Summaries
We can save
you time & money
"Excellent source of
quick summaries (with correct amount of detail)... like the
links to more detailed info when needed."
- Mfg. Regulatory
Policy Manager -
" Terrific,
I am in awe of the content in the daily newsletter. How do you
find or get wired into all that stuff?"
- Attorney -
"Nice job.
Keep up
the good work."
- Agency Regulator -
Important News About The
Great Lakes
Great
Lakes Environment Blog
(click to access)
Daily Federal Register Summaries
Need More
Information or Details
(click here)
|
|
|
WIMS - Waste
Information & Management Services, Inc. - WIMS
Innovative Environmental Information Services Since 1980 |
 |
|
Daily Environmental Briefing Report
Friday, May 23, 2008
© 2008. Permission is
granted for Internal, Same-Office Distribution Only. |
In
This Issue
-- NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL NEWS --
GAO Adds To Reports Critical Of DOE's GNEP
Congress Overrides President's Farm Bill Veto
NRDC Report On The Cost Of Inaction On Climate
Change
Senate EPW Committee Passes California Waiver
Bill
UCS Praises NRC Commissioner Call For Dry
Casks Storage
Coal Council Report: The Urgency of
Sustainable Coal
G8 Environment
Ministers Meeting In Japan
-- GREAT LAKES NEWS --
USGS Great Lakes Consumptive Water Use Report
Groups Warn Of Bias In Canadian Nuclear
Repository Proposal
Great Lakes & Mississippi River Panels To Meet
National / International News
GAO Adds To Reports Critical Of DOE's GNEP
- May 22: The Government Accountability Office
(GAO) released a report entitled, Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership: DOE Should
Reassess Its Approach to Designing and
Building Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling
Facilities (GAO-08-483, April 22, 2008).
In the report GAO recommends
that the Department of Energy (DOE) reassess
its preference for accelerating GNEP. DOE
stated it will continue to assess alternative
approaches to GNEP. The GAO report is the
latest in a series of critical reviews of the
GNEP (See additional information below).
The
Department of Energy (DOE) proposes under
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
to build facilities to begin recycling the
nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel.
GNEP's objectives include reducing
radioactive waste disposed of in a geologic
repository and mitigating the nuclear
proliferation risks of existing recycling
technologies. DOE originally planned a small
engineering-scale demonstration of advanced
recycling technologies being developed by
DOE national laboratories. While DOE has not
ruled out this approach, the current GNEP
strategic plan favors working with industry
to demonstrate the latest commercially
available technology in full-scale
facilities and to do so in a way that will
attract industry investment.
DOE has
funded four industry groups to prepare
proposals for full-scale facilities. DOE
officials expect the Secretary of Energy to
decide on an approach to GNEP by the end of
2008. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOE
would address GNEP's objectives under (1)
its original engineering-scale approach and
(2) the accelerated approach to building
full-scale facilities. GAO analyzed DOE
plans and industry proposals and interviewed
DOE and industry officials concerning the
pros and cons of both approaches.
DOE's
original approach of building
engineering-scale facilities would meet
GNEP's objectives if the advanced
technologies on which it focused can be
successfully developed and commercialized.
The advanced technologies would reduce waste
to a greater degree than existing
technologies by recycling radioactive
material that a geologic repository has
limited capacity to accommodate. The
advanced technologies would also mitigate
proliferation risks relative to existing
technologies by increasing the difficulty of
theft or diversion of weapons-usable nuclear
material from recycling facilities.
Nonetheless,
DOE's engineering-scale approach had two
shortcomings. First, it lacked industry
participation, potentially reducing the
prospects for eventual commercialization of
the technologies. In particular, the
approach included some technologies that may
introduce unnecessary costs and technical
challenges while creating waste management
challenges; industry representatives have
questioned whether such technologies could
be commercialized. Second, DOE's schedule
called for building one of the recycling
facilities (a reprocessing plant for
separating reusable materials from spent
nuclear fuel and fabricating recycled fuel)
before conducting R&D on recycled fuel that
would help determine the plant's design
requirements. This schedule unnecessarily
increased the risk that the spent fuel would
be separated in a form that cannot be
recycled.
The other
two facilities DOE had planned to build (an
advanced reactor for using recycled fuel and
an R&D facility) would allow DOE to conduct
R&D that existing DOE facilities have
limited capability to support. DOE's
accelerated approach of building full-scale
facilities would likely require using
unproven evolutions of existing technologies
that would reduce radioactive waste and
mitigate proliferation risks to a much
lesser degree than anticipated from more
advanced technologies. Two of the four
industry groups that have received funding
under GNEP proposed evolutionary
technologies for recycling spent fuel in
existing reactors even though the GNEP
strategic plan ruled out such technologies.
While the evolutionary technologies could
allow DOE to begin recycling a large amount
of spent fuel sooner than under its original
approach, fully meeting GNEP's waste
reduction and nonproliferation objectives
would require a later transition to more
advanced technologies.
Two other
industry groups proposed technologies that
would address GNEP's waste reduction and
nonproliferation objectives by using
technologies that are not mature enough to
allow DOE to accelerate construction of
full-scale recycling facilities. Under any
of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to attract
enough industry investment to avoid the need
for a large amount of government funding for
full-scale facilities. For example, the
industry groups have proposed that DOE fund
an advanced reactor, which DOE and industry
officials expect would at least initially be
more expensive than existing reactors to
build and operate and thus not be
commercially competitive. DOE acknowledges
the limitations of its accelerated approach
but cites other benefits, such as the
potential to exert more immediate
international influence on nonproliferation
issues.
As WIMS has
reported previously [See WIMS 5/16/08],
despite many critics and recommendations to
alter the GNEP, DOE continues to push
forward with the program. On March 31, 2008,
a coalition of public interest,
environmental and policy groups released a
report detailing what they say are, "the
severe shortcomings and false assertions"
posed in the Administration's GNEP [See WIMS
4/2/08]. The GNEP has been criticized by
others as well. The program recently came
under scrutiny of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), National Research Council
(NRC) that said the research and development
component of the GNEP should not go forward
at its current pace [See
WIMS 10/30/07].
On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center
released a report from a diverse group of 27
stakeholders that concluded, "that critical
elements of the program [GNEP] are unlikely
to succeed" [See
WIMS 6/18/07]. On
November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and
local environmental, science and national
security organizations sent a letter to
Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete
Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate
funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote,
"undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy,
would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more,
and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste
problem."
Access the
complete GAO report (click
here). Access
a release on the Risky Appropriations
report with links to the complete 64-page
report and fact sheet (click
here).
Access the GNEP website (click
here). Access the
GNEP
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(click
here). Access further
information on DOE’s nuclear energy program
website (click
here). [*Energy,
*Haz/Nuclear]
Congress Overrides President's Farm
Bill Veto - May 21: As expected,
the House and Senate have voted to override
President Bush's veto of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (H.R.
2419, the Farm Bill)) which passed the House
on May 14, by a vote of 318-106, and passed
the Senate on May 15, by a vote of 81 to 15.
House and Senate leaders have vowed to
override any Presidential veto and have the
votes, and are expected to do it soon. The
override vote in the House was 316-108 (11
not voting) and in the Senate the vote was
82-13 (1 present, 4 not voting).
There was an administrative error and
only 14 of 15 titles to the bill were
actually presented for the override votes.
To correct the problem an alternative bill,
H.R. 6124, containing all titles was
introduced and presented for a vote. In the
House the alternative bill passed 306-110
(19 not voting). The alternative bill is
pending Senate action.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
issued a brief statement saying, "With
overwhelming bipartisan votes, the House and
Senate have both overridden President Bush’s
ill-advised veto of a Farm Bill that will
reduce food costs, invest in energy
independence to reduce gas prices, and
reform our farm support system. This Farm
Bill will ensure that future farm bills will
never again look like those of the
past. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman
Peterson and many others, this bill makes an
historic investment in energy independence
and nutrition assistance, ensuring that its
effects will also be felt far from farm
country."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
issued a brief statement saying, "Rapidly
rising food and fuel prices have put a
strain on all Americans, but especially on
low-income working Americans who are
struggling to put food on the table. By
overturning the President’s veto, we are
making substantial investments in nutrition
programs to help millions of families afford
healthy food; in help for farmers hit by
disaster and to protect our nation’s natural
resources; and in renewable energy sources
like cellulosic biofuels to help reduce our
dependence on oil. Improving our food and
nutrition programs is an important step
toward helping rural communities in Nevada
and across the country cope with the
casualties of a rising cost of living.”
Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) an active participant in the Farm
Bill debate said the final bill provides
some badly needed new funding for
conservation programs over the next five
years, and makes improvements to some of
these programs. However, they said, "these
benefits are overshadowed by the lack of
meaningful subsidy reform, the addition of
an environmentally damaging new subsidy
program and last-minute changes made to the
bill by the conference committee that
undermine the effectiveness of the bill’s
conservation provisions."
Sara Hopper, an attorney with EDF who
was a staff member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee during the 2002 farm bill said,
“The good news is that the 2008 farm bill
includes $4 billion in new money for
conservation, and makes changes to some
conservation programs that will make them
more effective in helping farmers deliver
environmental benefits like cleaner water to
the public. The bad news is that the bills
that both the House and Senate passed last
year provided more money and included
stronger conservation policies.
Unfortunately, the conferees worked behind
closed doors to make this a weaker bill for
the environment.”
Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click
here). Access a release and
brief summary from Majority Leader Reid ( click
here).
Access a release from EDF (click
here). Access the House
override roll call vote ( click
here). Access the Senate override
roll call vote ( click
here). Access the Senate Farm Bill
Conference website ( click
here). Access the House Farm Bill
website ( click
here). Access legislative details
for H.R. 2419 including links to roll call
votes ( click
here).
Access legislative details for alternative
bill H.R. 6124 including links to roll call
votes (click
here). Access the USDA Farm
Bill website ( click
here). Access comments from farm
groups on the passage ( click
here). [*All, *Agriculture]
NRDC Report On The Cost Of Inaction
On Climate Change - May 22: A
report by researchers at Tufts University,
commissioned by the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), presents two ways of
estimating the costs of inaction on climate
change, both leading to staggering bottom
lines. A comprehensive estimate, based on
state-of-the-art computer modeling, finds
that doing nothing on global warming will
cost the United States economy more than 3.6
percent of GDP -- or $3.8 trillion annually
(in today’s dollars) -- by 2100. On the
other hand, a detailed, bottom-up analysis
finds that just four categories of global
warming impacts -- hurricane damage, real
estate losses, increased energy costs and
water costs -- will add up to a price tag of
1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9
trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by
2100.
Dan Lashof, director of NRDC’s Climate
Center said, “The longer we wait, the more
painful and expensive the consequences will
be. This report’s findings are undeniable --
we must act now. The Climate Security Act
currently in the U.S. Senate is our best
opportunity to set a concrete limit on
global warming pollution and provide an
accompanying market that rewards companies
for making real reductions.” On May 20,
Senator James
Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the
Environment and Public Works Committee,
commenting on the Lieberman-Warner
Substitute Amendment (S. 2191) said, “The
latest version is nothing more than window
dressing for a bill that has been exposed by
numerous government and private analyses as
costly and damaging to America.
Lieberman-Warner will redistribute over $5.6
trillion [by 2050] from American consumers
to pet congressional projects." [See
WIMS 5/22/08].
NRDC said, In the future, global warming
will cause drastic changes to the planet’s
climate, with average temperature increases
of 13 degrees Fahrenheit in most of the
United States and 18 degrees Fahrenheit in
Alaska over the next 100 years. Costs and
damages for the four detailed categories
cited in the report if global warming
continues are: Hurricane
damages: $422 billion; Real estate losses:
$360 billion; Increased energy costs: $141
billion; and Water costs: $950 billion. The
report’s lead author, Frank Ackerman said,
“Some important impacts are priceless, so
the real situation is worse than the numbers
can convey. But the numbers, for those
impacts we can put prices on, are bad
enough. Climate change is on a collision
course with the U.S. economy, long before
the end of the century, unless we act now.”
Access a release from NRDC ( click
here). Access a fact sheet,
overview and links to the complete 42-page
report ( click
here). [*Climate]
Senate EPW Committee Passes
California Waiver Bill - May 21:
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works (EPW), announced that her
Committee approved S. 2555, The Reducing
Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act
of 2008, a bill that instructs the President
to sign the California waiver so that
California and other states can proceed with
laws to improve air quality problems from
cars.
According to a release from Senator
Boxer, on December 19, 2007, U.S. EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson denied
California's request for the waiver -- "the
first time in history that EPA had ever
denied outright a request from California
for a waiver to do more to cut air
pollution." The Senator said, "Administrator
Johnson's decision to deny the waiver was
not supported by the facts, by the law, by
the science, or by precedent. Just this week
we learned of more evidence that the Bush
White House intervened to kill the waiver
for California [ See
WIMS 5/21/08]. Today's action in
the Environment Committee brings us one step
closer to giving a green light to California
and the other states so they can begin
tackling global warming pollution from
vehicles."
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), an
original cosponsor of the bill, said, "The
time has come to take the decision on
California's waiver out of the hands of the
EPA. The senior leadership of the EPA has
failed to demonstrate that it has the
integrity or independence to make decisions
based on sound science. So this legislation
would help right the wrong that blocked
California from implement[ing] its
groundbreaking law to reduce tailpipe
emissions. Let me thank Senator Boxer for
her leadership as Chairman in getting this
legislation approved by the Committee."
Fourteen other states -- Arizona,
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont and Washington -- have adopted
California's standards, or are in the
process of adopting them. Another four -
Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Utah -- are
moving toward adopting the California
standards. Boxer said, "All together, those
19 states represent more than 152 million
Americans - a majority of the U.S.
population."
Access a release from Senator Boxer ( click
here). Access legislative details
on S. 2555 ( click
here). Access numerous posts on the
eNewsUSA Blog regarding the "California
Waiver" ( click
here). [*Energy, *Climate]
UCS Praises NRC Commissioner Call
For Dry Casks Storage - May 21:
According to a release from the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS), the groups
praises a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) member's recent call for the Agency to
require nuclear power plants to better
protect high-level radioactive waste on
site. UCS said it has advocated this
position for safer storage of spent nuclear
fuel rods for years. UCS said that in a May
13 speech at a nuclear industry trade group
forum, NRC Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko
said it is much safer to store spent nuclear
fuel rods in steel and concrete containers,
called dry casks, than in large water-filled
concrete pits, known as wet pools. He
recommended that his Agency require plants
to expeditiously transfer spent fuel from
wet pools to dry casks rather than allow it
to accumulate in the pools.
UCS said, if the NRC required nuclear
plant owners to move spent fuel to dry
casks, plant owners would reduce the
likelihood of a spent fuel fire due to
accident or terrorist attack and the amount
of radioactive material that could be
released by such a fire. Dave Lochbaum,
director of UCS's Nuclear Power Safety
Project said, "This is exactly what the NRC
needs to do. It's an easy way to make plants
less vulnerable to attack. If the NRC does
what Commissioner Jaczko suggests, the
millions of Americans who live near nuclear
power plants will be safer."
UCS indicates that a large radiation
release resulting from a wet pool fire could
result in thousands of cancer deaths and
hundreds of billions of dollars in
decontamination costs and economic damage,
according to a 2004 study by UCS Senior
Scientist Edwin Lyman, Princeton University
professor Frank Von Hippel and consultant
Jan Beyea published in the journal Science
and Global Security. An attack on a dry cask
storage area would, in most circumstances,
result in a much smaller release of
radioactivity and much less severe damage.
Access a release from UCS and link to
Commissioner Jaczko's speech ( click
here). [*Haz/Nuclear]
Coal Council Report: The Urgency of
Sustainable Coal - May 22: The
National Coal Council (NCC),
a Federal Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy,
presented the U.S. Department of
Energy with recommendations for the
technology and regulatory framework to
increase America's use of clean coal for
energy security, environmental improvement
and economic prosperity at a time of
unprecedented global energy needs. The
study, "The Urgency of Sustainable Coal,"
was conducted at the request of U.S. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman and is the fourth
major study presented by the NCC in five
years.
Georgia Nelson, President and CEO of PTI
Resources, Inc., and NCC Chair said, "Coal
is an essential part of the world's energy
future. Recent energy events remind us that
much of the world remains behind the energy
eight-ball. The urgency is reflected in $4
per gallon gas, families doing without
essentials to keep the lights on, and more
than 2 billion people around the world that
lack adequate access to electricity or have
no electricity at all. The United States has
a unique opportunity to advance clean energy
solutions from coal that will alleviate
energy poverty and address concerns about
climate. Greater use of coal for
electricity, gas and transportation fuels is
the solution."
According to the report: (1) Since the
Council released its "Coal: America's Energy
Future" study in 2006, oil prices have risen
from $56 per barrel to over $85 in January
of 2008, and now exceeds $130. This increase
has significantly slowed economic
growth. (2) Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is
$12 to $18 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) in
many parts of the world as rising demand
from Asia and Europe has dramatically
reduced U.S. import expectations. (3) Oil
production has stagnated as even more of the
world's top ten producers, including China,
Mexico, Norway, Russia and the United States
face depleting reserves. (4) Costs to
produce energy have risen dramatically due
to escalating prices for steel, materials,
labor, equipment, transportation and energy
itself.
The study recommends an advanced
portfolio of technology options for the
electric power industry; greater R&D on
coal-based electricity generation and carbon
capture and storage technologies; incentives
to deploy advanced coal-based electricity
technologies coordinated with plug-in hybrid
and electric vehicles; Congressional funding
for large demonstration projects in multiple
regions using multiple technologies, and
transferring technology to emerging nations
such as China and India. It calls on
government funding and private-public
partnerships to accelerate the
commercialization of clean coal
technologies.
Speaking at the May 22 meeting,
Secretary Bodman said, "As you well know, we
very much rely on coal to meet our vast
energy needs. Put another way, I don’t think
anything our country uses 1.1 billion tons
of in a given year is going to go away any
time soon. Clearly, the better and frankly
inescapable answer is to find ways to use
this abundant resource more cleanly and
efficiently. Of course, you all know this in
fact, it is the topic of the study you have
just completed, “The Urgency of Sustainable
Coal.”
In his speech, Bodman discussed the
issues of CO2 emissions, climate change and
pending legislation. He said, "EIA looked at
a number of scenarios, including a case that
assumed the availability of advanced
technology in 2030 including nuclear power
and CCS, as well as a case that assumed
limited availability of this technology. The
analysis showed that, without an aggressive
push forward on these technologies, this
legislation could result in a cumulative
negative impact on our economy of between
$531 billion to $1.5 trillion in current
year dollars, and a potential loss of up to
1 million jobs."
Access a release from NCC (click
here). Access the speech from
Secretary Bodman (click
here). Access the NCC website for
additional information (click
here). [*Energy]
G8
Environment Ministers Meeting In Japan
- May 23: U.S. EPA Administrator
Stephen Johnson will lead the U.S.
delegation to the G8
Environment Ministers Meeting in Kobe,
Japan, May 24-26. The participants will
discuss climate change, biodiversity, and
the "3R Initiative" (reducing waste and
reusing and recycling resources and
products). The Group of Eight (G8) is an
international forum for the governments of
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States to discuss issues of common concern.
Though the group's origins date back to the
early 1970s, it did not become the Group of
Eight until 1997 when Russia formally
joined. Among other attendees at the Kobe
meeting are representatives of the United
Nations, European Commission, China, India,
Brazil and South Africa and more.
Access an announcement
from EPA (click
here). Access additional
information on the G8 meeting (click
here). [*All]
Great
Lakes News
USGS Great Lakes Consumptive Water Use
Report - May 23: The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) has released a major 191-page
report entitled, "Consumptive Water-Use
Coefficients for the Great Lakes Basin and
Climatically Similar Areas." The report
addresses issues of how
much of the water is removed from the Great
Lakes for use in everyday products such as
food, ethanol, household chemicals or paper
products; what is not returned; and what type
of uses are most likely to cause losses. The
new report will be used by water-resource
managers and planners in the Great Lakes as
they develop policies to encourage efficient
and sustainable water use.
Kimberly Shaffer, hydrologist with the
USGS and author of the report said, "We found
that irrigation and livestock had the largest
losses compared with total water withdrawn
from the Great Lakes basin. Of the total water
withdrawn for irrigation, 70-100 percent was
lost to the basin." The authors examined seven
consumptive water-use categories: domestic and
public supply, industrial, electric power,
irrigation, livestock, commercial, and mining.
Consumptive water use is water that is
evaporated, transpired, incorporated into
products or crops, consumed by humans or
livestock, or otherwise removed from the
immediate environment. It is usually reported
as a percentage of the amount of water
withdrawn.
USGS said the study is relevant to the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin
Sustainable Water Resources Agreement, between
eight states and two Canadian provinces that
would prohibit major diversions of water
beyond counties bordering the basin. For this
report USGS compiled, mapped, graphed, and
statistically analyzed consumptive water use
numbers from more than 100 sources as a
starting point for facility managers, water
managers, and scientists in determining the
amount of water consumed in seven water-use
categories. For comparison purposes,
consumptive use information for basins and
states that have climates similar to the Great
Lakes basin are included in the
report. Methods for computing and estimating
consumptive use are also presented, as is an
extensive bibliography.
Access a release and links to a fact
sheet, the complete report and related
information (click
here). [*GLakes]
Groups Warn Of
Bias In Canadian Nuclear Repository Proposal
- May 23: A coalition of U.S. and Canadian
environmental organizations are questioning
the independence of an environmental
assessment panel review the environmental
assessment for a proposed Ontario Power
Generation underground radioactive waste
depository in Bruce County, Ontario, about a
half a mile from the shore of Lake Huron [See
WIMS 7/5/07]. The Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency and the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission are now inviting public
comment until June 18, on two documents -- the
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
guidelines; and the draft Joint Review Panel (JRP)
agreement -- related to the proposed Deep
Geologic Repository Project to store low and
intermediate-level radioactive waste in the
municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
In a release, the groups point out that
they fear the assessment panel will be
compromised by the presence of the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission. They said that
after pressure from citizen groups and elected
officials in both Canada and the United
States, the Canadian government has committed
to a Full Panel Review, but the presence of
the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
threatens to bias decision-making in favor of
a pro-nuclear position, despite the risks.
Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition
for Nuclear Responsibility said, “The Canadian
government wants to build a nuclear waste dump
on the shores of the world’s largest
freshwater ecosystem. There are serious risks
involved in doing this and we want to ensure a
full and independent assessment of what the
consequences will be, free of bias from the
nuclear establishment. An independent panel is
one that has no conflict of interest because
its members are not involved in promoting,
defending, or licensing nuclear facilities."
The groups said a nuclear regulator has
never had a seat on a panel for environmental
assessments, and their role in this one could
set a dangerous precedent, downplaying the
dump’s radiological risks to health and the
environment. Great Lakes United’s Green Energy
and Nuclear Free Task Force urges that a
completely independent review board be
established, without Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission presence. The Task Force also
calls on Great Lakes residents on both sides
of the border to speak out, given the
potential hazards of the proposed dumpsite for
the entire Great Lakes watershed.
The proposal involves building a deep
repository beneath the Bruce Nuclear plant
site near Kincardine, Ontario. The largest
nuclear power plant in North America, it is
looking to build new reactors which could make
it the largest nuclear power plant in the
world. The dump site would contain all
radioactive wastes, except spent radioactive
fuel, from Ontario’s twenty nuclear reactors.
Waste to be stored includes transuranic
radionuclides, such as plutonium, contaminated
filters from irradiated fuel pools; thousands
of highly radioactive metallic pipes and other
contaminated items.
Last week the Macomb County Water Quality
Board and the Macomb County Board of
Commissioners in Michigan both passed
resolutions opposing any underground
radioactive waste dump in the Great Lakes
region. Over the past two years, members of
Congress have repeatedly spoken out against
the proposed dump, including House Energy
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Chairman Bart Stupak of northern Michigan, and
Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of
Detroit. Kay Cumbow of Citizens Against
Chemical Contamination said, “Macomb County is
saying very clearly that the actions of its
neighbors have a huge impact on the health of
its communities and environment. Siting a
nuclear waste dump right next to the drinking
water supply of over 30 million Canadians and
Americans is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Access a release from the environmental
organizations (click here). Access the public
notice and links to pertinent documents from
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ( click
here). [*Haz/Nuclear, GLakes,
MIGLakes]
Great
Lakes & Mississippi River Panels To Meet
- May 22: The Great Lakes
Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species will be
meeting jointly with the Mississippi River
Basin Panel in Milwaukee, WI on June 17-19,
2008. An important goal of this meeting is
to provide a forum that will facilitate
further communication and coordination among
members of both Panels given the shared
issues of concern existing within these
interconnected watersheds. The meeting will
focus on common priority issues, such as the
transfer of species between basins, viral
hemorrhagic septicemia virus, (VHS or VHSv) and
ballast water. Detailed meeting information,
including a preliminary agenda, registration
information and other meeting materials are
available.
Access the Great Lakes
Panel meeting website for details (click
here). Access the
Great Lakes Panel on
Aquatic Nuisance Species for more
information (click
here). [*GLakes]
Federal Register Highlights
The following is a summary from our
Daily REGTrak Bulletin*
for:
Friday, May 23, 2008.
Federal
Register
Vol. 73, No. 101
__________________________________
ANPR -
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
FR - Final Rule;
FRD - Direct final rule;
FRI - Interim final rule;
ICR - Information
Collection Request; ND -
Notice of data, information, reports, etc. availability;
NF - Notice of Funding
Opportunity; NM - Notice of
Meeting; NS - Notice of
administrative/court settlement;
PR - Proposed Rule; ROD
- Record of decision
*If you
need further information on the above announcements you
may want to subscribe to our REGTrak service.
Subscribers receive a complete Federal Register summary
of nationally applicable environmental announcements,
contact information and direct links to the full-text of
each announcement (pdf & html) before 8 AM each day for
$139 per year (click
here). You can also
access our Federal Regulatory website and follow the
links from there (click
here).
Article Coding: [Air]
= Air; [All] = Cross-Media, ecosystems; [Climate]
Climate Change; [Drink] = Drinking Water; [Energy] =
Energy; [GLakes] = Great Lakes; [Haz] = Hazardous Waste;
[Land] = Land Use, Forests; [P2] Pollution Prevention,
Sustainability; [Remed] = Remediation, Brownfields;
[Tanks] = AST, UST; [Toxics] =Toxics, Pesticides;
[Transport] = Transportation; [Solid Waste]; [Water] =
Water; [Wildlife] = Wildlife, Endangered Species.
| |