Mohawk Traditional Council

*Deadline passes for steam generators*
By SCOTT DUNN
Owen Sound Times

http://m.owensoundsuntimes.com/articledisplay.aspx?e=3460442
?

Bruce Power’s licence to transport steam generators containing radiation for
recycling expired Friday.

The nuclear power generator has not reapplied and said in a news release Friday it
will do so “when it’s appropriate.”

It also said there is “no urgency” to ship the generators.

Company spokesman John Peevers declined to answer questions about it.

“Bruce Power continues to believe recycling offers the best environmental solution
for reducing our footprint and is something we remain entirely committed to,” the
company said in a statement.

If Bruce Power applies to renew its licence, the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control
Act requires the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to hold another public hearing,
the Council of Canadians said in a news release this week.

Interveners at hearings in September 2010 decried the lack of an environmental
assessment despite changes to original plans of leaving the waste on site.

“This is an opportunity for the CNSC to begin a needed shift in Great Lakes
governance by genuinely listening to public input and consulting with First
Nations,” council chair Maude Barlow said in the release.

Mayors, U.S. senators, First Nation communities, residents and environmental groups
opposed the plans, according to the council statement.

“If Bruce Power wants to forge ahead with this plan, the CNSC should respect the
public’s will and stop the shipment,” Barlow said in the release.

Last March, Bruce Power announced it would delay its shipment plan to continue
discussions with First Nations, Metis and others seeking additional information.

Peevers allowed the company could apply for another one-year licence from the CNSC
if the shipments weren’t made in time.

Last May, Peevers said plans to transport the 16 bus-sized, decommissioned
generators were on hold.

At that time Bruce Power withdrew its application for United States Department of
Transportation approval to ship 16 radioactive steam generators through the Great
Lakes, bound for Sweden.

“The steam generators are safely stored in a building on the Bruce Power site,” the
company statement said Friday.

More than 60 non-governmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and Great
Lakes United, have called for a halt to Bruce Power’s shipment plan pending a
full-blown environmental assessment.

The CNSC approved the shipment. It confirmed Friday the company has not applied for
a new licence.

A spokesman said Friday by e-mail: “Should an application be received, the
Commission would need to determine the process it would follow. It is premature at
this time to speculate on the process that would be selected and the timing.”

Critics say they fear the plan will set a dangerous precedent for shipping nuclear
waste through the Great Lakes and have raised concerns about potential threats to
human health and the environment.

But Bruce Power argues it’s being environmentally responsible by shipping the
generators, a plan supported by its “neighbouring communities” in Grey, Bruce and
Huron counties. Each 100-tonne generator, containing four grams of radioactive
substances, the company said, would be transported by road to Owen Sound, then make
the rest of their journey by ship.

Studsvik Nuclear AB in Nyköping was to recycle 90% of the steel from the generators
and return the rest to Bruce Power. It would be stored at the Western Waste
Management Facility.

“Since Bruce Power’s application in April, 2010, more steam generators from around
the world have been sent to Studsvik’s facility in Sweden for recycling,
demonstrating that other companies share the view that recycling is the right thing
to do,” the company said in its statement Friday.

> Yay! The time is right to shut down nuclear everywhere!
>
> “The experts testified that New York has the resources to replace
> these nuclear plants… investing in energy efficiency and by
> completing ongoing projects the state should be able to provide
> enough energy to make up for the loss of the nuclear power plant.”
>
> “A contrasting report paid for by Mayor Bloomberg suggested that
> there would be huge spikes in cost and dirtier air if Indian Point
> shut down.”
>
> …….
>
> http://www.capitaltonight.com/2012/02/assembly-committee-says-indian-point-can-shut-down/
> Assembly Committee Says Indian Point Can Shut Down
>
> After doing a round of hearings earlier this month, two Assembly
> Democrats say their preliminary findings suggest that shutting down
> the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant could be done with little
> impact on rate payers. In a press release, they say that investing
> in energy efficiency and by completing ongoing projects the state
> should be able to provide enough energy to make up for the loss of
> the nuclear power plant.
>
> “The information we gathered clearly demonstrates that Indian Point
> can be shut down without unduly burdening New York’s ratepayers or
> the electric system,” said Assembly member Kevin Cahill, Chair of
> the Assembly Committee on Energy. “We have the framework and the
> resources for a future without Indian Point. It all comes down to
> the State developing a plan and putting it in motion.”
>
> “The experts testified that New York has the resources to replace
> these nuclear plants; now the decision makers need the will to make
> it happen,” said Assembly member James Brennan, Chair of the
> Assembly Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions.
>
> The press release goes on to break it down their thinking, citing an
> increase of 5 thousand megawatts of power by 2015-2016 from proposed
> projects. And an additional 1,500 megawatts through energy
> efficiency and modernization of existing power plants by fixing
> current constraints that prevent certain plants from operating at
> full capacity, without building new power lines or new power plants.
>
> These findings have been supported by several reports that were paid
> for by opponents of Indian Point. A contrasting report paid for by
> Mayor Bloomberg suggested that there would be huge spikes in cost
> and dirtier air if Indian Point shut down.
>

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=130956191

Ministers ‘misled MPs over need for nuclear power stations’

*by Fiona Harvey*
**
*The Guardian*
*http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/31/ministers-misled-nuclear-power-stations*
**
*January 31, 2012*

/Cross-party report says government misrepresented findings on future
electricity demand, and ignored case against nuclear

/Ministers misled parliament over the need to build a new fleet of
nuclear power stations, distorting evidence and presenting to MPs a
false summary of the analysis they had commissioned, a group of MPs and
experts alleged in a report published on Tuesday.

If MPs had been presented with an accurate picture of the evidence for
and against new reactors, the government’s plans might have been
challenged, according to the report. Both the previous Labour government
and the current coalition overstated the evidence that new nuclear power
was needed, it also alleged.

Building new nuclear power stations is highly controversial, as polls
consistently show a substantial minority opposing them. But many people,
including some environmental campaigners, have been persuaded towards
supporting nuclear by the argument that they would help the UK generate
power without carbon dioxide emissions.

The previous government cited its own research in order to make that
case, but according to today’s report, some of the findings were
misrepresented when relayed to MPs by ministers. For instance, the
report found that rather than assess the requirement for new nuclear
power stations and then work out how many would be needed, the
government commissioned research that took as its central assumption
that 10 new reactors would be built and then presented its research as
evidence of the need for 10 reactors.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: “We are
confident that the Energy National Policy Statements [which set out the
government's arguments that new nuclear power was needed] are robust
documents which took account of all relevant factors.”

The report suggested that the current government’s repeated assertion
that electricity demand was likely to double was based on taking some of
the highest estimates from its research rather than the average. The
author, Ron Bailey, who has written against nuclear power, also accused
ministers of ignoring key findings of the research they had commissioned
that showed ways in which the UK could do without new nuclear power.

A spokesman for the DECC said: “We need a range of new energy
infrastructure to keep the lights on and reduce our carbon emissions in
a secure and affordable way. The UK has everything to gain from becoming
a leading destination to invest in new nuclear power. This will come
alongside investment in other technologies such as renewables, clean
coal and gas, and improved energy efficiency.”

The report, called /A Corruption of Governance?/, was written by
pressure group Unlock Democracy and the Association for the Conservation
of Energy, and was endorsed by a cross-party group of MPs. The
organisations called for the debate on new nuclear power to be reopened
in parliament.

Caroline Lucas, the UK’s only Green Party MP, said: “Despite claiming
that it wants an open debate on the UK’s energy future, the government
has already made it clear in the proposals for electricity market reform
and in its dismissive response to the Fukushima disaster that it is
betting its money on nuclear. Given what we know about the strength of
nuclear industry lobbying, there needs to be far greater transparency
around the decisions that will determine where our electricity comes
from in ten or 20 years time.”

She added: “With other countries turning away from nuclear power, MPs
and the public must be told the truth about how we can achieve energy
security and a genuinely green economy.”

However, despite the report’s findings, many experts support nuclear
power on the grounds that other low-carbon alternatives cannot supply
enough power, particularly when electric cars replace petrol-driven
models and more electricity is used for heating to replace gas and oil,
driving up electricity demand. For instance, Prof David Mackay, now
chief scientific advisor to DECC, has made the case that not enough on
and offshore wind farms, biomass power plants and other low-carbon forms
of electricity can be built in the UK to satisfy demand, so investments
in nuclear power will be needed.

Peter Facey, the director of Unlock Democracy, said his organisation did
not have a position on nuclear energy, but wanted to “ensure that the
information on which ministers based their decisions is as impartial and
robust as possible”. In the case of the arguments used for nuclear
power, he said: “The data appears to have been politicised. It is
crucial that meetings between government officials and the nuclear lobby
are opened up to greater scrutiny so we can have greater confidence that
policy makers are not being misled.”

The MPs endorsing the report included Alan Whitehead (Lab), Tessa Munt
(LibDem), Mike Weatherley (Con), Martin Horwood (LibDem), Joan Walley
(Lab) and Caroline Lucas (Green).

No nuke waste in our backyard: Madahbee
>
> Category: TOP RELEASES
> Created on Thursday, 05 January 2012 19:22
> Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
> Published Date
>
> UOI OFFICES, NIPISSING FN (January 5, 2012) – Anishinabek Nation
> Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee says that First Nations in the
> Anishinabek Nation Territory have been opposed to nuclear waste
> storage sites since 2004.
>
> “We always hear non-Native communities saying they don’t want
> certain projects or developments in their backyard. Well, First
> Nations don’t want nuclear waste in our backyard,” says Madahbee.
> “Representatives from Chiefs in Ontario have been attending
> information sessions held by the Nuclear Waste Management
> Organization and this is not the proper consultation we are entitled
> to.”
>
> The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
> states that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take
> place in the lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples without
> free and prior consent.
>
> The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is federally
> mandated to assume responsibility for the long-term management of
> Canada’s used nuclear fuel. A Deep Geological Repository Program is
> seeking long-term storage for Canada’s growing amount of high-level
> spent nuclear fuel bundles.
>
> Since the Nuclear Industry started using nuclear reactors to produce
> electricity in the early 1970s, they have accumulated about two
> million spent fuel bundles, a number that could fill six NHL-sized
> hockey rinks.
>
> Three of the five sites in Northern Ontario involved in NWMO’s 10-
> year selection process – Wawa, Horne Payne and Schreiber – are in
> Anishinabek Territory. Elliot Lake, Blind River and the Township of
> Northshore have also expressed interest in becoming storage sites.
>
> Historical uranium mining and processing within Anishinabek Nation
> Territory has resulted in significant and long-term consequences not
> only to the environment, but also to the people who live and thrive
> off the land and waters for their livelihoods.
>
> The Grand Council Chief said there is absolutely no guarantee that
> the Government, Industry or NWMO can provide assurance that a
> natural hazard such as an earthquake, volcanic activity, rock
> fracture, corrosion, ice age or any other naturally- occurring
> disaster can be avoided – only their unproven scientific theory.
>
> NWMO is offering to provide a Jan. 26-27 all-expenses paid junket
> for journalists to participate in an “information-sharing” exercise
> in Toronto and Ottawa, including a tour of the Pickering Nuclear
> power-generating plant.
>
> Grand Council Chief Madahbee said Anishinabek Nation Resolution
> 2010-30 declared that our communities were united in their
> opposition to both export of nuclear waste and deep geological
> nuclear waste disposal.
>
> The Anishinabek Nation established the Union of Ontario Indians as
> its secretariat in 1949. The UOI is a political advocate for 39
> member communities across Ontario, representing approximately 55,000
> people. The Union of Ontario Indians is the oldest political
> organization in Ontario and can trace its roots back to the
> Confederacy of Three Fires, which existed long before European
> contact.
>
> -30-
>
> For more information contact:
>
> Marci Becking
>
> Communications Officer
>
> Union of Ontario Indians
>
> Phone: (705) 497-9127 (ext. 2290)
>
> Cell: (705) 494-0735
>
> E-mail: becmar@anishinabek.ca
>
> Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
>
> Marci Becking
>
> Communications Officer
>
> Union of Ontario Indians
>
> 705-497-9127 ext. 2290
>
> becmar@anishinabek.ca
>
> Follow AnishNation on Twitter