2011-06-24 NUKE to NAS (3 of 4): Should the 30 year moratorium on uranium mining, milling & processing in Virginia be lifted? Special emphasis on the waste stream – where does it go?
SENT: Fri 6/24/2011 8:55 PM
TO: U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC
DATE: June 24, 2011
FROM: Sandra Finley, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada
TOPIC: Local knowledge, the use of “fens” for disposal of radioactive waste from the mines. (Should the 30 year moratorium on uranium mining, milling & processing in Virginia be lifted?)
Dear Members of the Committee,
The information provided to you in Saskatoon, scheduled as:
June 9, 11.00am-11.30pm: Dave Hiller AREVA Resources Canada Inc. Saskatchewan approach to decommissioning, with particular reference to Cluff Lake mine decommissioning.
was delayed until after the Public Comments because Mr. Hiller did not arrive. I do not know the name of the gentleman from Areva who testified in his place. I recall him saying that he was an employee of AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd) prior to being hired by Areva. (I think it was AECL and not the CNSC).
You will have in your materials the amount of radioactive waste that accompanies the mining. It was some figure like 137 units of radioactive waste for every unit of uranium produced – but please use your figures not mine, my memory is sometimes faulty!
In the case of the Cluff Lake mine, the tailings from the uranium mine are disposed of in “Island Lake”. The gentleman from Areva described that the receptacle for the radioactive waste is a “fen” and not a bog. The distinguishing feature of a fen, as he described, is a feed of water from underground into the basin that is the fen. I would call this a spring-fed lake.
The radioactive waste is dumped into the fen. What the gentleman from Areva did not point out is that the spring-fed lake also has an outflow of water back down into the underground aquifers. At 137:1, radioactive waste to uranium produced, I do not even want to contemplate the amount of radioactive particles that have been and are being transferred via the fen into underground water supplies.
Canada used to have strict prohibitions: lakes and other bodies of water could not be used as tailings ponds for mining operations. As is also tragically happening in the U.S., Canada is into a period of “de-regulation”. (We have corporatocracy, not democracy.)
The preceding email drew on evidence related to the transportation of radioactive materials, primarily about waste products. The information above is related to radioactive waste disposal into water bodies from the mining operations.
Just in case you do not have documentation of the efforts of citizens in the U.S. that successfully stopped the Calvert Cliffs nuclear reactor BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT IF THE REACTOR WAS BUILT, THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE WOULD BE TRANSPORTED THROUGH BALTIMORE, you can find it by clicking on 2010-10-13 .
THE CONTENTS of the posting: (Stop producing radioactive waste – there isn’t a place to put it.)
(2) LETTER FROM THE PEOPLE WHO STOPPED CALVERT CLIFFS REACTOR. CITIZEN ACTION TO STOP MORE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES OF NUKE INDUSTRY. (USA)
(3) A QUICK LOOK AT THE BATTLE TO STOP THE PRODUCTION OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE, INTERNATIONAL RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACTION DAY (SEPT 29TH)
(4) IMPORTANT SHORT VIDEO: BALTIMORE CITIZENS STOPPING RADIOACTIVE SHIPMENTS. Canadians on the route between Bruce Power’s reactors in Ontario and the targeted disposal sites (Saskatchewan) should take time to watch this short video. We are talking about the transportation of high-level radioactive waste – 30,000 truckloads to start with.
(5) BEYOND NUCLEAR, RECENT NEWS ITEMS
(6) PLAN TO SHIP RADIOACTIVE WASTE ACROSS THE GREAT LAKES TO SWEDEN STIRS CONCERN, EPOCH TIMES, OCT 12
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
For MORE INFORMATION on the nightmare that disposal of radioactive waste is, please click on 2010-12-05:
(Continuation of 2010/10/13 … ).
“The risks of transporting deadly nuclear waste, the environmental justice impacts and the long-term health effects are untenable…We cannot afford to be silent on these important issues.” ~ James Cromwell
NWMO = Nuclear Waste Management Organization.
They’re having difficulty finding a place for hiding high-level radioactive waste. This is an issue for a large number of Canadians (and Americans). The NWMO is thinking that northern Saskatchewan is a nice, empty spot. The bribery is well underway.
Item #4, TEN BIG REASONS WHY SASKATCHEWAN SHOULD BAN NUCLEAR WASTES, is an excellent resource and a must-read.
Item #1 is my letter, if it can be of assistance to anyone.
(1) MY LETTER TO THE NWMO
(2) NWMO GIVES $1 MILLION TO THE FEDERATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INDIAN NATIONS
(3) UPDATE ON THE ATTEMPT TO SHIP OLD RADIOACTIVE GENERATORS THROUGH THE GREAT LAKES TO SWEDEN FOR “RECYCLING”, GREAT LAKES MAYORS SOUND ALARM
(4) TEN BIG REASONS WHY SASKATCHEWAN SHOULD BAN NUCLEAR WASTES
(5) LATEST NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORT TO GORLEBEN (GERMANY) SPARKS ANGRY PROTESTS, NOVEMBER 9
(6) THE CURSE OF GORLEBEN, GERMANY’S ENDLESS SEARCH FOR A NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP
(7) INFORMATION ON MAKING A SUBMISSION TO THE NWMO
For your consideration,