Radioactive chemicals in Great Lakes need special designatio

[Oscar]

Radioactive chemicals in Great Lakes need special designation, groups say

[ http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/radioactiv ... -1.2801174 ]

Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press Published Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:44 PM EST

TORONTO -- The tracking of dangerous radioactive substances in the Great Lakes basin is woefully inadequate given the intensive nuclear activity in the area, environmental and health groups say.

In a letter to the Canadian and U.S. governments on Wednesday, more than 100 organizations called for such substances to be designated as "chemicals of mutual concern."

Such a designation -- recognition that radionuclides are potentially harmful to human health or the environment -- would require governments to develop a strategy for dealing with them with a view to keeping them out of the lakes.

"Radionuclides can have very serious immediate, long-term and intergenerational effects on human and non-human health," the letter states. "There is no level of radionuclides below which exposure can be defined as 'safe'."

Chemicals such as uranium or plutonium -- which can remain toxic for eons -- can cause cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations in both people and animals. Yet despite a surprising amount of activity involving the substances on or near the Great Lakes, a report commissioned by the Canadian Environmental Law Association in support of the designation finds monitoring of the radioactivity is patchy at best.

Study author John Jackson, who notes the lakes are a source of drinking water for millions of Canadians and Americans, said it's high time for the long-standing deficiency to be rectified given that the basin is a "hotbed" for nuclear-related activity.

"With the exception of Lake Superior, our lakes are surrounded by nuclear facilities," Jackson said in an interview Wednesday from Kitchener, Ont. "This isn't something small scale; this is something ringing the basin."

Those facilities -- dozens of nuclear generating stations, fuel-processing facilities, waste-disposal, and uranium mine-tailing sites among them -- all use, store and dispose of radionuclides. At the moment, however, little hard, consistent data is available as to how much radioactive toxins they discharge annually into the lakes.

An International Joint Commission study in 1997 found that keeping tabs on radioactive substances was essentially left to users, resulting in a fragmented approach that included differences in reporting and off-site monitoring.

"This situation has not improved," Jackson writes.

MORE:

[ http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/radioactiv ... -1.2801174 ]

- - -

Related Stories

Critics want feds to kill nuclear-waste bunker on Lake Huron
[ http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/critics-wa ... -1.2785259 ]

[Oscar]

100+ groups call for designation as a “chemical of mutual concern”

High concentration of nuclear facilities prompts call for action on radionuclides in Great Lakes


March 2, 2016 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Washington, D.C., U.S.A. - More than 100 organizations from around the Great Lakes are calling on the Canadian and American governments to list radionuclides as a “chemical of mutual concern” under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The groups’ call is supported by a new report outlining the shortcomings of current efforts to track radionuclides and explaining what needs to be done to properly monitor these dangerous substances in our Great Lakes.

“The Great Lakes basin is a hotbed for nuclear-related activity, with more than 30 nuclear generating stations, fuel processing facilities, waste disposal and uranium mine tailing sites scattered around the four lower lakes,” points out John Jackson, author of the new report.

“We simply don’t know what the cumulative impact of these nuclear facilities and waste sites is on the lakes because there is no comprehensive monitoring of radionuclides in Great Lake waters,” says Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) continues to search for a long-term high-level radioactive waste disposal site, where highly radioactive fuel bundles from all of Canada`s nuclear facilities, including Ontario’s 20 commercial power reactors, would be permanently buried. Eight of the nine sites being considered by the NWMO are in the Great Lakes Basin.

“The evidence is that even very low levels of radiation can have serious health impacts, from cancer- causing cell damage to genetic mutations that can trigger birth defects,” says Kevin Kamps of Maryland-based Beyond Nuclear. In the U.S., the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation panel found that “there is no compelling evidence to indicate a dose threshold below which the risk of tumor induction is zero.”

As well as nuclear power production and its associated supply chain, there are also numerous medical facilities, universities and some industries located in the Great Lakes Basin that work with radioactive substances. On the U.S. side, weapons-related facilities are also potentially significant radionuclide contamination sources.

Concerns regarding radionuclides in the Great Lakes have long been an issue. The Nuclear Task Force of the International Joint Commission highlighted the inconsistency in reporting and monitoring of radionuclides in the Great Lakes basin as far back as 1997.

“What’s important to remember is that radioactive materials are constantly on the move around and across the Great Lakes. Whether it is fuel being shipped from a processing facility to power plants, waste being moved to storage sites, or tritium being shipped to a factory, these materials aren’t just sitting in one place,” says Jackson, adding “this opens up a real risk for accidental releases into the lakes themselves or into waterways that flow into the lakes.”

These movements will increase if the NWMO does develop a long-term storage site for used nuclear fuel. As of 2004, there was 36,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sitting in temporary storage at the province’s three nuclear plants. On the American side, there was an estimated 13,825 tonnes of irradiated fuel sitting at nuclear facilities in the Great Lakes basin as of 2011.

“We need to get a better handle on the impact of radionuclides on drinking water quality, fish and wildlife survival and the health of aquatic ecosystems throughout the Great Lakes. Radionuclides are not included in the most comprehensive environmental monitoring programs for the lakes because our governments have not listed them as a chemical of concern. That needs to change so that we start keeping better track of what all of this nuclear activity around the basin means for the health of our lakes and ourselves,” says McClenaghan.

The report, Radionuclides as a Chemical of Mutual Concern in the Great Lakes Basin, is available at
[ http://www.cela.ca/publications/radionu ... akes-basin ]

The groups’ submission is available at
[ http://www.cela.ca/publications/Letter- ... cern-GLWQA ]

For further information contact:

John Jackson
Report Author and CELA board member
Office: 519-744-7503
Cell: 519-591-7503
E-mail: jjackson@web.ca

Theresa McClenaghan
Executive Director
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Office: 416-960-2284 ext. 219
E-mail theresa@cela.ca

Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear
Cell: 240-462-3216
E-mail: kevin@beyondnuclear.org

--30--

--

Fe de Leon,
Researcher,
Canadian Environmental Law Association,
130 Spadina Ave., Ste. 301,
Toronto, ON M5V 2L4
Tel.: 416-960-2284 ext. 223,
Fax: 416-960-9392,
E-mail: deleonf@cela.ca

Visit our web sites:
on CELA at http://www.cela.ca


--

Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Beyond Nuclear
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912
Office: (301) 270-2209 ext. 1
Cell: (240) 462-3216
Fax: (301) 270-4000
kevin@beyondnuclear.org
http://www.beyondnuclear.org


Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.

[Oscar]

Mayors renew push against nuke DGR

[ http://www.theobserver.ca/2016/06/17/ma ... t-nuke-dgr ]

by Tyler Kula, Sarnia Observer, June 17, 2016

Mayors along the Great Lakes Basin renewed their push this week to keep nuclear waste from ending up near their drinking water supply.

The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, representing about 120 municipalities, passed a resolution Wednesday calling for Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to recognize “the value of staying as far away as possible” from the water source for 40 million people.

In February, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna called on OPG to further study its plan for a repository in 450-million-year-old rock near Kincardine.

She tasked OPG with looking at different sites, updating cumulative environmental effects, and updating mitigation commitments.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley wasn't at the conference in Niagara Falls, New York, but was one of a group of mayors who vetted the resolution – including calls for OPG to respond in a “thorough and comprehensive manner” to McKenna's request for more information, for national governments in Canada and the United States to evaluate “social acceptability” of any proposed repository for nuclear waste, and for both countries to designate radionuclides (radioactive particles) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

“It's our hope that (Canada's) government will reject (OPG's proposal) and say it should not be in the Great Lakes Basin,” Bradley said, noting nearly 200 municipalities, First Nations and environmental groups have signed resolutions in opposition.

MORE:

[ http://www.theobserver.ca/2016/06/17/ma ... t-nuke-dgr ]