[All] Fw: Nuclear and Fossil Fuels: Not worth the liability risks.

Thu Oct 2 23:45:12 EDT 2014

FYI: 1 billion liability for nuclear power plant failures is not reasonable. It's time we speak up about this. Here's what I've sent various officials. 

Lulu

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "cfife-co at ndp.on.ca" <cfife-co at ndp.on.ca>; "secretary at neb-one.gc.ca" <secretary at neb-one.gc.ca>; "DGR.Review at ceaa-acee.gc.ca" <DGR.Review at ceaa-acee.gc.ca>; "braidp1 at parl.gc.ca" <braidp1 at parl.gc.ca>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "pm at pm.gc.ca" <pm at pm.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "bchiarelli.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <bchiarelli.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca>; "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "greg.rickford at parl.gc.ca" <greg.rickford at parl.gc.ca> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:33 PM
Subject: Nuclear and Fossil Fuels: Not worth the liability risks. 

The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Council President Michael Binder spoke to the International Nuclear Regulators Association. His power point is in the attachments. 

It states on page 6 how the the Nuclear Liability & Compensation Act is going through Parliament right now. It would raise operator liability from 75 million to 1 billion dollars. If it is passed this goes into effect in 2015. It also states a regulatory report on Aboriginal Consultation process is also forthcoming, but it is evident the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act was written without proper First Nation's consultation. 

To negate consultation with a major stakeholder such as First Nations regarding the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act violates the Constitution Act 1982 section 35.1, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as well as Treaty Rights and the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is unlawful and unreasonable to exclude them from the process of crafting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. 

On page 4 of the power point report, it states regarding the Deep Geological Repository Hearings, that "WIPP – not helpful."

Allow me to clarify: WIPP refers to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico that was used as an example of a safe deep geological repository by the CNSC during the Lake Huron Deep Geological Repository hearing process. There has since been two accidents that have taken place regarding WIPP and the US department of Energy states repairs are estimated to cost more than $500 million dollars.  About $242 million of that would be spent on getting the facility back to initial operations with another $77 million to $309 million to be used for capital upgrades needed to return the plant to full operation. That work could take up to three years. I've included a supporting article in the attachments titled, " New Mexico Nuclear-Waste Dump Expected to Remain Closed until 2016" written by John R. Emshwiller of the Wall Street Journal as published September 30th 2014 for your reference.
In light of these concerns I would like a written response to the following:

-Who specifically initiated the need for the Nuclear Liability & Compensation Act? 
-What evidence supports the claim that 1 billion dollars is sufficient to reasonably cover all losses and costs for nuclear liability issues?
-What does the Canadian Insurance Board think of these values? Have they had any input on the process? 
-Has the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation had any input?
-Has the data regarding the 1 billion dollar cost estimate been peer reviewed by any other outside agencies or NGO's? 
-Is the one billion dollar value expected to cap the value of liability for the duration of a system's projected lifespan? 
-Does this new law allow us to revisit the given values and adjust them? If so how long in between intervals?

-Does this law apply to all nuclear industry projects or is it limited to just large scale projects? 
To put things into perspective, the Kalamazoo oil pipeline rupture cost well over a billion dollars for clean up and that was a single isolated oil spill incident that occurred because a pipeline ruptured.  A nuclear accident at a facility adjacent to Lake Ontario in close proximity to the Toronto Area is likely to exceed costs in the billions, perhaps trillions. This value of one billion in my view is really underestimating the economic realities of what a nuclear accident would cost Canadians. 
Note on page 5 of Michael Binder's power point where in blue font it states CNSC "insure peaceful and safe use of nuclear". 
The CNSC is designed to facilitate the use nuclear the same way the NEB is designed to facilitate the use of oil and gas. The public knows this. These systems are industry driven to protect investments, jobs and pensions but the reality is these industries have been extremely damaging to other economic system, putting public health, environment, agriculture, water supplies and property values at risk. Tar Sands alone helped to bump up the cost of steel over 66% hurting manufacturers across Canada. There is a national shortage of steel, asphalt cement and other base materials needed at a time when Canada needs to replace 80% of our infrastructure. Then we see illness costs of smog, pollution, water contamination etc.  Cleaner energy technologies exist and they work without externalizing risks to other economic sectors but neither the NEB nor the CNSC has the jurisdictional mandate to even consider those options. The main block is lack of political will
 from those who give them power.
We need a National Energy Strategy. We need to secure the phase out of fossil fuel and nuclear to remain competitive in the global market and reduce our actual liability risks. The focus of tribunals needs to be put on providing energy not in "insuring use" of dirty/costly/inefficient/unproven energy schemes. Decentralize energy power by fostering solar, wind, geothermal, hydro where appropriate and support the growth of local energy grid systems. It's a better and healthier way to reduce risks while investing in our nation's prosperity from coast to coast.

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20141002/b3f6a168/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 20140923-President-presentation-to-INRA-eng.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 706126 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20141002/b3f6a168/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: New Mexico Nuclear-Waste Dump Expected to Remain Closed Until 2016 - WSJ.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 404088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20141002/b3f6a168/attachment-0001.pdf>