Update on Department of Energy Hearings:
March 30 in Albany, March 31 in Irving, April 1 in West Valley and April 2 in Buffalo

Help protect your drinking water, environment and community. We need you to testify at upcoming hearings on the West Valley nuclear waste site cleanup plan (described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) released by the federal and state government.

The safest, most cost-effective cleanup is to dig up the waste. Economists and scientists found in a new study that leaving buried waste onsite at West Valley is very risky and expensive while a full waste excavation cleanup protects the Great Lakes, poses the least health risk and is a lower cost. The leaking site, 30 miles south of Buffalo, threatens Lakes Erie and Ontario, with tons of highly radioactive waste. The new study also found major erosion will plague the site in the near future resulting in high doses of radioactivity to future generations.

Will you help protect the Great Lakes and Western New York for future generations? Please testify in support of the safest cleanup- an immediate decision to dig up the waste so it cannot leak into our drinking water. Without public pressure, the Department of Energy will select their “preferred alternative,” which is to wait up to 30 years on a final cleanup decision, while the deadly waste continues to spread underground.  Here are more details on the hearings and fact sheets to help you with your testimony.

To help you prepare your testimony, we can send you a “Testimony Talking Points” Memo with a critique of the government’s proposal, and a summary of the exciting new study revealing the real costs–economic, environmental and health–of the West  Valley cleanup which found digging up the waste is the best plan.

Please contact us at dianed@nirs.org (301-270-6477 X16) or annerabe@msn.com (518-732-4538) and we will send you the packet.  We also have sample West Valley Cleanup Resolutions and letters to the editor which succinctly summarize the issues.  See the independent new cleanup study at www.besafenet.com

Please Speak at the West Valley Public Hearings

• March 30, 6:30-9:30 PM, Crowne Plaza Albany, State & Lodge Sts., Albany, NY
• March 31, 6:00-9:00 PM, Seneca Nation, Wm. Seneca Bldg, 12837 Rt. 438, Irving, NY
• April 1, 6:30-9:30 PM, Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY
• April 2, 6:30-9:30 PM, Erie Comm. College, City Campus Auditorium, 121 Ellicott St., Buffalo, NY

The deadline for public comments is June 8, 2009. (Send to Catherine.M.Bohan@wv.doe.gov) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Decommissioning Plan are at www.wv.doe.gov

Here are the Proposed Cleanup Options.

• Sitewide Waste Removal – Digging up or excavating waste with off-site disposal
• Sitewide Close In-Place – Leaving buried waste on site.
• Phased Decision-making – (Preferred DOE/State Alternative).  Very limited cleanup, and delay cleanup decision on most radioactive portions of site for up to 30 years.

Thank you. Together we can protect the Great Lakes region from the largest nuclear waste site in the state.

Sincerely,

Barbara Warren, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, warrenba@msn.com
Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, dianed@nirs.org
Anne Rabe, Center for Health, Env. & Justice, annerabe@msn.com

“The Water Front” offers an eye­opening account of a water privatization scheme and its effects on the poor and working class citizens of Highland Park, Michigan. This film tells about the valiant struggle of residents, to fight for their right to water.

Discussion will follow, led by Julie O’Neill, Buffalo Niagara RIVERKEEPER.

For more information contact:

Cheryl Bird
Center for Sustainable Communities & Civic Engagement
716.839.8489
cbird@daemen.edu

You can also learn more about the movie at: www.thewaterfrontmovie.com

8:00 am – 4:30 pm Friday, March 27, 2009, in Toronto, Ontario

Much has been accomplished in the few years since the Walkerton tragedy, with more initiatives underway, yet Ontario’s ground  and surface water resources remain finite as:

• our population increases;
• demand for water expands;
• the climate changes; and
• we contemplate greater designs on the boreal and the taiga.

Please join us for:

• An address by Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario;
• Discussions featuring 15 leaders working on freshwater issues and,
• A networking café to strengthen bonds and capture the expertise in the room.

Share your observations and recommendations as we discuss:

• What is the health of Ontario’s freshwater?
• What are we doing right to preserve our freshwater ecosystems? and,
• What more needs to be done by individuals, organizations, industry, and government?

More details about the Symposium, including registration information, are available at www.ohwi.ca. E-mail inquiries are welcome via Andrew@ohwi.ca.

The United States Coast Guard has announced a public comment period as it prepares a new Environmental Impact Statement in preparation of potential changes to the rule, Dry Cargo Residues on the Great Lakes.

Great Lakes United will be preparing comments in the coming weeks. For more information on our position, contact Jennifer Nalbone at jen@glu.org.

On December 29, 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on our proposal to issue a final rule that may modify the Dry Cargo Residues on the Great Lakes interim rule and add new conditions for discharges. The EIS is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the scoping process under NEPA, the USCG invites you to participate in the following public meeting:

January 28, 2009 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Hotel Blake
500 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60605

Further details on the EIS, the public meeting, and instructions on how to comment if you cannot attend the meeting can be found at Volume 73, page 79496 of the Federal Register published on December 29, 2008. We will consider all comments and related materials received by March 30, 2009. Further information about dry cargo residues, including a copy of the NOI, can be found on the Coast Guard’s Environmental Standards Division website at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/dry_cargo.asp.

Attend a meeting in Duluth or Cleveland or send written comments before July 22

The U.S. Coast Guard released a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the rulemaking: “Dry Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes”. In this rulemaking the Coast Guard proposes to deviate from federal and international laws and permit the dumping of cargo- such as limestone, iron ore, coal, and grain- from commercial vessels into the Great Lakes.

The public can comment through July 22 on the proposed Coast Guard policy by submitting written comments or speaking at a public meeting. Public meetings are scheduled for July 15 in Duluth, Minnesota, and July 17 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Background:

When ships on the Great Lakes dump waste material into the water, it is called “cargo sweeping” or “dry cargo discharge.” The actual quantity of waste material dumped into the lakes in a single shipping season is astounding. In 2004-2005, U.S.-flag carriers dumped more than 653,000 pounds of iron ore, 219,000 pounds of coal, 228,000 pounds of limestone and 11,300 pounds of other material into the Great Lakes.

Many of the cargo residues — especially iron ore and taconite — contain mercury and other toxic metals that can harm natural habitats in the lakebeds, as well as people who eat fish contaminated by the metals. Environmental effects of cargo sweeping are largely unknown.

Clear laws exist on both the international and domestic levels that prohibit the dumping of garbage in any of the internal waterways of the United States. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the primary international treaty covering the discharge of pollutants into the ocean. The United States is signatory to MARPOL, which articulates that garbage is not to be dumped within 12 nautical miles off the oceanic coast and therefore does not allow dumping in the Great Lakes. To implement MARPOL Congress passed the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) in 1987. Under both MARPOL and APPS operational wastes (ie: cargo residues) fall under the definition of garbage.

The Coast Guard’s draft interim enforcement policy required under APPS, in place since 1997, has allowed ships to “sweep” cargo residues that litter vessel decks off the side of the ship and into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. Congress recently ordered the Coast Guard to examine cargo sweeping and its effects and the Coast Guard has now proposed a rulemaking on the practice.

The Coast Guard’s proposed rule is illegal, because dry cargo residues fall under the description of garbage in domestic and international law and are thus prohibited to be dumped into inland waters. The Coast Guard should be developing rules that set standards and deadlines to virtually eliminate dry cargo dumping to protect the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River ecosystem and comply with the law!

Take Action:

Comment to the Coast Guard in writing or at one of the two public meetings.

Make your comments at the public meetings, or submit them in writing by July 22nd. The Coast Guard’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be viewed, and comments can be submitted, online here.

Other means of submission include:

Fax:
202–493–2251.

Mail:
Docket Management Facility (M–30)
U.S. Department of Transportation
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC
20590– 0001

Refer to Docket No. USCG-2004-19621 on your submission.

Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio
July 15, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. July 17, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.
Holiday Inn The Forum Conference Center
200 W. 1st St. 1375 E. 9th St.
Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio
Phone: 218-727-7492 Phone: 216-241-6338

For more information:

The Coast Guard’s draft EIS can be found here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the draft EIS and its 20 appendices.

Read Great Lakes United’s 2006 comments to the Coast Guard when they were preparing the EIS here.

Please feel free to contact:

Alliance for the Great Lakes
Lyman Welch, 312-939-0838 ext. 230
lwelch@greatlakes.org

Great Lakes United
Jennifer Nalbone
716-213-0408
jen@glu.org

Mark Mattson
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
416-861-1237

National Wildlife Federation
Michael Murray
734-887-7110
murray@nwf.org

The chemical industry wants new flammability standards that will lead to toxic flame retardants being added to new TVs worldwide. These chemicals can cause an alarming array of adverse health effects in experimental animals including thyroid problems, reduced sperm count, infertility, hyperactivity, mental retardation, obesity, and cancer. And they are known to out migrate from our TVs into our pets, our children, and us. Children and pregnant women are the most vulnerable.

By June 27, standards setting committees in up to 50 countries will vote on a chemical industry marketing ploy to fill the plastic cases around the world’s TVs with toxic and unneeded chemical flame retardants.

Tell the CEOs of the big TV and electronics companies who will be voting this week that we don’t want toxic chemicals in our TVs. Your message will be sent to the CEOs of Sony, Toshiba, Pansonic, Samsung, Sharp, LG, Philips, and IBM.

To send your message visit:
http://takebackmytv.com/page/speakout/toxictvs

The proposal to build a deep underground dump (DUD) for radioactive wastes on the shoreline of the Great Lakes is unacceptable. Water is the most likely dispersal medium for toxic materials in general, and for radioactive wastes in particular.

Nevertheless, that’s what is being considered at the Bruce nuclear complex on the Canadian side of Lake Huron. The DUD would be located just over one kilometre (less than one mile) from the Lake, and would house all of the radioactive wastes from 20 commercial nuclear power reactors in Ontario – with the exception of the irradiated nuclear fuel.

It was recently reported that the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) wants to manage the DUD project. But the NWMO deals exclusively with the long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel, and has nothing whatever to do with other categories of nuclear waste materials. Does the NWMO’s involvement mean that the proposed DUD will eventually become a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste — making it the “Yucca Mountain” of the Great Lakes region?

The Bruce nuclear complex currently hosts nine reactors (one of them permanently shut down), with proposals for four more. This would make it the largest nuclear power complex in the world. Already there are 500 outdoor silos for the “interim storage” of irradiated nuclear fuel about one kilometre from Lake Huron, and there are plans to build 2,000 more.

Since the DUD is only 50 miles from Michigan across Lake Huron, leakage of radioactivity from the dump could directly affect tens of millions of residents in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, and contaminate the drinking water in Port Huron, Sarnia, Detroit, Windsor, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Toronto and countless other communities downstream.

Thus, this DUD proposal is not just a Canadian issue, but an international one. In 1986, Canada protested when the U.S. proposed a high-level radioactive waste dump in Vermont because it was too close to the Canadian border; that proposed dump was subsequently cancelled. Now it is time for U.S. residents to speak out. The Canadian DUD proposal sets a dangerous precedent for the establishment of perpetually hazardous facilities on the Great Lakes, and impacts people on both sides of the border.

The successful emplacement of the DUD for so-called “low” and “intermediate” level radioactive wastes from across Ontario – and potentially from the rest of Canada – will create a threat to the Great Lakes watershed for generations to come. It will also increase the likelihood of the Bruce site becoming a permanent disposal dump for high-level radioactive wastes (i.e. irradiated nuclear fuel), which would increase the risks by many orders of magnitude.

Alarming as this proposal is, the process for assessing its environmental impact is also cause for grave concern. In Canada, environmental panels reviewing proposed nuclear facilities have always been independent of the nuclear establishment — until now. But for the DUD, the Government of Canada intends to place the review panel under the control of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) which is the regulatory authority for licensing nuclear facilities in Canada.

Six months ago, the President of the CNSC was fired by the Canadian federal government for being too strict in her enforcement of reactor safety regulations. The new CNSC President has clear instructions to fast-track all nuclear regulatory approval processes. No environmental assessment panel will be credible if it is dominated by this highly politicized regulatory agency.

Despite the conflict of interest, the CNSC stands ready to chair the environmental assessment panel and to fill two of its three positions. CNSC’s domination of the Full Panel Review is unprecedented, and will undermine the panel’s credibility. We urge CNSC’s exclusion from the Panel, so the panel’s independence is assured.

We ask that the public comment deadline be extended for six months beyond June 18th. Given the longevity and the unprecedented nature of the hazard that the DUD represents for the entire Great Lakes ecosystem, as well as the minimal outreach to the United States and Native American/First Nations that the Canadian federal government has undertaken, this extension request is reasonable.

Sincerely,

Gordon Edwards
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Montreal, Quebec

Michael Keegan
Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan

With over 100 hazardous air pollutants expected to be released into the environment by the plant, opponents of the proposal are concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with the emissions, which will not require monitoring.

Controversy over the proposed plant increased on January 17 when the Erie County Environmental Coalition hosted a 90 minute forum, a prelude to a hearing held by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection a few weeks later. The proposed plant would cost $235 million, produce 100 megawatts of electricity and employ 60 full-time employees.

The extreme amount of controversy surrounding the proposed plant has caused Erie City Council to recently pass a resolution to draft an ordinance that would require the proposed plant and any future polluter that requires an air quality permit under Act 5 to install continuous emissions monitoring equipment to assure that the plant complies with any permits that it is issued.

For more information visit www.stopburningtires.com.