Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
5/8/2015
The Joint Review Panel overseeing the environmental assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s planned deep geologic repository in Ontario has backed the safety and environmental case for the project, according to the environmental report submitted to Canada’s Minister of the Environment this week. The Panel recommended that with the proposed engineering barriers and some minor improvements to scenario preparedness and cumulative effects at the ecosystem scale, the project should move forward as presented. “The Panel is of the view that the safety case for the project is strong because of: the highly suitable geology; the nature of the waste; robust engineering design; built-in, long-term safety features; good long-term performance under normal conditions, including glaciation; acceptable risks under unlikely, ‘what if’ scenarios; and the demonstration of passive containment provided by natural geology in other settings (natural analogues),” the Panel said in its report. It added, “The Panel concludes that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of the mitigation measures committed to by OPG together with the mitigation measures recommended by the Panel.”
The Panel closed the record on the public comment period for the report back in November, but due to the large number of comments, it announced it would submit its report no later than May 6, 2015. Following the submittal of the report, the federal government must still decide whether to approve the project, which would allow the review panel to issue a license to prepare the site and construct the facility. Canada’s Minister of the Environment now has 120 days to make a decision on whether to move forward or not.
Great Lakes Protected, Panel Says
The proposed repository would be located beneath OPG’s Bruce nuclear facility in Kincardine, Ont. OPG plans on storing low and intermediate waste from its Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington power stations at the proposed repository, which would be located 680 meters (approximately 744 yards) below the surface in an isolated rock formation of shale and limestone. The project has drawn the ire of citizens on both sides of the border because of its proximity to the Great Lakes, one of the world’s largest sources of fresh water. But the Panel concluded in its report that the isolated nature of the rock formation and the design of the facility would protect the water from any contamination. “The Panel concludes that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the water quality or aquatic ecosystems of Lake Huron or the other Great Lakes, provided that mitigation measures, including the Panel’s recommendations, are implemented,” it said.
OPG reiterated its commitment to protecting the Great Lakes this week in response to the Panel’s conclusions. “OPG developed the DGR with one goal in mind: to create permanent, safe storage for Ontario’s low and intermediate-level nuclear waste,” OPG Senior Vice President Laurie Swami said in a statement. “We are pleased with the Panel’s conclusion that the project will safely protect the environment.” She added, “The deep geologic repository will be designed to protect the Great Lakes’ unique natural environment and precious resources. OPG and a team of scientists will closely analyze the Panel’s conditions, many of which reinforce our commitment to the stewardship of the Great Lakes.”
Report Does Not Take Into Account Human Error, Rep Kildee Says
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) voiced his disappointment in the Panel’s finding, calling the plan “fundamentally flawed.” Kildee, along with other members of Michigan’s Congressional delegation, introduced a resolution against the repository last month. “Nuclear waste is hazardous material that will remain radioactive for generations, and no person, panel or country can ever say with absolute certainty that there are no environmental risks,” Kildee said in a statement. “One only has to look at other nuclear accidents, including recently in New Mexico, where human error resulted in an accidental radiation release. Human error is always a possibility, and if an accident were to happen on the shores of the Great Lakes, a nuclear radiation release could endanger the freshwater supply for over 40 million people, both in the U.S. and Canada.”
He added, “The Joint Review Panel’s report does not take into consideration the growing opposition – in both the U.S. and Canada – to this nuclear waste storage site. To date, 154 municipalities, from Chicago to Toronto, have voiced opposition to Canada’s plan to permanently store nuclear waste next to the Great Lakes. So far, 20 Members of Congress – 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans – have also cosponsored my resolution seeking an alternative location.”
Panel Recommends Open Public Dialogue
The Panel also emphasized in its report that OPG should continue to engage the public and aboriginal groups on the project. OPG has said in the past it would not move forward with the project without the consent of key aboriginal groups in the area. “The Panel emphasizes that OPG must continue to engage with members of the public and Aboriginal groups,” the report said. “The Panel expects that future licensing requirements related to public engagement will include the respectful attention to all concerns from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The Panel is of the view that engagement is an interactive and iterative process of discussion among citizens that contributes meaningfully to specific decisions in a transparent and accountable way. It includes the free exchange of ideas, with acceptance of different values.”
