There were strong objections on both sides of the border this week to a planned nuclear waste repository near Lake Huron in Canada, even as the facility took another step toward possible regulatory approval.
Canada’s Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) said Tuesday it has accepted as complete the latest data tranche from provincial utility Ontario Power Generation regarding its proposed deep geologic repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste from three nuclear power plants.
The agency requested the information on April 5, and OPG responded with a 144-page document on May 26. Upon reviewing the data, CEAA said it “is satisfied that the response adequately addresses the request issued on April 5, 2017, and is now preparing a draft report on the additional information and updating the potential environmental assessment conditions that will be required if the project proceeds.”
That report will figure into Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna’s decision whether to approve the environmental assessment for the repository.
Ontario Power Generation intends to build the facility 680 meters below ground at its Bruce nuclear power plant site in Kincardine, less than a mile from Lake Huron. The facility would hold 200,000 cubic meters of waste now kept above-ground at OPG’s Western Waste Management Facility at the Bruce plant. The utility is awaiting approval from the Canadian government, which has repeatedly delayed a decision in favor of getting more information.
The utility says its repository would be built within impenetrable rock and isolated from the environment, ensuring no radioactive release from the nuclear reactor parts, filters, apparel, and other waste that would be stored there. Environmentalists and others remain unconvinced, and worry about the effects on a key source of drinking water for two nations if it were contaminated.
“The Great Lakes contain more than 20 percent of the world’s freshwater supply and are a critical source of drinking water for millions of Americans, as well as Canadians. All of this would be jeopardized if there is a nuclear spill; it is simply a risk we cannot afford to take,” Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said Wednesday in her latest broadside against the repository.
Dingell and fellow Michigan Rep. Fred Upton (R) co-sponsored an amendment that was included in legislation on U.S. nuclear waste approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The measure, though nonbinding, offers “the sense of the Congress” that both nations should prohibit extended or permanent storage of any radioactive waste near the Great Lakes.
Ontario Power Generation spokesman Kevin Powers on Friday said years of research and scientific evaluation have found that the deep geologic repository would be safe, and that there would be additional risk, cost, and uncertainty in transporting the waste to another location.
“We would encourage lawmakers in the States to learn more about the project before making decisions,” he said.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s latest request for additional information from OPG covered three general issues: the study of alternate locations for the repository, as required by the government, including air quality, transportation issues, and cost variance; analysis of cumulative environmental effects; and mitigation measures.
In the utility’s response, Lisa Morton, OPG vice president for nuclear waste management, said the Bruce site remains the preferred location. In making its case, it said the alternative locations being considered could add hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in additional project expenses above the $2.4 billion (CAN) baseline.
CEAA said this week will schedule a public comment period on its draft report at some point in the future.
The environmental organization SOS Great Lakes didn’t wait, this week sending CEAA a 25-page response to the information provided by Ontario Power Generation.
SOS Great Lakes said OPG’s latest information continues its practice of failing to provide useful data about potential alternate sites that could store all or part of its waste. Notably, the company has focused its responses on regions rather than specific locations that might be applicable for a repository, the group said.
“By referring to a region rather than an actual location OPG made it impossible for the Minister to respond with regards to technical and economic feasibility of alternatives, as feasibility varies depending on the chosen location,” according to the letter. “In the super-regions suggested by OPG there were: locations within major urban centres, locations in highly remote and largely inaccessible areas, under bridges, in Lakes and in the United States. Although the geographic coordinates of regional boundaries have now been somewhat refined, the overall flaws in the regional approach remain.”
