The OPG Wants to Bury a Bunch of Nuclear Waste Right by Lake Huron

The WIPP team surveying the conditions of the Salt Shaft Station. Photos courtesy of WIPP.
Canada’s federal government is in the process of reviewing a proposal by the Ontario Power Generation to build a deep geologic repository (DGR) where they can stash a bunch of radioactive nuclear waste. The planned DGR would house low and intermediate level waste like contaminated mops and irradiated components from nuclear reactors 680 metres below ground at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. The facility would reside in the municipality of Kincardine, ON, which is situated a mere 1.2 kilometres from Lake Huron. The proposed nuclear dump's proximity to a major water supply is causing quite the stir, as organizations, individuals, and local governments are rallying against the plan.

The issue, say those against OPG’s proposal, is not local or regional, but international: 40 million Americans and Canadians in the Great Lakes Basin would be affected in the event of an accident. Beverly Fernandez, spokesperson for Stop The Great Lakes Nuclear Dump, one of the many environmental groups opposed to the DGR project, says that people on both sides of the border need to be concerned. “It’s incredibly important that this issue reaches as many people as possible. The fact that this thing is located right on the shore of the Great Lakes means that the community involved is the US and Canada. This is a national and international issue, and probably one of the most important issues of our time.”

The late William Fyfe, geologist and professor emeritus in the department of earth sciences at the University of Western Ontario, also had concerns about the location of the site. Fyfe, who was widely regarded as one of the world’s eminent geochemists and an international consultant on nuclear waste management, was one of the first experts to denounce the project.

"It is universally acknowledged that nuclear waste must be kept away from water circulating through the environment of living things,” Fyfe acknowledged before his death last November, “since water is seen as the main vehicle for eventual dissolution and dissemination of radiotoxic pollutants."

A recent release of radiation detected at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, New Mexico, afflicted 21 workers, all of whom tested positive for internal contamination. The incident had the effect of underlining concern for OPG’s DGR project north of the border. The OPG has since backed away from claims its plan was in part modeled after the New Mexico site but, says Don Hancock, director of the Nuclear Waste Safety Program at the Southwest Research and Information Center, it did initially boast of the similarities between the two.

“OPG referred very specifically to WIPP as similar to what they were going to be doing. They said that the facility that exists in the world most similar to what they were doing, and the facility they’ve learned a lot from, is the WIPP site.”

The facility, if approved, would be only the world’s fourth deep geologic repository. The other three have not created a culture of confidence around the concept of burying nuclear waste. In fact, it’s just the opposite: WIPP and two German-based DGRs have brought about disaster with radioactive leaks and structural deterioration costing billions of euros in remediation.

“It’s troubling that of the three examples in the world, all three have failed,” says Hancock. “That should raise significant concerns about OPG being confident that, based on the international experience, their facility would work just fine. The international experience is not the way OPG describes it.”

OPG’s plan involves a site that will house 200,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste over 40 or so years. Though there is no precedent for burying nuclear waste in limestone, and the ability of shale rock to block or slow radionuclides from the repository is unproven, the waste would be placed in caverns carved out of limestone. The dump would then be sealed with a mixture of sand and clay and concrete, and not be monitored for leaks after a decade of its closure. Some of the radioactive intermediate waste would remain active for over 100,000 years. Members of the WIPP team, discussing their undeground excurison.
While the OPG seems to believe it can predict the future with their plan, experts who have nothing to gain from the project are skeptical. When dealing with radioactive waste and its potential impact on geological structures over time, no scientist on the planet has the expertise to speak in absolutes.

Stranger still is that rather than use measurements from real-world nuclear facilities, the OPG instead relied on theoretical models to assess the potential levels of the radioactivity of material to be stored at the DGR site. As a scientist, Dr. Frank Greening’s contention with this point is palpable.

“I’ve asked OPG why they chose to calculate these numbers rather than look at the analyses that have been done. Dozens and dozens of these [pressure tubes surrounding uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor] have been analyzed in great detail, and they chose not to look at those numbers. They chose to calculate them, and they got it wrong.”

A PhD in chemistry and former employee of Ontario Hydro, then OPG, for over 30 years, Greening lends an insider’s wisdom to the many groups, governments and people rallying against the DGR. In a 16-page letter recently addressed to the government panel reviewing the project, he pointed out that the estimated levels of radioactivity in the waste to be buried at the proposed facility were, “seriously underestimated, sometimes by factors of more than 100.”

Many of the claims that have been reserved for OPG are also being leveled at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Like the OPG plan to bury low and medium level radioactive waste, the NWMO’s proposal for a deep geologic repository to store high level nuclear material is being met with vehement opposition.

Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator for Northwatch, a Northern Ontario-based coalition of environmental groups, believes that if the federal panel approves OPG’s DGR, the NWMO’s so-called DGR2 will not be far behind.

“We really think the industry’s interest in burying the low and intermediate level waste is to get a precedent for nuclear waste burial. And getting an approval to bury low and intermediate level waste will pave the way in their thinking for the burial of high level.”

The language being used to describe the relationship between the NWMO project and municipalities who could play the role of host is contestant. As highlighted in a recent Toronto Star article, the aura of competition is thick.

The organization has also been accused of filling the coffers of cash-strapped communities with astronomical economic incentives to invite an insidious threat into their communities. Most of the municipalities being studied for DGR2 are in mostly poor Ontario towns that have little choice but to put people at risk if they wish to stay afloat fiscally.

“There is no scientific basis for these site selections,” says Lloyd. “These are small communities. They’ve got big infrastructure challenges, a dwindling tax base and the industry is changing, so talk about enticement.”

The NWMO’s Michael Krizanc, communication manager for the organization, disagrees. He admits some of the communities that have agreed to learn more about the DGR2 project have economic challenges, but believes others, like those in Bruce County, are affluent.

“Many of these are communities that have been involved in the natural resources industry that is subject to the commodities market, and so their economies have had ups and downs. These communities should not be out of pocket for their participation in the process. The moneys that are extended to people are all part of the ‘Learn More’ process.”

Chris Peabody, town councillor for the municipality of Brockton, a Bruce County region where DGR2 could land, believes buying support for the project is sleazy. His region has been receiving payments from OPG and the NWMO in exchange for council’s cooperation.

“Our municipality receives $45,000 a year, but the money does come with the attachment that you need to support all things nuclear waste. We don’t have a big tax base and I don’t agree with an agreement that offers cash to a municipality in return for testimony. Ethically, it’s not right in my mind.”

Though Peabody doesn’t see the selection process as a competition, he believes Brockton is one of the preferred communities for practical reasons—its proximity to the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. Again, it seems, the two projects are inextricably, troublingly, tied together. For better or worse.