Nuclear fuel storage: is that what we want to be known for?
Owen Sound Sun Times - Phil McNichol August 4, 2007
An important recent decision by the federal government, one which could have
huge socio-economic implications for much of the Grey-Bruce area and Kincardine
especially, appears to have passed largely unnoticed by the media and therefore
the public.
But no doubt a lot of people down at Bruce Nuclear and Ontario Power
Generation's companion Western Waste Management Facility are well aware the
government has accepted the Adaptive Phased Management approach recommended by
the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for the long-term storage of
used nuclear fuel. And they will know planning and development of a multi-
billion-dollar deep geological repository (DGR) for that highly radioactive
nuclear waste is a distinct possibility for the Bruce site. That's in addition
to the DGR Ontario Power Generation (OPG) already plans to build there for the
long-term storage of low and intermediate level nuclear waste.
Kincardine and other municipalities in the vicinity of the Bruce plant, with the
help of a treasure-trove of OPG money, endorsed that proposal several years ago.
It's now well into the federal approval process and about to be the subject of a
full panel review by experts and the public before final approval.
I've said before in this space that development of a DGR for low and
intermediate level nuclear waste at the Bruce site would give it an advantage in
the site selection for a high-level waste storage DGR. As I see it, and at the
risk of oversimplifying things, there are just two big hurdles to get over in
the search for a suitable site for a high-level DGR: The availability of
"informed and willing host community," as Natural Resources Canada said in its
recent media release package;and a suitable rock formation.
How and where to safely store Canada's growing pile of used nuclear fuel has
been an unsolved question for many years. Burial in the deep, hard rock of the
Canadian Shield has long been considered the most likely solution. In 2002 the
Canadian government passed the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and ordered the owners of
nuclear plants to set aside money for the long-term storage of the nuclear waste
those plants produce. Because Ontario has by far the most nuclear plants in the
county, OPG is the NWMO's senior partner, with the most at stake related to the
cost and location of a long-term storage facility for high-level waste.
Currently Ken Nash, head of OPG's Nuclear Waste Management Division, is the
NWMO's president and chief executive officer. The nuclear plant owners were also
ordered to set up the NWMO and study long-term storage options, make a
recommendation to the government, and then implement the approved method.
The NWMO started out looking at three possibilities: deep geological storage in
the Canadian Shield; storage at nuclear reactor sites; and centralized storage,
either above or below ground.
But a year into the study the focus of attention began to shift away from the
Canadian Shield - so much so that a research facility gathering information for
that option was shut down. And, with OPG's help, the idea of burying used
nuclear fuel deep in the sedimentary rock layers, such as are found in southern
Ontario, started coming to the fore. A 2003 OPG document given to the NWMO
addressed earlier concerns raised about alternatives to the Canadian Shield. It
said there were sedimentary rock formations in Canada that could be suitable and
merited further study. Such a study had had already been started, OPG said, "so
there is sufficient information for an assessment of the options."
As I've said here before, OPG received a report in 2004 from Martin Mazurek of
the Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland. It
concluded there were many good reasons why the shales and limestones under
southern Ontario "provide a highly suitable environment to host a deep
geological repository for spent fuel . . . From a geo-scientific perspective,
the chance of success to complete a convincing safety case is substantial. The
body of the report also cited the "Bruce Megablock" as a specific area worthy of
further consideration.
If approved, construction of the DGR for low and intermediate-level nuclear
waste is scheduled to begin in 2012, and be completed in 2017. If Bruce is
selected as a suitable site for a high-level waste DGR it will be many more
years before it's built, under the Adaptive Phased Management approach, with a
slow and careful timeline of 60 years or more. It calls for used nuclear fuel to
remain stored at the nuclear plant sites while a "suitable" site for a DGR is
found. The site selection process could take years and will focus on possible
sites in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Saskatchewan, a federal media
backgrounder says. It could be 60 years before the DGR is actually built and
used to store the dangerously radioactive used fuel. The plan also calls for the
DGR to be monitored carefully for 300 years or more before being finally sealed.
In the little bit of media coverage I was able to find about the government
decision to go with the NWMO recommendation, lo and behold there was the
Huntsville Forester newspaper reporting that The District of Muskoka is opposed
to any proposal that would result in the dumping of nuclear waste within its
borders, "now or anytime in the future."
All things considered I don't think the Hunstville area, which is Canadian
Shield country, has much to worry about. Rather, I'd say the pieces are falling
nicely into place for a high-level nuclear waste DGR at or near the Bruce site.
It's probably a foregone conclusion, barring some unforeseen but powerful
obstacle, like American objections to a massive nuclear waste dump near the
shores of a Great Lake.
Meanwhile, we in this area may want to ask ourselves if that's what we want to
be famous for.