Karl Herchenroeder
RW Monitor
12/4/2015
In deciding whether Canada will move forward with building a deep geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel near Lake Huron, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency said Monday that officials must decide whether Ontario Power Generation’s proposal is likely to cause “significant adverse environmental effects.”
The agency’s statement follows Friday’s announcement that Canada will delay for another three months the decision to move ahead with the project. The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change now has until March 1 to decide, which is six months after the original September deadline and three months after the original extension.
“The extension provides the Minister with the time necessary to properly consider all of the factors in making this decision, including (a Joint Review Panel) report, and the input received from Indigenous Peoples and the public during the environmental assessment process,” Environmental Assessment Agency spokeswoman Lucille Jamault stated by email.
In May, the Joint Review Panel backed an environmental assessment of the controversial project, which has drawn the ire of Americans and Canadians concerned about the project’s impact on the Great Lakes. In its environmental assessment, the panel determined that with minor improvements, the proposed engineering barriers, formed by isolated shale and limestone, would protect the lakes from any potential contamination. The review panel is the body responsible for issuing the license needed to construct the facility.
The repository, proposed at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Plant in Kincardine, Ontario, would house more than 200,000 cubic meters of low and intermediate level waste from OPG’s Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington power stations. The repository would be built 680 meters below the surface.
On Monday, proposal opponent U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reject the proposal, issuing the following statement via Facebook: “Another delay in Canada’s decision clearly demonstrates this project is controversial. Storing nuclear waste on the shores of the Great Lakes is just too much of a risk to take.”
