Canadian utility Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has formally terminated its plan to build a deep-underground nuclear waste disposal facility near Lake Huron after a First Nation group voted against the project.
The company will now begin a new siting process that could last more than a decade and theoretically end with significant changes to the disposal approach, a spokesman indicated.
“We’re going to take a measured and thoughtful approach to design a site selection process,” Fred Kuntz, OPG senior manager for corporate relations and projects, said by telephone Tuesday. “Just to design the process we have to do some consulting and engaging with stakeholders. And then once you have a good process that everyone can believe in, then you’ve got to drive that process to develop the alternate solution.”
Members of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) on Jan. 31 voted 1,058 to 170 not to support the deep geologic repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Ontario Power Generation pledged in 2013 that support from SON would be required for the facility to advance, and by the end of the day of the vote said it would adhere to that commitment.
The Saugeen Ojibway Nation represents more than 4,500 members of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation. Their traditional territory covers a large portion of the Bruce Peninsula, including the previously intended location for the repository on the grounds of the Bruce nuclear power plant in the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario.
“We will continue to work with OPG and others in the nuclear industry on developing new solutions for nuclear waste in our Territory,” Chief Greg Nadjiwon, of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, said in a SON press release. “We know that the waste currently held in above-ground storage at the Bruce site will not go away. SON is committed to developing these solutions with our Communities and ensuring Mother Earth is protected for future generations.”
After being approached by leaders in Kincardine about hosting the disposal facility, OPG in 2005 proposed to build the 680-meter deep repository about three-fourths of a mile from Lake Huron. It would permanently hold 200,000 cubic meters of waste from 18 reactors at the Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering nuclear power plants. The Canadian government had not yet approved the selected site.
While OPG said “strong, dry and impermeable rock,” among other measures, would prevent any radioactive contamination of the surrounding environment, lawmakers in Michigan and others had strenuously opposed placing the disposal site near the Great Lakes.
“Canada’s proposal to permanently store millions of tons of nuclear waste in Kincardine, Ontario, less than a mile from Lake Huron, never made sense,” Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) said in prepared comments Monday. “Nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, and burying it next to the Great Lakes would have threatened our economy and clean drinking water for over 40 million people. Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there has to be a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of the Great Lakes.”
Kuntz pushed back against the perception that the repository would have threatened the Great Lakes. The rock in which it would have been built has not had any contact with groundwater or surface water for 400 million years, he said. Site characterization determined the rock does not feature fractures that could allow radioactive contaminants to escape, Kuntz added: “Some people are impervious to science.”
Ontario Power Generation has to date spent $220 million CAD ($165.4 million U.S.) on the project, primarily for an environmental impact statement and other site characterization operations to ensure the selected location was suitable. The cost for preparatory work and construction is estimated at $1 billion CAD ($752.2 million U.S.), with the life-cycle cost through closure projected at $2.4 billion CAD ($1.8 billion U.S.).
The next step at OPG now will be to finish paperwork from the first siting process, including terminating the hosting agreement with Kincardine and withdrawing the construction application from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Kuntz said.
The detailed approach for the new location selection remains to be determined, he added. That also applies to what the alternate solution might involve. The only requirements so far are the same as always – that the selected location have suitable geology and support from the local municipality and indigenous communities.
“One way is to start with a proposed site and then try to sell it. Another process is to look for support and then launch your project,” according to Kuntz. “That would be the more likely way to go in this day and age, I think, having been through this other kind of a process.”
The Toronto-based Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has taken the support first, site second approach in its process for building a separate geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel from Canada’s nuclear power plants, Kuntz said. The NWMO began with a list of 22 communities that volunteered for consideration to host the facility, and as of January had whittled that list down to two municipalities in Ontario.
Starting over will add a generation to the timeline for the deep geologic repository, Kuntz said. The facility was originally scheduled to be built by 2017, which was later pushed back to the 2030s.
Based on the timeline for repository projects in nations such as Finland and Sweden, it can take up to 30 years to establish the facility, starting with 10 to 15 years of site selection, Kuntz said. Finland is the only nation so far to begin building a deep geologic facility for radioactive waste.
Ontario Power Generation is keeping an open mind regarding options for disposal, according to Kuntz. That could include separate facilities for low-level and intermediate-level wastes, he suggested.
The need for geologic disposal is primarily based on the intermediate-level waste, which generally is comprised of resins and reactors from reactors that can remain radioactive for100,000 years. However, 90% of the waste to be disposed is, by volume, low-level waste such as incinerated materials, metals, concrete, Kuntz said.
France and other nations have employed near-surface disposal for less-radioactive low-level waste, he noted. “I would just say all options are on the table.”
