Ontario Power Generation (OPG) maintains that a location near Lake Huron is the best for the company’s planned deep geologic repository (DGR) for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, after considering alternate options as requested by Canada’s top environmental official.
The Ontario government-owned corporation announced Tuesday that it has made its case to Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, saying that opting for an alternate site would boost the estimated $13 billion (CAN) project cost by $1.2 billion to $3.5 billion. Additionally, the company cited increased environmental and transportation impacts of moving the project to another location. OPG said further that while the original location could open in 10 years, the others would not be ready for 30 to 40 years.
McKenna — who has fielded criticism from environmentalists, residents, and lawmakers on both sides of the border for the facility’s potential impacts on the Great Lakes – requested the alternative studies in February while reviewing the project’s environmental assessment. In December, she punted for a third time on deciding whether to allow the repository to proceed, saying her office needs more time to assess the project, extending the timeline for at least another six months and potentially another year.
OPG has proposed building the repository at its Bruce nuclear power facility in Kincardine, Ontario, near Lake Huron. The deep geologic repository (DGR) would be built 680 meters underground for permanent storage of 200,000 cubic meters of waste from three OPG nuclear stations at Darlington, Pickering, and Bruce. The company has said the material would be isolated in impermeable limestone.
The alternate locations were a crystalline granite site in central to northern Ontario and a sedimentary site in southwestern Ontario, both of which satisfy the criteria for the project. The waste for the past 40 years has been stored at the Western Waste Management Facility in Kincardine.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on Wednesday said it has received OPG’s filing and will assess the information for completeness until Jan. 16. Once the package is deemed complete, CEAA will solicit public comments on the information.
Canada’s Joint Review Panel in May 2015 conducted the environmental assessment of OPG’s original proposal, finding that the proposed site’s isolated rock formation would prevent contamination of Lake Huron, despite criticism from residents and lawmakers. Participants in the evaluation included thousands of federal, state, and local officials; aboriginal groups; organizations; and citizens. The municipality of Kincardine has also offered consent in hosting the site, but OPG is still in discussions with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, whose consent is also required for the project.
OPG’s list of additional costs, if it were to alter the site location, include: designing and implementing a site selection process; land acquisition; development and implementation of services in support of the new project; waste repackaging and transportation; and restarting the licensing process. If McKenna approves the project’s environmental assessment, the next hurdle would be submitting the application for a site preparation and construction licence. The license application would be submitted through Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization to the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
OPG also cited uncertainty surrounding hurdles in getting the communities and local tribes to consent to the proposal. Environmentally, OPG cited increased effects on air quality, land use, and vegetation. On transportation, the company said alternate plans would require 22,000 additional waste shipments and over 1 million kilometers of travel on public roadways.
“The DGR project at the Bruce nuclear site remains the preferred location based on a consideration of environmental effects at alternate locations, transportation costs and risks, and project uncertainties,” OPG stated in its announcement. “Alternate locations provide no guarantee of improved safety or environmental quality, and possibly a worse environmental outcome than the DGR project at the Bruce nuclear site.”
