Deep Geologic Repository
The Deep Geologic Repository Project (DGR) was a proposal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in 2002 for the site preparation, construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of a deep geological radioactive waste disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste (L&ILW). In 2005, the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario volunteered to host the facility located on the Bruce nuclear generating station adjacent to OPG's Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF).
Overview
Since 1974 Ontario Power Generation has stored low and intermediate-level (L&ILW) produced in its nuclear reactors at the Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington sites centrally on the Bruce nuclear site in its Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF).
The proposed project was divided into two phases - pre-closure and post-closure periods. The pre-closure period would have lasted about 60 years and would have included site preparation and construction, operations, and decommissioning. The post-closure period would have included a period of institutional control followed by abandonment forever.
Low-level waste, which can be handled without special radiation protection, consists of materials such as mop heads, rags, paper towels, floor sweepings, and protective clothing used in nuclear stations during routine operation and maintenance.
History and Conceptualization
= Government Policies=
In April 2001, the Canadian federal government introduced an Act regarding the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. Also known as the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, this legislation came into effect on November 15, 2002.SC 2002, c. 23 - online at:
OPG stated that the introduction of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act prompted the Municipality of Kincardine to initiate discussions with OPG regarding the long-term management of the L&ILW stored at the WWMF, which was only considered an interim waste management solution.
Location and Site Selection
The proposed DGR was to be located {{convert|680|m|ft}} below ground, constructed in low-permeability limestone capped by 200 meters of low-permeability shale, which had remained stable for more than 450 million years.{{Cite web | url=http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx | title=OPG projects > Deep Geologic Repository | access-date=2017-03-27 | archive-date=2017-06-15 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170615152308/http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx | url-status=dead }} OPG states that the limestone is stable and predictable, with excellent isolating capabilities.{{Cite web | url=http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Pages/Deep-Geologic-Repository.aspx. |title = OPG projects > Deep Geologic Repository}} The site is proposed to be constructed 1.2 kilometers from Lake Huron below the shelf of the lake which is connected to the Great Lakes basin. The basin is a drinking source for more than 40 million people in Canada and the United States.Simpson, 2016, US EPA, 2017
= Willing Host - Kincardine, Ontario =
In 2002, the Municipality of Kincardine and OPG signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The purpose of the MOU was to set out terms under which OPG, in consultation with the Municipality of Kincardine, would develop a plan for the long-term management of L&ILW at the WWMF. As part of the MOU-related activities, Golder Associates, on behalf of OPG and the Ministry of Kincardine, conducted an Independent Assessment Study of three long-term waste management options: enhanced processing and surface storage, surface concrete vaults, and deep rock vaults.See full report here:
As the willing host for the project, the Municipality of Kincardine and adjacent municipalities would have received financial benefits and payments from OPG including:
- A one-time lump-sum payment to the Kincardine and the adjacent municipalities of $2.1 million, and an additional $1.6 million for only Kincardine, for future undetermined community projects, paid once the OPG was satisfied that there was a clear mandate from the population of Kincardine to the Kincardine Council in favour of the DGR.
http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Documents/HostingAgreement.pdf - page 6 - A further payment of $2.1 million to Kincardine and the Adjacent Municipalities within 90 days of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) granting a construction license to OPG, provided that OPG was satisfied that there were no other approvals required to construct the DGR and that there was no legal basis for the challenge of a construction license.
http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Documents/HostingAgreement.pdf - page 6 - Annual payments of $1.05 million to Kincardine and the adjacent municipalities.
http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/nuclear-waste-management/Deep-Geologic-Repository/Documents/HostingAgreement.pdf - page 7
The Municipality of Kincardine also passed a resolution stipulating that no used fuel would be placed in the repository.
On February 1, 2020, members of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation "overwhelmingly" voted to reject the proposal to construct a deep geologic repository at the Bruce nuclear power plant, "likely spelling an end" for the project in the vicinity of Kincardine.{{cite web| url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ont-nuclear-bunker-1.5448819| title = Indigenous community votes down proposed nuclear waste bunker near Lake Huron {{!}} CBC News}}
Process
= Environmental Assessment =
After the signing of the Hosting Agreement between OPG and the Municipality of Kincardine, the Environmental Assessment process for the project got underway by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
In June, 2007, the environmental minister announced the decision to refer the environmental assessment of the DGR project to a joint review panel. Following a 75-day public comment period, the Government of Canada issued Guidelines for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the DGR for L&ILW (EIS Guidelines) and the Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the DGR by OPG within the Municipality of Kincardine (Panel Agreement) on January 26, 2009.
= Establishment of the Joint Review Panel, 2012-2015 =
On January 24, 2012, the Joint Review Panel was established by the Minister of the Environment and the President of the CNSC under CEAA, 1999 and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to undertake the review of the project. The Panel is both a Review Panel pursuant to sections 40, 41, and 42 of CEAA, 1999 for the purposes of carrying out an environmental assessment of the project, and a Panel of the commission, created pursuant to section 22 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, for the purposes of the review of the licence application under section 24 of the Nuclear Safety Control Act.
Under the Terms of Reference for the review panel, the Panel was to obtain all of the information it required in order to prepare its report to the Minister of the Environment. In doing this, the Panel encouraged participation of government agencies, members of the public, and Aboriginal groups throughout the process. Participants had the opportunity to comment and provide their views to the Panel on whether the EIS and license application documents from OPG adequately addressed the requirements set out in the EIS Guidelines issued to OPG by the federal government. Throughout the process, public hearings were held in both Kincardine and Saugeen Shores, Ontario, and public comments were accepted online through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.
The Joint Review Panel published their 450-page Environmental Assessment Report endorsing the DGR project proposal on May 6, 2015. The Panel report, which was delivered to the Minister of the Environment, summarized the information received by the Panel, including comments from participants, and the Panel's conclusions related to the purpose, need and alternatives; design features and project development; waste management; effects on the natural environment; effects on human health and safety; malfunctions, accidents, and malevolent acts; social and economic aspects; Aboriginal interests, rights, and title; post-closure safety case; Lake Huron and the Great Lakes; and cumulative effects.
= Request for Additional Information, 2016 =
On February 18, 2016, The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, requested additional information and further studies from OPG on the environmental assessment for the proposed DGR project. This came after the submission of the Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report approving the project. The Panel requested that OPG provide additional information on three aspects of the project: (1) alternate locations for the project, (2) cumulative environmental effects of the project, and (3) an updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effect under the CEAA 2012.Government of Canada, C. E. A. A. (2017, January 3). Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry - Additional Information. Retrieved January 24, 2017, from http://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=116741
In requesting additional information from OPG concerning alternate locations, Minister Catherine McKenna requested "a study that details the environmental effects of technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the project, with specific reference to actual locations that would meet Ontario Power Generation’s criteria for technically and economically feasible" Honourable C. Mckenna. (2016, February 18). Minister of Environment and Climate Change letter - "Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project,." Retrieved from http://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p17520/104964E.pdf
In a response letter from OPG dated April 15, 2016, OPG outlined their interpretation of Minister McKenna's request for additional information. OPG stated that they intended to provide an assessment of the environmental effects of two technically and economically feasible geologic regions in Ontario for a new L&ILW disposal facility.
On December 28, 2016, OPG submitted their response to the request for additional information issued by Minister McKenna. In the submission, OPG applied the criteria of technical and economic feasibility to the entire province of Ontario, and provided the Panel with two geographic regions that met the criteria - Crystalline Rock, a massive region extending throughout central and northern Ontario, and Sedimentary Rock, encompassing nearly all of southwestern Ontario. Included in this response were a series of GPS coordinates mapping the perimeter of the Crystalline and Sedimentary alternate locations, which encompass more than 70% of the province of Ontario (OPG) Ontario Power Generation. (2016, April 15). OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project – Response to Information Requested from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from http://ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/documents/p17520/113813E.pdf
= Decision on the Project =
On December 12, 2016, the Governor in Council, under subsection 54(4) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, extended the time limit for the issuance of the Decision Statement for the proposed DGR project by 243 days.SC 2012, c. 19, s. 52 at s 54.
Following the enactment of CEAA, 2012, amendments were made to the Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the DGR Project by OPG within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario, between the Minister of the Environment and the CNSC. Under these amendments, upon a submission of the Joint Review Panel Report, the Minister of the Environment shall take a decision with respect to the environmental assessment, and issue an environmental assessment decision statement under section 54(1) of CEAA, 2012. This decision must be in a manner consistent with the decision-making powers under section 52(1) of CEAA, 2012. The Joint Review panel, as a panel of the CNSC, may make a decision with respect to the license application pursuant to section 24 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The environmental assessment decision statement from the Minister of the Environment will be considered as part of a decision by the CNSC to issue a license for the DGR project.
Public reactions 2012-2020
Significant opposition arose concerning the proposed DGR in both Canada and the U.S. Many communities around the Great Lakes passed resolutions against the project.
In 2013 Michigan's Senate adopted resolutions to urge Canadian officials to thoroughly review OPG's proposed DGR.Barb McKay, ‘Michigan Senate Calling for Thorough Review of Proposed OPG DGR’, The Kincardine Independent, 2013 <
Multiple factors have induced strong opposition like the lack of precedent, the scope of rock testing and OPG's refusal to explore other locations for the DGR. These are discussed further below under the heading controversies. These issues have been condemned by citizens and NGOs such as the Stop the Great Lakes Nuclear Dump group. This group has gathered more than 62,000 signatures on a petition opposing the dump.'Stop The Great Lakes Nuclear Dump’, GoPetition <
Supporters of the DGR included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stating that they did not object to the project. Additionally, the municipality of Kincardine, and Saugeen Shores Council were in support of the DGR. Saugeen Shores councilors voted 7–1 in support of the DGR and directed the mayor to write to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency stating their political support.Frances Learment, ‘Council Votes 7-1 to Support DGR’, Shoreline Beacon, 2017 <
= Former OPG Employees Statements =
In 2012 a retired Ontario Power Generation research scientist and chemist Frank R. Greening wrote to the review panel stating that OPG has "seriously underestimated, sometimes by factors of more than 100" the radioactivity of material to be buried.Frank Greening, ‘Greening Letter to Mr. Ken Nash, President and CEO of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.’, 2014 <
Controversies
= Lack of Research and Precedent for Constructing a DGR in Limestone =
Since 1978, the CNSC has explored options for safely storing used nuclear waste in granite rock in the Canadian Shield.Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2016). CNSC research on geological repositories. Retrieved from Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission:
As of 2015, DGRs in Europe, the United States and Asia have been constructed in granite, tonalite, clay, and salt domes.Nature. (2015). Why Finland now leads the world in nuclear waste storage. Retrieved from Nature :
= Accident risk and long-term safety =
The lack of precedent in using limestone as a host formation for a DGR makes it very difficult to predict potential failures of the DGR that is not constructed in granite formation. OPG’s presentation of assumptions about the DGRs geochemistry is an underestimation of the potential risks of constructing a DGR in limestone formation, as seen in the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico that leaked radioactive plutonium to the surface after a drum barrel leaked: "These accidents illustrate how difficult it is to predict potential failures of such a disposal system over millennia. For example, assumptions about the repository's geochemistry or the likelihood of drilling into it can lead to underestimation of the risks."Tracy, C. L., Dustin, M. K., & Ewing, R. C. (2013, 01 13). Policy: Reassess New Mexico's nuclear-waste repository. Retrieved from Nature:
See also
References
{{reflist}}
{{Nuclear power in Canada}}
{{Deep geological repositories}}