by Walt Robbins

Created on: July 04, 2008   Last Updated: July 05, 2008

An unbelievable proposal by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for a deep underground radioactive waste repository a half mile from the shore of Lake Huron is in the works. If the plan succeeds, all of Ontario's "low and intermediate" level radioactive garbage, will eventually be transported to and permanently buried at the site, which is part of the extensive Bruce nuclear complex.

What is low and intermediate? Anything radioactive, from mops and clothing, to reactor tubes and components, is included in the categorization. The "intermediate" level waste requires special handling and can pose risks for significant periods of time.

But "low and intermediate" are arbitrary and fuzzy categories based primarily on the types of material and the overall gamma radiation dose rates. Many observers believe that this is a totally inadequate method for determining the ultimate risks these materials could pose to the environment and especially to human health.. What is needed is a complete inventory of the specific radionuclides and their inherent radio-toxic characteristics and capabilities to do biological harm over specified periods of time. To the best of my knowledge, no such complete analysis of the elements in so-called low and intermediate waste has been undertaken.

We are told that nuclear reactor fuel waste will not be placed in this facility. But this proposed repository could easily be a "Trojan Horse" for a full scale geological dump for "high-level" irradiated reactor fuel bundles, i.e., the really hot, lethal and incredibly nasty, radioactive stuff! More about that in a moment.

While thinking about this issue, it is important to bear in mind that any amount of ionizing radiation increases cancer risks, as concluded by the U.S. National Academy of Science (NAS) report on radiation risk, (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation).

When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) issued its draft Environmental Impact Statement guidelines for this project for public comment, I raised several salient points in my response:

Why, I asked, was the deep underground repository option chosen?

The explanation in the proponent's (Ontario Power Authority's) original proposal was that "The deep geologic repository is being pursued as the preferred technology because of its greater margin of safety."

It seemed to me that the proponent must explain exactly why an underground facility of this kind would provide a greater margin of safety than the alternatives identified

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>