Accessibility and Access Keys [0]
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is considering a plan to permanently dispose of 150,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste from its Chalk River reactor in a man-made underground depository near the Ottawa River.
The Chalk River reactor 160 kilometres northwest of Ottawa is used for nuclear research and by Ottawa’s MDS Nordion to produce medical isotopes.
Bill Kupferschmidt, who is in charge of waste management at Chalk River, said yesterday there is enough low- and medium-level nuclear waste to fill a football field 15 metres deep. The material accumulated for almost 50 years is now stored in steel containers in AECL buildings.
Low- and medium-level nuclear waste includes things like contaminated building rubble, air filters, discarded coveralls, mops and waste from nuclear medicine. Spent reactor fuel that is highly radioactive would remain in concrete canisters in storage buildings until a permanent disposal site is found.
Mr. Kupferschmidt said AECL will spend the next five years studying the proposal to determine whether it will work. The Crown corporation would submit the plan to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission if it decides to spend as much as $500 million on a shaft several hundred metres deep for permanent waste disposal.
AECL officials say the disposal site could be several kilometres from the Ottawa River, but did not specify an exact location.
Another option would be the continued storage of low- and medium level nuclear waste in concrete containers housed in separate buildings.
The federal government announced early in June that it will spend $520 million to clean up a legacy of radioactive waste that began in the 1940s on several sites, including areas that were first contaminated because of research on the atomic bomb and during the Cold War.
AECL spokesman Dale Coffin said there will be a geological assessment of the Canadian Shield near Chalk River to determine whether the site is suitable for nuclear waste disposal.
Opponents of the plan are concerned that the underground disposal could cause radioactive material to leak into the Ottawa River through cracks in the rock.
Mr. Kupferschmidt said there would be no risk of leakage because the site would be several kilometres from the Ottawa River.
“These wastes would be containerized and there would be appropriate backfill that would further protect the waste from the environment,” Mr. Kupferschmidt said.
“This type of storage is used in Sweden and Finland. It is based on best international practices and it is not a new concept. This is a very methodical long-term approach to ensure that we are protecting public health, safety and the environment.”
Mr. Kupferschmidt said AECL wants to place its waste in a permanent location so that future generations won’t have to monitor them. He said the disposal site probably wouldn’t be operational for another 15 to 20 years.
AECL plans to hold a public open house on the disposal plan in Ottawa late this year and will discuss it with environmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club of Canada.
Some environmentalists and Ottawa Valley residents are skeptical about putting the Crown corporation that operates the Chalk River facility in charge of cleaning up what they call the most contaminated area of radioactive waste in Canada.
Emilie Moorehouse, a researcher for the Sierra Club of Canada, said the Chalk River site has been leaking radioactive water into the Ottawa River for years.
“Since 1989 there has been a leak from one reactor and AECL hasn’t done anything about it,” Ms. Moorehouse said. “About 800 litres of contaminated water a day are seeping into the underground water system and into the Ottawa River.”
John Bennett, the senior advisor on energy for the Sierra Club, said locating an underground storage cavern for nuclear waste in the Canadian shield is a bad idea because the rock contains too many cracks and fissures.
“There has to be an above-ground storage facility that can be continually monitored so leaks can be detected,” Mr. Bennett said. “The problem with underground caverns is that by the time you realize there is a problem, it is already into the underground water.
“We would be in trouble if there was an earthquake and ground water entered the cavern. They don’t have the science behind them to say this is the safest disposal method, especially in a place so close to a river.”
Ole Hendrickson, a researcher for Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County, said the location for the proposed disposal site is unsuitable because it is in fractured bedrock near the river.
“In our view, this is taking radioactive waste from one leaking site and bringing it to a location that will soon become a new leaking waste site,” Mr. Hendrickson said. “There is considerable uncertainty about the kind of waste that would be involved.
“It is anything except the fuel rods used in the reactor. Some of this stuff is known to be harmful. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be the subject of such an expensive cleanup.”