{~_~} Раиса
2014-04-10 00:09:28 UTC
Wouldn't ALBERTA be a natural choice, considering all the other toxic
waste they're producing that other provinces have to live with?
____________________________________
Canada narrows list of possible locations for nuclear waste facility
7 of 22 municipalities dropped from list of potential sites
By Rick MacInnes-Rae, CBC News Posted: Apr 09, 2014
Canada narrows list of possible locations for nuclear waste facility
7 of 22 municipalities dropped from list of potential sites
Canada is a step closer to picking a place to store spent nuclear fuel
underground for the next 100,000 years, a project that's backfired on
some of the world's other nuclear economies.
Despite the stigma of radioactivity, 22 Canadian municipalities
expressed interest in hosting such a facility. Four have now been moved
up the list for further evaluation, while seven have been rejected as
not suitable. The other 11 are still in the initial assessment phase.
Final approval could take another couple of decades, but if a site is
found and approval given to build a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR), the
project will generate thousands of jobs, some lasting generations.
Billions would be spent constructing a vast warehouse over 500 metres
underground to contain some of the most radioactive waste in the world.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deadly byproduct
Nuclear energy has helped meet Canada's electricity needs for more than
40 years, but a deadly byproduct has been steadily building up as a result.
There's a growing inventory of spent uranium pellets. The radioactive
pellets are stored inside long silver tubes bundled together like
24-kilogram logs.
Spent uranium pellets from nuclear reactors are stored inside long
silver tubes that are bundled together like 24-kilogram logs.
Heading the search for a secure place to store those tubes is the
Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO), funded by Canada's four
nuclear agencies, which describes the situation this way: "If Canada's
entire current inventory of just over two million used fuel bundles
could be stacked end-to-end, like cordwood, it would fit into six
NHL-sized hockey rinks from the ice surface to the top of the boards."
At present, spent fuel is stored at seven different sites across Canada,
including at the reactors it once powered. But that’s not a long-term
solution, because in time those reactors will be decommissioned and
dismantled.
In its quest for a site, the NWMO took the novel step of asking Canadian
communities if they'd think about 'hosting' the highly-radioactive payload.
"Well, we didn't know what to expect" said Jo-Ann Facella, director of
social research and dialogue at the NWMO.
"We put out the plan that Canadians had come forward with and the
government had selected as Canada's plan. And an important part of that
plan, it emerged from Canadians, is that these facilities only be
implemented in a willing host."
What also came back were expressions of interest from 22 different
municipalities, tempted in part by the promise of employment if they’re
chosen. Some were also drawn by the fact that for taking part in the
selection process, they'll get $400,000 even if they're not chosen,
providing they advance far enough in the process and a DGR is ultimately
approved.
All those on the list are from Ontario and Saskatchewan, none from the
nuclear-power provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. (Ontario already
hosts the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, where a proposal to
construct another DGR on-site for low-to-intermediate level nuclear
waste is far more advanced.)
Among the first communities to move up the list is Creighton, Sask. -
population 1,500 - where every Monday is Bingo Night, but the town has
never won the jackpot of jobs, says Mayor Bruce Fidler.
Under the deep geological repository plan, spent nuclear fuel bundles
would be encased in copper containers, then embedded in holes bored into
rock 500 metres below ground. (Nuclear Waste Management Organization)
"We've been looking at different things throughout a number of years to
attract more business, more industry to the area. So that's why we are
learning more about this process."
Creighton is the only Saskatchewan site left on the list. But southern
Ontario sits on just the right kind of rock, a thick plate of limestone
delightfully named the Ordovician Cobourg Formation. Water contamination
and seismic activity is not thought to be an issue for a facility built
in that kind of rock, though 24 American reactor operators "cannot show
that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that
revised estimates say they might face," according to the New York Times
this week.
Three Ontario towns with promising geology are moving to the next level
of evaluation for a DGR; Hornepayne, Ignace and Schreiber.
Eleven other Ontario sites are still in the early stages of assessment;
Blind River, Brockton, Central Huron, Elliot Lake, Huron-Kinloss,
Manitouwadge, Nipigon, North Shore, South Bruce, Spanish, and White River.
Seven sites have been turned down because their geology’s not right, or
they lack the 250 acres of land above ground for ventilation buildings.
They include English River First Nation, and Pinehouse in Saskatchewan.
And in Ontario, Arran-Elderslie, Ear Falls, Saugeen Shores, Wawa, and
the Township of Red Rock.
Mixed reception
In Saugeen Shores on Lake Huron, Mayor Mike Smith expressed regret about
missing out on the potential economic bonanza a DGR project would bring,
but notes nuclear waste is also controversial.
Canada's spent nuclear fuel is temporarily being stored at seven main
facilities across the country.
"It's in the neighbourhood of a $30-billion project, so I think that's a
fairly big infrastructure project that would have big economic benefits.
But it would also have some pretty big social effects on our community."
Indeed, the rejection notice is welcome to some.
"We are very pleased the NWMO has eliminated us from the siting process"
said Pat Gibbons, speaking for Save Our Saugeen Shores, a citizen's
group opposing DGRs in the region.
"We feel that the Great Lakes Basin is not the appropriate place to bury
nuclear radioactive waste."
That's because of fears of leaks in and out of underground nuclear
facilities. It has happened before.
In Lower Saxony, German engineers at a salt mine used as a DGR for
radioactive waste since 1967 have discovered water coming in, and that
the structure has begun to weaken. A salt mine in Morsleben used for
similar purposes has also become unstable.
More recently, American authorities shut down the DGR near Carlsbad, New
Mexico, in February after workers were exposed to radioactive gas that
was also detected above ground.
The NWMO's Jo-Ann Facela contends a DGR in Canada would involve more
sophisticated controls and technology than anything that exists today.
"We need to meet robust technical requirements, but at the end of the
day it's going to be the decision of society when, and if, and under
what conditions, we want to move forward with this project."
And if that's not enough, the narration in one of the NWMO's promotional
videos adds a dash of guilt to the pitch.
"Canadians have told us that our generation - which benefits from
nuclear energy - has an obligation to move forward now with a long-term
management program for the used fuel we produce. It would be unfair to
future generations to wait any longer."
Meanwhile, Canada is piling more spent fuel bundles on to those virtual
ice rinks every year.
waste they're producing that other provinces have to live with?
____________________________________
Canada narrows list of possible locations for nuclear waste facility
7 of 22 municipalities dropped from list of potential sites
By Rick MacInnes-Rae, CBC News Posted: Apr 09, 2014
Canada narrows list of possible locations for nuclear waste facility
7 of 22 municipalities dropped from list of potential sites
Canada is a step closer to picking a place to store spent nuclear fuel
underground for the next 100,000 years, a project that's backfired on
some of the world's other nuclear economies.
Despite the stigma of radioactivity, 22 Canadian municipalities
expressed interest in hosting such a facility. Four have now been moved
up the list for further evaluation, while seven have been rejected as
not suitable. The other 11 are still in the initial assessment phase.
Final approval could take another couple of decades, but if a site is
found and approval given to build a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR), the
project will generate thousands of jobs, some lasting generations.
Billions would be spent constructing a vast warehouse over 500 metres
underground to contain some of the most radioactive waste in the world.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Deadly byproduct
Nuclear energy has helped meet Canada's electricity needs for more than
40 years, but a deadly byproduct has been steadily building up as a result.
There's a growing inventory of spent uranium pellets. The radioactive
pellets are stored inside long silver tubes bundled together like
24-kilogram logs.
Spent uranium pellets from nuclear reactors are stored inside long
silver tubes that are bundled together like 24-kilogram logs.
Heading the search for a secure place to store those tubes is the
Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO), funded by Canada's four
nuclear agencies, which describes the situation this way: "If Canada's
entire current inventory of just over two million used fuel bundles
could be stacked end-to-end, like cordwood, it would fit into six
NHL-sized hockey rinks from the ice surface to the top of the boards."
At present, spent fuel is stored at seven different sites across Canada,
including at the reactors it once powered. But that’s not a long-term
solution, because in time those reactors will be decommissioned and
dismantled.
In its quest for a site, the NWMO took the novel step of asking Canadian
communities if they'd think about 'hosting' the highly-radioactive payload.
"Well, we didn't know what to expect" said Jo-Ann Facella, director of
social research and dialogue at the NWMO.
"We put out the plan that Canadians had come forward with and the
government had selected as Canada's plan. And an important part of that
plan, it emerged from Canadians, is that these facilities only be
implemented in a willing host."
What also came back were expressions of interest from 22 different
municipalities, tempted in part by the promise of employment if they’re
chosen. Some were also drawn by the fact that for taking part in the
selection process, they'll get $400,000 even if they're not chosen,
providing they advance far enough in the process and a DGR is ultimately
approved.
All those on the list are from Ontario and Saskatchewan, none from the
nuclear-power provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. (Ontario already
hosts the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, where a proposal to
construct another DGR on-site for low-to-intermediate level nuclear
waste is far more advanced.)
Among the first communities to move up the list is Creighton, Sask. -
population 1,500 - where every Monday is Bingo Night, but the town has
never won the jackpot of jobs, says Mayor Bruce Fidler.
Under the deep geological repository plan, spent nuclear fuel bundles
would be encased in copper containers, then embedded in holes bored into
rock 500 metres below ground. (Nuclear Waste Management Organization)
"We've been looking at different things throughout a number of years to
attract more business, more industry to the area. So that's why we are
learning more about this process."
Creighton is the only Saskatchewan site left on the list. But southern
Ontario sits on just the right kind of rock, a thick plate of limestone
delightfully named the Ordovician Cobourg Formation. Water contamination
and seismic activity is not thought to be an issue for a facility built
in that kind of rock, though 24 American reactor operators "cannot show
that their reactors would withstand the most severe earthquake that
revised estimates say they might face," according to the New York Times
this week.
Three Ontario towns with promising geology are moving to the next level
of evaluation for a DGR; Hornepayne, Ignace and Schreiber.
Eleven other Ontario sites are still in the early stages of assessment;
Blind River, Brockton, Central Huron, Elliot Lake, Huron-Kinloss,
Manitouwadge, Nipigon, North Shore, South Bruce, Spanish, and White River.
Seven sites have been turned down because their geology’s not right, or
they lack the 250 acres of land above ground for ventilation buildings.
They include English River First Nation, and Pinehouse in Saskatchewan.
And in Ontario, Arran-Elderslie, Ear Falls, Saugeen Shores, Wawa, and
the Township of Red Rock.
Mixed reception
In Saugeen Shores on Lake Huron, Mayor Mike Smith expressed regret about
missing out on the potential economic bonanza a DGR project would bring,
but notes nuclear waste is also controversial.
Canada's spent nuclear fuel is temporarily being stored at seven main
facilities across the country.
"It's in the neighbourhood of a $30-billion project, so I think that's a
fairly big infrastructure project that would have big economic benefits.
But it would also have some pretty big social effects on our community."
Indeed, the rejection notice is welcome to some.
"We are very pleased the NWMO has eliminated us from the siting process"
said Pat Gibbons, speaking for Save Our Saugeen Shores, a citizen's
group opposing DGRs in the region.
"We feel that the Great Lakes Basin is not the appropriate place to bury
nuclear radioactive waste."
That's because of fears of leaks in and out of underground nuclear
facilities. It has happened before.
In Lower Saxony, German engineers at a salt mine used as a DGR for
radioactive waste since 1967 have discovered water coming in, and that
the structure has begun to weaken. A salt mine in Morsleben used for
similar purposes has also become unstable.
More recently, American authorities shut down the DGR near Carlsbad, New
Mexico, in February after workers were exposed to radioactive gas that
was also detected above ground.
The NWMO's Jo-Ann Facela contends a DGR in Canada would involve more
sophisticated controls and technology than anything that exists today.
"We need to meet robust technical requirements, but at the end of the
day it's going to be the decision of society when, and if, and under
what conditions, we want to move forward with this project."
And if that's not enough, the narration in one of the NWMO's promotional
videos adds a dash of guilt to the pitch.
"Canadians have told us that our generation - which benefits from
nuclear energy - has an obligation to move forward now with a long-term
management program for the used fuel we produce. It would be unfair to
future generations to wait any longer."
Meanwhile, Canada is piling more spent fuel bundles on to those virtual
ice rinks every year.