CNL has announced that it will remove intermediate-level waste from its plans for a giant radioactive mound beside the Ottawa River at Chalk River, Ontario.
Citizens groups, sounding the alarm for months about CNL’s proposal, hailed the announcement as a partial victory. Over 200 submissions, most highly critical, were sent to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission during the public comment period for the project’.s environmental impact study that ended in August.
Old Fort William Cottagers’. Association and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA) are pleased that their concerns are being heard. They have said from the start that the facility should not contain intermediate-level waste which is supposed to be disposed of in underground caverns according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Opposition groups believe there is a long way to go before the proposal could be considered acceptable. Low-level radioactive waste should not be disposed of on top of the ground in a mound according to the IAEA. Radioactive waste should not be placed on plastic liners that will deteriorate long before the waste becomes harmless.
Low-level waste is a misnomer that causes a lot of confusion. Although low-level waste can be handled without using special shielding, low-level radioactive waste can contain very hazardous materials. Dr. Hendrickson (CCRCA) said man-made isotopes such as plutonium, neptunium, and americium have extremely long half lives. They are highly toxic and will be around for thousands of years. Yet significant quantities are destined for this facility if it gets approved.
Citizens groups say the proposed technology, an engineered mound similar to a municipal landfill, is not acceptable. They call for a state-of-the-art facility that would keep radioactive materials out of the air and water for as long as they remain harmful, which could be longer than 100,000 years. Facilities in Finland and France which utilize engineered caverns in stable rock, tens of metres below the surface, would be much safer and could serve as an example for a Canadian facility.
Dump opponents believe that CNL chose the worst site for this dump – on the side of a hill and smack in the middle of a wetland that drains into the Ottawa River only a kilometre away. Close proximity to the river is causing worry about possible contamination of drinking water since the Ottawa River is a drinking water source for millions of Canadians downstream of Chalk River.
Ole Hendrickson of CCRCA notes that CNL’s siting was not done according to IAEA guidance that calls for a site that can ensure the environment will be adequately protected during the entire lifetime of the facility. CNL should explore the 70,000 acres of federal land adjacent to the Chalk River Labs property to find a more suitable location. With a better location, away from the river and in stable rock, we could all get behind this project and build a facility that Canada can be proud of Hendrickson stated.
