Do you think of the concept of regional facilities for the disposal of low-level waste should be pursued? If so, do you think regional facilities should serve one or more provinces, multiple facilities in a defined geographic area or another grouping configuration such as Eastern, Central, and Western Canada?
Some waste owners have only small quantities of low-level waste to manage. how do you think we can best ensure that all low-level waste has a long-term plan, while keeping costs and the number of facilities to a manageable number and maintaining the responsibility for implementation with the waste owners?
Print this page
Comments
Waste Owners
AnonymousWaste Owners is an appropriate term for Canadians who benefit from Nuclear energy and medicine. Multiple locations for this level of waste is fair policy as the benefit is spread widely. The danger from this waste diminishes rapidly once the facility is filled further supporting the multiple location strategy.
cost cost cost
Hodgson twpWell lets look at multiple locations and cost, many permits required, up keep of storage areas, monitoring waste on site, man power and security, upkeep tracking, never the less any waste becoming improperly managed, costs incurred to monitor who is storing what waste how much, cost cost cost. The best practice would be the safe storage and monitoring in one location by one governed body to assure its handled stored correctly and monitored. So now lets look at facilities filling up with waste, or the facility becomes out dated there is so many benefits to a central one location that could handle all waste i believe at a lessor cost of any accidental problem.
Key Requirement for Best Waste Management Strategy
BlairPBromley• Any Strategy for Radioactive Waste in Canada should make provisions and allowances for reprocessing and recycling to extract all the heavy elements and actinides (isotopes of Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, Am, etc.) found in spent nuclear fuel or partially reprocessed nuclear fuel and targets, for subsequent recycling and reuse as new fuel for different reactor technologies (SMRs, Gen-IV, and Gen-III/Gen-III+ reactors).
• Thus, if any spent nuclear fuel is placed in a deep geological repository (DGR), then at the very least, it should be made to be easily retrievable.
• Ideally, all heavy elements / actinides found in spent fuel should be extracted and recycled for transmutation and destruction.
• Placing actinides in a Deep Bore Hole or DGR is not the best long-term strategy.
• However, placing fission products in Deep Bore Holes and/or a DGR is a reasonable strategy.
• However, provisions should also be made for extracting long-lived fission products (LLFPs) and long-lived activation products (LLAPs) for isolation and potential destruction/transmutation in targets placed in different reactor technologies, or using accelerator-based neutron sources.
• Ultimately, the only radioactive items that should be placed in Deep Bore Holes or a DGR are intermediate-life fission products and activation products (ILFPs / ILAPs) that have a half life of less than 100 years. Within 10 half lifes (~1000 years), then most of these ILFPs/ILAPs will have decayed by 3 or more orders of magnitude, with a radiotoxicity that is far below that of natural uranium ore.
• By implementing full recycling of actinides, and implementing partitioning and transmutation of LLFPs and LLAPs, it will enhance the protection of the public and the environment, and thus it will help build public confidence, assurance and support, and thus will improve public “buy-in” and and “social license” to continue using nuclear energy and radioactive sources.
No multi site deposits
AnonymousRegulatory management should be detailed, strict, inspected and monitored frequently. Must be at a properly designed central facility for anticipated expansion and beyond otherwise quality assurance is not feasible. Regulations need to be federally mandated and adequately funded to ensue the safety of the workers, public and the environment. A central location in Ontario is recommended. Keeping the waste as close to the source (Bruce) helps to mitigate spreading of risk to other regions. Transportation of waste is always risky. Both rail and hwy mobilization have proven to be unsafe to travelers and the communities they move through. Moving this waste across the province unnecessarily puts the environment and it’s receptors at greatest risk should something go wrong. With the amount of interconnected waterways the risk is not just at a local concern but a regional.
LLW in Near Surface Facilities is a Sound Approach
AdvocateThe recommendation to dispose of LLW in near surface facilities is very sound and has many years of safety precedent elsewhere. However, siting such a facility, let alone many facilities, is nearly impossible for waste owners in Canada under the current consent based approach. While municipal consent can reasonably be obtained, everywhere in Canada is someone's traditional territory where indigenous consent is highly unlikely, if not impossible given the pervasive uniformed fears among indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the high cost to waste owners to get to the remote possibility of a "yes" is a cost most waste owners are not willing to chance. OPG alone sunk ~$200m and many years of sound work just to get to a "no". Waste owners can't do this alone, the federal government cannot just continue to say "polluter pays" and sit back leaving the waste owners on their own to sort it out. The federal government must assist waste owners in either obtaining or in extreme cases, overriding lack of consent for this to work. Having the CNSC just tick their "duty to consult" box hasn't been enough and does little to advance the waste owners siting process in indigenous territories. For this recommendation to work the federal and or provincial governments must actively assist, if not lead the waste owners in siting.
Anonymous