Michigan protests plan to store millions of gallons of nuclear waste next to the Great Lakes
by alethoRT | May 21, 2014
A
Canadian proposal that calls for a nuclear waste storage facility less
than a mile away from the Great Lakes is coming under heavy fire from
Michigan lawmakers and environmental groups, who are now attempting to
stop the project.
Under
a plan crafted by energy supplier Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the
company would construct a “deep geologic repository” (DGR), which would
feature waste storage sites more than 2,200 feet underground to store
nearly 53 million gallons of both low- and intermediate-level nuclear
waste. The location of the proposed site, however – in Kincardine,
Ontario, just three-quarters of a mile away from Lake Huron – has drawn
criticism from numerous groups who fear potential contamination.
The
fact that Lake Huron is connected to all the other Great Lakes via
waterways has also drawn concern, since the five bodies of water make up
the largest collection of freshwater lakes on the Earth and provide
drinking supplies to tens of millions of Americans and Canadians.
According to the Detroit News,
lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have continued criticizing the
plan, and are now proposing legislation that calls on the federal
government to get involved. In addition to requesting that President
Obama stake out a position on the issue, state Senate and House members
are asking Secretary of State John Kerry to officially ask the
International Joint Commission – established to mediate disputes over
the Great Lakes – to rule on the matter.
The legislation would also “stop the importation of radioactive waste into Michigan from Canada.”
“Building
a nuclear waste dump less than a mile from one of the largest
freshwater sources in the world is a reckless act that should be
universally opposed," Michigan Rep. Dan Lauwers (R-Brockway Township)
said in a statement Monday, as quoted by the Huffington Post.
While
lawmakers continue to get involved in the situation – Michigan’s
Senators in Washington have also urged the State Department to bring the
IJC into the debate – environmental groups have come out against the
plan.
“Burying
nuclear waste a quarter-mile from the Great Lakes is a shockingly bad
idea — it poses a serious threat to people, fish, wildlife, and the
lakes themselves,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director for
the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center, in a
statement to the Detroit News.
Notably,
the proposed plan has garnered the support of most Kincardine residents
and other neighboring communities, many of whom have jobs within the
nuclear industry.
For
its part, OPG has maintained that its facility would be a safe place to
store radioactive material such as rags, mop heads, paper towels,
clothing, and more. According to the Associated Press, the
low-level material the company plans to bury beneath the earth would
decay in 300 years, while the intermediate-level material – described as
“resins, filters, and used reactor components” – would take more than
100,000 years to decay.
Despite
the company’s confidence, however, one former OPG scientist recently
looked at the plan and came away unconvinced, saying the radioactivity
of the materials that would be buried has been “seriously
underestimated.” Dr. Frank Greening wrote to the Canadian panel charged
with reviewing the proposal, arguing the material is sometimes 100 times
more radioactive than estimated. In some cases, the material is 600
times more radioactive.
"My
first feeling was, look, you messed up the most basic first step in
establishing the safety of this facility, namely, how much radioactive
waste they're going to be putting in the ground, you admit you got that
wrong, but now you're telling me that everything else is okay," Greening
told Michigan Radio, according to Huffington Post. "You can't
just fluff off this error as one error. It raises too many questions
about all your other numbers. And I'm sorry, I now have lost faith in
what you're doing."
Asked about Greening’s findings, OPG spokesman Neal Kelly told the Toronto Star the facility would still be safe even if the evidence bears out.
“Some
of his points are valid, and were already under review within OPG for
future revisions to the waste inventory,” he said, adding the DGR’s
design is “very, very conservative... The safety case would still be
strong, even if these factors were to bear out.”

No comments:
Post a Comment