WASTE MANAGEMENT: CRITIQUE
Waste Management Assessment
Overall, OPG has a good reputation and seems to be committed to responsibly managing its waste. They have the resources available to manage this waste and are well equipped to deal with the waste the new project will create. The assessment acknowledges the types and volumes expected to be created and also explains the various management practices that will be employed. The amount of waste created is a fixed variable and cannot be mitigated as such. However, the following measures will help ensure responsible management of the waste:
However, several problems were identified with the assessment. For example, when comparing the volumes of waste for each of the reactors considered, the assessment gives values in different units which makes comparing different designs extremely difficult. While some reactors use bundles, others use assemblies, the assessment used these units to describe the amount of waste produced. Furthermore, the assessment does not talk about the big picture -- what will the characteristics of the waste be in 1000, 10 000 years?
Moreover, the assessment seems to skip over or cast aside several issues. For example, the table below shows an abbreviated version of a table found in the EIS. Take the earthquake for example. Every structure has a breaking point. The report merely says they are expected to remain standing. But does not explain for what magnitudes. I feel this is especially important considering it was an earthquake which ultimately triggered the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, even though the building was up to code.
Overall, OPG has a good reputation and seems to be committed to responsibly managing its waste. They have the resources available to manage this waste and are well equipped to deal with the waste the new project will create. The assessment acknowledges the types and volumes expected to be created and also explains the various management practices that will be employed. The amount of waste created is a fixed variable and cannot be mitigated as such. However, the following measures will help ensure responsible management of the waste:
- A large fund has been set aside by OPG to deal with the waste in the future
- Open, transparent, forth coming distribution of information from OPG
- The Western Waste Management Facility owned by OPG
- The Deep Geologic Repository owned by OPG
- Transporting waste in individual robust containers
- Adhering to various strict building and management codes
However, several problems were identified with the assessment. For example, when comparing the volumes of waste for each of the reactors considered, the assessment gives values in different units which makes comparing different designs extremely difficult. While some reactors use bundles, others use assemblies, the assessment used these units to describe the amount of waste produced. Furthermore, the assessment does not talk about the big picture -- what will the characteristics of the waste be in 1000, 10 000 years?
Moreover, the assessment seems to skip over or cast aside several issues. For example, the table below shows an abbreviated version of a table found in the EIS. Take the earthquake for example. Every structure has a breaking point. The report merely says they are expected to remain standing. But does not explain for what magnitudes. I feel this is especially important considering it was an earthquake which ultimately triggered the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, even though the building was up to code.
For more information, please consult the Nuclear Waste Management Technical Support Document.