Warning: Undefined variable $string in /home/greenlivingcom/public_html/wp-content/themes/Avada-Child-Theme/functions.php on line 326

Ontario Municipal Election 2022

Responses from Municipal Election Candidates

Candidate responses to:

All candidates: Do you believe that OPG should build above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults at the Bruce, Darlington and Pickering Nuclear Stations for the safer interim storage of its high-level radioactive nuclear wastes?

Ajax and Pickering candidates: Do you believe that OPG should immediately start dismantling the Pickering Nuclear Station after it is shut down and complete this work as expeditiously as possible?

Mayor

Kenneth Craig

No

safe storage is best achieved in an subterranean environment.

Laura Haight

Yes

I would prefer a deep geologic repository

Regional Councillor

Bernard Sanchez

Undecided

I tend to lean toward yes but I would need to understand both parties position to answer yes or no.

Councillor

Doug Kennedy

Yes

(Doug Kennedy elected by acclamation)

Linda McKee

Undecided

I would need to learn a lot about that to understand it before giving an opinion

Lloyd Rang

Yes

This seems like a sensible precaution to take if long-term storage solutions truly are a long way off. Given the growing frequency of extreme weather events, this seems prudent to me, but I would like to know more about how this would be funded. We also need to build new generation, and we need to ensure funds are available for that work also.

Mike Hinchberger

Undecided

By high-level radioactive nuclear waste I assume that you are referring to spent fuel. At this point I don’t have sufficient information in order to make an informed decision. While I don’t doubt that placing the steel-lined , reinforced concrete, sealed dry storage containers (DSCs) inside reinforced concrete vaults would lead to a greater margin of safety in the scenarios described, I don’t have a good handle on how low the risk currently is. As the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulates nuclear energy and materials in Canada, I’d be interested in hearing their perspective on the matter.

Robert Livingstone

Undecided

Ryan Kerr

Undecided

As an ironworker who does these installations, I would need more information on the supporting project.
IE
The solution that was chosen at the time versus the cost to build a new structure and the plan for new hazardous waste handling procedure of how the secondary handling of the waste into the new structur would be managed.
Our trade is fond of these projects as it creates work for a large project like this, while protecting the environment, but I would definitely need to review of risk analysis and expenditure.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it’s helpful for me to share with my local as a potential project to advocate for.

Sami Elhajjeh

Undecided

Sorry, I’m not familiar enough with this policy to make an educated comment.

Steven Conway

Undecided

I would have to look into it. I don’t know how anything above ground could be attack-resistant. I am concerned about how and where to store the waste too.

Councillor At Large

Jeff Hegmans

Yes

Jim David

Yes

Scott D. Wilson, P.Eng.

Yes

Interim storage is not long-term storage. The nuclear sites need interim storage facilities for the existing waste, that is an unavoidable fact. The argument for NIMBY will exist no matter where the waste is stored. Moving waste out of secure site facilities along public routes poses significant risk. Therefore on-site facilities are required and should be built to the highest degree of security and safety possible irrespective of cost.

CANDU reactor facilities are designed to be attack resistant therefore it stands that waste facilities should be no less reinforced.

Background Information:

The total radioactivity of the nuclear wastes stored at the Bruce, Darlington and Pickering Nuclear Stations is 700 times greater than the total radiation released to the atmosphere by the Fukushima accident in 2011.

The International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board is calling for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) nuclear waste storage facilities to be “hardened” and located away from shorelines to avoid them being compromised by flooding and erosion.

According to a report prepared for OPG, the total capital cost of building above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults at the Bruce, Darlington and Pickering Nuclear Stations would be approximately $1 billion. This safer interim solution can be fully paid for by OPG’s nuclear waste storage fund, which has a market value of $11.3 billion.

In Germany, six nuclear stations have hardened storage facilities. The concrete walls and roofs of these facilities are 1.2 to 1.3 metres thick.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is still decades away from having an operational long-term storage site for high-level radioactive waste, and its plans are opposed by many Indigenous communities and organizations in the areas it is considering. This means that safer interim storage solutions are needed for the waste that is stored at our nuclear stations.

For more information, please read our report: A Safer Interim Storage Solution for Ontario’s Nuclear Wastes.