Deep Geological Repository
A nuclear threat to the Great Lakes and surrounding Canadian-USEcosystem
Deep Geological Repository Updates & News

The "two" plants at Bruce are the four A" reactors and the four "B" reactors - eight altogether. Bruce Power proposes to construct four more reactors at the site and this project is on the fast track. The draft EIS is not due out yet on the proposed new reactors, but Bruce Power has already published it. It truly does not make sense to produce more centuries of nuclear waste when there is no satisfactory solution for storing it over those centuries, and keeping it out of our waters, our air, our soil, our gene pool. Also, to clarify a possible misconception here: environmentalists do not want any radioactive wastes stored in deep geological repository, whether it is designated "high", "low" or "intermediate". Also, Bruce Power only operates the eight Bruce reactors. located on the shores of Lake Huron. (Two of the Bruce "A" reactors are undergoing costly and intensive renovation). Ontario Power Generation owns and operates the four reactors at Darlington and the eight reactors at Pickering, all located on the shores of Lake Ontario.
Local News

PUBLISHED: Sunday, June 8, 2008
Down in the dumps
Canadian plan to store plants' waste near Huron provokes outrage

By Chad Selweski
Macomb Daily Staff Writer

Macomb County officials are leading the charge in opposition to a proposed nuclear waste dump near Ontario's Lake Huron shoreline, upstream from the county's drinking water plants. The Canadian plan calls for an underground repository to store waste from 20 nuclear power plants. The waste dump would be located less than a mile from Lake Huron, adjacent to a large, waterfront nuclear power site with two electricity-generating plants.

Downstream from the proposed half-mile-deep site is an estimated 35 million to 40 million people who rely on the Great Lakes for drinking water, in cities ranging from Port Huron, Mount Clemens and Detroit, to Toledo, Cleveland and Toronto.

"They've got to store this stuff for thousands of years without it ever leaking. If there's a leak, how do they fix it?" said Doug Martz, chairman of the Macomb County Water Quality Board. "You don't put this kind of thing in the Great Lakes basin. Who in their right mind would come up with an idea like this?"

The Water Quality Board and the county Board of Commissioners have passed resolutions opposing the waste site and county officials hope to convince dozens of downstream communities to join the fight. Martz said he seeks a united front from the Michigan congressional delegation and the Granholm administration.

The state Department of Environmental Quality has already expressed concern about the safety of the drinking water plants on Lake Huron, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. DEQ spokesman Robert McCann said a similar underground site, if proposed in Michigan, probably could not meet state standards.

"Obviously, any time you're talking about storing nuclear waste near the Great Lakes, we want to take a pretty close look at it and get more detail," McCann said.

Canadian officials say the site would store only waste with "low" and "intermediate" radioactivity, but authorities and environmentalists want a commitment that high-level waste, such as spent fuel rods, will never be stored there.

The "deep geological repository" would be located outside the Ontario town of Kincardine, which is about 50 miles directly east of Tawas City, Mich.

Nicholas Girard, a spokesman for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, said the CEAA "welcomes public comments" from the United States about the project. He said the Canadian government is working with a Michigan-based environmental group, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, to keep connected to American concerns.

But the citizen group's director, Kay Cumbow, said federal and provincial Canadian officials haven't adequately addressed fears of a nuclear accident that could contaminate the Great Lakes waters.

"The Canadian government really hasn't done a very good job of outreach because they feel the only impact would be to the local fisheries and the local communities, such as Kincardine," said Cumbow, a St. Clair County resident. "We need full representation of the areas downstream and downwind - elected officials and citizens. We need a voice."

A lengthy review process is under way, but a recent public meeting scheduled in Kincardine was twice cancelled by the government and, when it was finally held two weeks ago, only seven citizens attended.

The project carries great importance for the province of Ontario, which generates half of its electrical power from nuclear plants and is expected to move further in that direction.

Claudia Lemieux, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Nuclear Association, an industry group, said that Ontario's 20 nuclear plants are run by a private company, Bruce Power, and the removal and disposal of used fuel is overseen by a provincial agency, Ontario Power Generation.

Under the approval process, the proposed waste site at Kincardine will undergo a lengthy environmental impact study. When that's completed, a 3-member government panel will review the material and issue a report with recommendations.

Final approval will be a federal decision by the Canadian Cabinet. The approval or rejection may not come until 2013.

To receive more information or periodic updates about the proposal, send an e-mail to
Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination will hold a public workshop about the proposal on Monday, June 16, at 7 p.m. at the offices of Clean Water Action, 38875 Harper, Clinton Township.*

*More meetings are listed on the HOME page of this website


Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch was invited to be
the 'guest writer' for Great Lakes Town Hall a few months ago, and her
week-long stint is now upon us.

Her first story is  a general intro to nuclear facilities on the Canadian
side of Lake Huron, and the second story is background on the Bruce nuclear
generating station (8 reactors) and the proposed 4 new reactors or "new
build." Before the week is finished, she plans to cover radioactive wastes
stored at Ontario Power Generation's Western Waste Management Facility,
adjacent the Bruce - and the proposed deep underground dump, the uranium
refinery in Blind River, and old and new uranium mining along the north

Nuke plant a health risk, farmer says; Power company denies 'ridiculous' claims
Edmonton Journal
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Page: B5
Section: Cityplus/Alberta
Byline: Steve Lillebuen
Dateline: EDMONTON
Source: The Edmonton Journal

Eugene Bourgeois has been living in the shadows of a nuclear power plant for decades, but two particular days remain locked in his memory -- the days he got gassed.

Working in his fields, the Ontario sheep farmer alleges he was caught in a sour gas leak in 1985 and again in 1988. "I saw stars," he says. "I couldn't string two words together."

The gas, also known as hydrogen sulphide, had been used at the neighbouring nuclear power facility to extract heavy water as part of the nuclear reactor process. Bruce Power took over the plant years later and has plans to expand into Alberta.

Flaring of the gas was common at the time when the plant was run by Ontario Hydro, but the company insisted its emissions couldn't have reached the concentrated levels capable of causing such problems on the nearby farm.

But Bourgeois says he couldn't add or make simple decisions, symptoms a university expert concluded were the result of exposure to toxic fumes.

Bourgeois took his claims to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, where they were debated at length, but he remains disappointed with their response. Commission members concluded that no further assessment was required.

Bourgeois says he has never fully regained his health. He says his flock frequently lost a third of its lambs each spring. Sometimes, the sheep went blind.

Bourgeois, 62, plans to share his story this week with Alberta landowners who may end up living near another nuclear power facility, proposed for Lac Cardinal, about 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

"Most people are not going to know whether the industry is pulling the wool over their eyes or whether they're being straightforward and honest," Bourgeois says. He will be travelling through Peace River and Grimshaw June 28 and 29.

Steve Cannon, a spokesman for Bruce Power which is the applicant in Alberta, dismisses all of the farmer's various claims and concerns, calling them "ridiculous."

"If we were unsafe in anyway, if any of the things that Mr. Bourgeois will occasionally say about the industry had merit to them, we wouldn't be operating," he says. "It's as simple as that."

The debate about the proposed Alberta plant could span nearly a decade since such plants require a full environmental assessment and community consultation.



Action Alert
To sign on to the letter below, (No Radioactive Waste Dump in the Heart of the Great Lakes!), simply email your name, title, organization, and full contact information. Individuals are also welcome to sign. Please sign on by noon on Wednesday, June 18th so that we can submit our group comment to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by the official deadline later that day.

If you'd like to submit additional comments, email them to no later than Wednesday, June 18th.
additional information.

No Radioactive Waste Dump in the Heart of the Great Lakes!

The proposal to build a deep underground dump (DUD) for radioactive wastes on the shoreline of the Great Lakes is unacceptable.  Water is the most likely dispersal medium for toxic materials in general, and for radioactive wastes in particular.

Nevertheless, that's what is being considered at the Bruce nuclear complex on the Canadian side of Lake Huron.  The DUD would be located just over one kilometre (less than one mile) from the Lake, and would house all of the radioactive wastes from 20 commercial nuclear power reactors in Ontario – with the exception of the irradiated nuclear fuel.

It was recently reported that the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) wants to manage the DUD project.  But the NWMO deals exclusively with the long-term management of irradiated nuclear fuel, and has nothing whatever to do with other categories of nuclear waste materials.  Does the NWMO's involvement mean that the proposed DUD will eventually become a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste  --  making it the "Yucca Mountain" of the Great Lakes region?

The Bruce nuclear complex currently hosts nine reactors (one of them permanently shut down), with proposals for four more. This would make it the largest nuclear power complex in the world. Already there are 500 outdoor silos for the “interim storage” of irradiated nuclear fuel about one kilometre from Lake Huron, and there are plans to build 2,000 more.  

Since the DUD is only 50 miles from Michigan across Lake Huron, leakage of radioactivity from the dump could directly affect tens of millions of residents in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York, and contaminate the drinking water in Port Huron, Sarnia, Detroit, Windsor, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Toronto and countless other communities downstream. 

Thus, this DUD proposal is not just a Canadian issue, but an international one.  In 1986, Canada protested when the U.S. proposed a high-level radioactive waste dump in Vermont because it was too close to the Canadian border; that proposed dump was subsequently cancelled. Now it is time for U.S. residents to speak out. The Canadian DUD proposal sets a dangerous precedent for the establishment of perpetually hazardous facilities on the Great Lakes, and impacts people on both sides of the border.

  The successful emplacement of the DUD for so-called “low” and “intermediate” level radioactive wastes from across Ontario – and potentially from the rest of Canada – will create a threat to the Great Lakes watershed for generations to come. It will also increase the likelihood of the Bruce site becoming a permanent disposal dump for high-level radioactive wastes (i.e. irradiated nuclear fuel), which would increase the risks by many orders of magnitude.

Alarming as this proposal is, the process for assessing its environmental impact is also cause for grave concern.  In Canada, environmental panels reviewing proposed nuclear facilities have always been independent of the nuclear establishment -- until now.  But for the DUD, the Government of Canada intends to place the review panel under the control of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) which is the regulatory authority for licensing nuclear facilities in Canada.

Six months ago, the President of the CNSC was fired by the Canadian federal government for being too strict in her enforcement of reactor safety regulations. The new CNSC President has clear instructions to fast-track all nuclear regulatory approval processes. No environmental assessment panel will be credible if it is dominated by this highly politicized regulatory agency.

Despite the conflict of interest, the CNSC stands ready to chair the environmental assessment panel and to fill two of its three positions. CNSC’s domination of the Full Panel Review is unprecedented, and will undermine the panel's credibility. We urge CNSC’s exclusion from the Panel, so the panel's independence is assured.

We ask that the public comment deadline be extended for six months beyond June 18th.  Given the longevity and the unprecedented nature of the hazard that the DUD represents for the entire Great Lakes ecosystem, as well as the minimal outreach to the United States and Native American/First Nations that the Canadian federal government has undertaken, this extension request is reasonable.


Gordon Edwards (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Montreal, Quebec) and Michael Keegan (Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes, Monroe, Michigan)
Great Lakes United Nuclear-Free/Green Energy Task Force


Espinoza, Brown Fight to Stop Risky Canadian Nuclear Dump, Refinery            article online
Projects along St. Clair River, Lake Huron put Michigan water, land in danger
­ June 19, 2008

LANSING - State Representatives John Espinoza (D-Croswell) and Terry Brown (D-Pigeon) today urged Congress to do everything in its power to protect the health and safety of Michigan's residents and natural resources by opposing the construction in Canada of an underground nuclear waste dump along Lake Huron across from the Thumb, and a giant oil refinery on the St. Clair River shoreline across from St. Clair and Marine City.

"It is outrageous that Canada, which has for so long treated Michigan as a dumping ground for its trash, now believes it has the right to endanger our water and land with two major hazardous projects," said Espinoza, whose district is subjected to hundreds of Canadian trash trucks crossing into Michigan each day. "We are already fighting to restore the St. Clair River, and we can't risk further damage from toxic discharges and accidental oil spills. Thousands of jobs in Michigan's agriculture and tourism industries, as well as the drinking water of thousands of Michigan families, depend on us protecting our rivers and lakes."

The mammoth oil refinery complex that Shell Canada seeks to build is less than 3,000 feet away from local hospitals. The other project is an underground radioactive waste repository to be built less than a mile from Lake Huron by Ontario Power Generation. Radioactive waste from 20 nuclear plants would be buried there. Downstream from both facilities, an estimated 35 to 40 million people rely on the Great Lakes for drinking water.

Espinoza and Brown introduced a resolution today calling on the Michigan House of Representatives to urge Congress to do all it can to oppose both projects. Both Brown and Espinoza have voted for a tough plan to stop the flood of trash from other states and Canada by attacking the economics of the trash trade. The House passed that plan more than a year ago, and it is now stalled in the Senate.

"In addition to dumping their trash on us for all these years, Canada is eager to put our water and land at significant direct risk just to make an enormous profit," Brown said. "We cannot afford the hardship that leaks of nuclear waste - or even the fear of them - would create for our tourism industry, let alone the damage that contamination would do to our agricultural industry. The health of our residents, our natural resources and our economy must come first."

DGR website © DGR webmaster

'Ban radioactive cargo ship from Scottish waters'

By John Ross, The Scotsman, 13 February 2011

ENVIRONMENTAL campaigners have urged the UK government to ban a transatlantic shipment of radioactive material which will pass through waters off the north of Scotland.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) group and marine pollution experts say that they are "deeply alarmed" at plans to transport 16 bus-sized radioactive steam generators by sea from Canada to be cleaned up at the Studsvik recycling plant in Sweden.
The groups say the shipments are highly dangerous and have asked environment ministers to stop the cargos travelling through UK waters. The three-week journey aboard the MV Palessa would include passage through the Pentland Firth between Caithness and Orkney.The Scottish Government said it would also be seeking assurances about the safety of the cargo. A spokeswoman said: "We always have concerns about the transportation of radioactive waste and will be seeking assurances that this waste is transported in a safe manner through Scottish waters."

Earlier this month, the Ontario-based power company Bruce Power was granted a licence by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to transport the generators to Sweden. A date for the ship to embark has not yet been finalised. Studsvik will decontaminate around 90 per cent of the materials and sell the resultant scrap metal on the open market. The generators will then be returned to Canada, where they will be stored at a facility by the Canadian utility.

According to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the radioactive levels of the generators exceed the legal limits of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials by 50 times.NFLA chairman Bailie George Regan said: "I am extremely alarmed by the decision of the Canadian nuclear regulator to permit the transportation of this highly dangerous radioactive material shipment across thousands of miles of open sea to Sweden.
"The shipment will contain a cocktail of radioactive materials which even at low levels are potentially dangerous to human health.
"The implication of an accident involving such a shipment does not bear thinking about.
"It seems to me to be a risky endeavour to transport such shipments such long distances for clean-up, passing through the territorial waters of the UK and Ireland."

Orkney Islands Council (OIC) said it will investigate the type of material being shipped and the proposed route.
A spokeswoman said: "While OIC is not currently a member of the NFLA, it shares these organisations' concerns regarding anything that may be a threat to the marine environment, and particularly that of Orkney."We will be finding out more about the nature of the materials to be shipped, and the route that the shipment will take, and will seek to raise any concerns with the relevant ministers."

The UK Department for Transport said the transportation of radioactive materials is governed by strict, internationally agreed standards set out by the IAEA.A spokesman added: "These regulations have been in place for decades and have ensured that such movements have maintained an excellent safety record.

"In addition, any radioactive material being transported by sea must be packaged and stowed in accordance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and these shipments will be treated no differently."

Duncan Hawthorne, president and CEO of Bruce Power, said: "Safety is our number-one priority at Bruce Power and the timing of the shipment will be determined once all of the approvals are in place and conditions are determined to be optimal."


Expiring nuclear waste shipping licence gives feds a second chance to do it right, says Barlow

The transport licence that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) issued to Bruce Power to ship 16 radioactive steam generators to Sweden will expire on February 3, 2012. Bruce Power had planned to use Swedish company Studsvik to ‘decontaminate’ the radioactive waste and sell the scrap metal back onto open markets. The most radioactive parts of the generators would be transported back to the Great Lakes and stored near its nuclear power plant on Lake Huron.

Bruce Power has been largely silent on the issue since it withdrew its application with the US Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last May. While they delayed the shipment indefinitely to consult with First Nation communities, it is unclear which communities they are meeting with.

If Bruce Power applies to renew its licence, the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act calls for the CNSC to hold another public hearing.

“If Bruce Power wants to forge ahead with this plan, the CNSC should respect the public’s will and stop the shipment,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “This is an opportunity for the CNSC to begin a needed shift in Great Lakes governance by genuinely listening to public input and consulting with First Nations.”

City mayors, US senators, First Nation communities, residents and environmental groups opposed the plans. The CNSC held a public hearing at the end of September in 2010 where interveners raised concerns about the precedent setting nature of the shipment, the threat to the Great Lakes and the lack of an environmental assessment despite changes to original plans of leaving the waste on-site. Even though the majority of interveners opposed the shipment, the CNSC ignored public input and issued the transport licence anyway.

The shipment has also drawn international attention. Twenty European civil society organizations sent an open letter to Canadian, US, UK, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish governments demanding that they put a stop to the nuclear waste shipment. Over 101,000 people in Canada and around the world signed a petition calling on the Ontario government to “stand up for the safety and protection of the public and our shared environment by banning all nuclear shipments on the Great Lakes.”

The Council of Canadians is calling for the Great Lakes to be declared a commons and a public trust. Barlow’s report Our Great Lakes Commons: A People’s Plan to Protect the Great Lakes Forever says that “a true Commons is based on a co-management model and requires true collaboration between community and government and ability of regulatory agencies to implement public recommendations.”

“With the threat of pollution, invasive species, fracking and bottled water extraction, there is an even greater need to apply the precautionary principle in the Great Lakes Basin,” says Emma Lui, water campaigner, Council of Canadians. “The CNSC has a duty to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians as well as the environment and Bruce Power’s shipment is a clear threat to both.”


Snip: "You need several [permanent repositories for commercial nuclear fuel waste], in all probability, you need several repositories," Chu said during a meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.

More than one permanent US nuclear repository likely needed: Chu
Washington (Platts)--31Jan2012/345 pm EST/2045 GMT

Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday said that the United States will likely need more than one permanent repository for commercial nuclear fuel waste, even after a decades-long battle killed plans for a single repository site long-planned for Nevada.

The comment came in the wake of a final report last week from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which was set up by Chu to examine what to do with spent nuclear fuel now languishing at commercial nuclear power plants around the country.

"You need several, in all probability, you need several repositories," Chu said during a meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Chu put together the 13-member SEAB in 2010, and it includes scientists, business leaders, university professors and former government officials.

Siting just one nuclear waste repository has been a struggle for the federal government. President Barack Obama terminated the controversial Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada after more than 25 years in development. Siting it in the state has drawn massive local opposition, notably from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Brent Scowcroft, the co-chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission, outlined for the board the conclusions of his commission, which called for the Obama administration to take immediate action to set up one or more temporary storage sites to take spent fuel from nuclear plants. It also called for action to develop a consent-based approach for siting one or more permanent repositories for the waste.

Scowcroft also said that despite the fact that the commission's mandate expired with the report's publication, the members would continue to advocate for the panel's braod range of recommendations to be carried out.

"We are committed to seeing action taken on the recommendations, because we believe it is long past time for the government to make good on its commitments," Scowcroft said. "So while our commission is formally at an end now, [co-chair Lee Hamilton] and I, and our fellow commissioners will now devote ourselves to see that action is taken.

Hamilton and Scowcroft are scheduled to testify about the report on Wednesday at the House Energy and Commerce Committee and on Thursday at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

--Derek Sands,


Bruce Nuclear Power Plant is located on the Bruce Peninsula on Lake Huron, one of the Great Lakes situated between the northern border of Michigan, United States, and Ontario, Canada.

The Great Lakes are freshwater inland seas. There is a vast biodiversity in the wetland areas and other ecosystems in the region. The water is a great resource and is bottled and sold throughout the world.

The water quality of this area is greatly threatened by nuclear power. When plants are operating there is always a  risk of a nuclear accident. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are some disasters of a great magnitude in recent years.

On a journey along the migration path of the native american ancestors, I had the chance to visit this nuclear power plant. I also spoke with the neighbors.

The water at a park was condemned. I was told water is piped for miles from other areas. The reason is leaking radioactive waste. I was shown places where there was leakage atop the ground.

Also, threre were accidental releases. One release at night killed, mutated, aborted, and blinded a resident's sheep herd. He lost his flock.
He attributed it to the local nuclear power plant. There was no other imminent threat.

The Bruce DGR team has been working hard at doing PR work. They send out brochures and flyers. They show pretty young girls curiously peeking at some exhibits Bruce created about their model underground repository.

Bruce also hired engineers to test to see if radioactive waste could be contained at deep levels of Lake Huron. They thought maybe cold water would do the trick, or some sort of chemicals. I do not know HOW they did the testing or WHAT chemicals they used or the results.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Bruce is considering the fact that

Nature will guarantee that. Time will also work against containment.

The whole scheme is just one more disaster waiting to happen. Another burden for the people of the future by clueless people of today that are only concerned with their own personal jobs and income level.

It takes courage to stand up against corporations. When so much is at stake, how can you not be involved? Burying high level radioactive waste or "intermediate" (a mix of high and medium) is no solution.

When will people stop the destruction of the earth and the water?

Are we like lemmings rushing into destruction?.

Can't anyone see what is ahead?

The 7th generation amendment, championed by Native American people is that
Well, that is thinking into the future.
I would also add that war profiteering and running businesses which hurt other people and the environment should be banned.
White collar criminals should go to prison. They should have to do HARD TIME for their crimes against humanity and mother earth.

Corbin Harney, a Shoshone elder who fought against radioactive tests, poisoning, and dumping, used to say "TIME IS RUNNING OUT FOR MOTHER EARTH"  How true, Corbin.

To find out more about Corbin Harney, visit


A Nuclear Waste Dump by Lake Huron?

A comment period is underway for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Hearing Process for a proposed permanent deep underground radioactive dump (DUD) in Ontario, to be constructed deep below the surface  of the Lake Huron Shore.

Ontario Power Generation is proposing to bury 6 million cubic feet of radioactive waste, deep below the surface of the shore of Lake Huron, at the Bruce nuclear generating station near Kincardine, Ontario.  The six month public review both for written comments and questions to the review panel was announced February 3rd, 2012 and is expected to continue through to August 3, 2012. More information to be posted soon.  Northwatch (in North Bay, Ontario) has a webpage (a work in progress) on this proposed dump at: - Northwatch also has more information (and links) on other important nuclear fuel cycle issues in Ontario.

Requesting DGR Information on CDs
Electronic version of the EIS and supporting documents are available on CD.
Hard copy is also available, but the binders are enormous, and awkward to use. CD is compact and searchable for terms.
Provide your name and full mailing address to ensure accurate delivery.
Request using one of the following contact options:
Tel: 519.368.1639  Fax:   519.368.1607
Mail: Box 7000, B21, Tiverton, Ontario, N0G 2T0
Attention: Marie Wilson

To stay informed of the panel review process
and ongoing activities, and to be added to
the interested parties distribution list,
send an email to:

Access documents on the proposed dump here:

More info:
In Canada, the federal review process for a major nuclear project includes preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), followed by a comment period and then a public hearing by a Review Panel. The Public Review Period also provides an option for interested members of the public to submit written questions to the Review Panel, identifying gaps in the information that Ontario Power Generation has provided. The Joint Review Panel might also hold some technical sessions or workshops in advance of the hearing itself. It's critical that Michigan citizens speak up on this issue, now.

The Joint Review Panel will oversee the hearing on Ontario Power Generation's (OPG’s) proposed deep underground dump (also called the DGR - deep geological repository) for 20 Ontario reactors' so-called "low" and "intermediate" radioactive wastes - terms which are misleading, as they are "catch-all" terms that include many radioactive wastes that should remain isolated from the biosphere for extremely long geological periods of time. Some of the short-lived radioactive wastes could do enormous damage to our watersheds, if somehow released into them. Also, plutonium and other transuranics can be labeled “low” level, if cut into small enough pieces. Many radionuclides bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate in the food chain, which we are a part of. 

This dump is planned to be built deep beneath a spit that sticks out into Lake Huron. The entrance would be less than a mile from the Lake Huron shore, below the Bruce nuclear complex, near Kincardine, Ontario - and across Lake Huron from Michigan's eastern shore. This is the largest nuclear complex in North America, and currently includes 8 reactors (operated by Bruce Power and owned by OPG) - and the Western Waste Management Facility, (owned and operated by OPG) - which now stores much of the radioactive waste from OPG's 20 reactors, above or just beneath the ground - as well as storing irradiated fuel from the Bruce reactors in dry casks. Some of the so-called "low" level radioactive wastes from OPG's reactors are incinerated. Any serious problems at this permanent deep underground nuclear dump could affect the future long-term health and viability of the Lake Huron watershed, as well as downstream Great Lakes/St. Lawrence waters.

More articles:

The Public has come out in force to oppose the
plans for a radioactive waste burial.

Here is a link to Beyond Nuclear's post of the comments so far. COMMENT PAGE

Hearings are in session