CP: Is shipping nuclear steam generators through the Great Lakes waterway a good option?

There comes a time when systems have decayed to such a degree that they need removal or replacement. When the old materials are removed, there needs to be a safe and responsible method for removal of these materials. At Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Power Generator on the shore of Lake Huron, two units required refurbishing over the last five years due to age. Sixteen steam generators have been replaced with new ones that extend the life of the system by 25 years. These generators have been slowly exposed to radiation, so when being replaced the old ones are categorized as low-level radioactive waste and Bruce Power is keeping them in storage at the Western Waste Management Facility while they execute their recycling plan. They aim to ship their used generators to Studsvik, an advanced recycling facility in Sweden, for processing. Studsvik will keep the ninety percent that can be recycled, and the ten percent that is designated radioactive waste is shipped back to Canada.

This plan takes care of the environmental problems and safety issues of disposal. Their website (http://rightthingtodo.ca) clearly outlines the precautions taken in this procedure and has a video for viewing that describes the process. Is there a way to make this more effective? If there were a recycling facility closer to the station, perhaps in North America, any liabilities that could arise from shipping through waterways would be removed. While this would make the land route longer, Bruce Power claims on their website that they already ship nuclear products across Canada every year and have experience in planning around high volume traffic. Bruce Power also claims the used generators have virtually no radiation exposure to the public during transportation so that would not be an issue. Shipping costs would be reduced and the process would be faster.

A location in the United States would not have to be a far-off solution. In a hearing for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Studsvik said they have a facility in Memphis, Tennessee, similar to the one in Sweden. Unfortunately, the facility in Memphis and a smaller one located in Irving, Tennessee are becoming increasingly opposed to due to radiation exposure near the fence of the facilities and the violation equal rights labour laws. If Studsvik were able to improve the facilities there, or open a facility somewhere else nearby, this would be a much closer and cheaper option for Bruce Power.

However, if a recycling facility were placed in Canada, there would be even more benefits. The entire process could be contained within the country. Since using the current method still returns waste to Ontario, this method would bring the waste back but also keep the recycled materials in the country, which could be sent back through the Canadian manufacturing industry and by extension, right back to Bruce Power and other Canadian nuclear generation stations. If the recycling facility chose to sell the recycled materials back to companies in other countries, then money would still flow into our economy. The Canadian nuclear industry could work together to finance a recycling facility or encourage Studsvik to build one here. This would also help create jobs, which could help combat high unemployment rates.

An ideal solution is not always the most practical one though, so say the facility cannot be placed nearby, and due to an economic, legal or political reasons sending waste to Sweden is our only option. Shipping through the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes may not be the best option. How about a land route to the Maritimes, then shipping the materials from there? The ships used to send the materials could disrupt the usual flow of the St. Lawrence traffic. Unlike land-based routes, there is really only one effective waterway to get from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean, so other traffic would not be able to find alternative routes. It would also surely be faster to take land to the edge of the continent instead of sending it on a roundabout path through the lakes, which would cut down on shipping time.

In the event that the ships were to undergo some sort of disaster, any materials that would get leaked into the river or the lakes would only further pollute our over-polluted water system. It seems more beaches along the St. Lawrence/Lake Ontario system have to be closed every year from large amounts of E. coli and other harmful bacteria and chemicals. More damage to this ecosystem in the event of a disaster, even if it is minor, would be awful considering how much cleaning that specific water system needs.

Whether the facility is located in the United States or in Canada, it would still be a cheaper and closer option than the location in Sweden. If we need to ship the generators to Sweden, why not ship it off the side of the continent instead of sending it through our fragile water system. It would be faster and it minimize the risk to one of the most populated waterways in the country. Canada is already a world leader in nuclear power and generator construction. Why not take this one step further and become a world leader in waste recycling, especially when the waste is so damaging?