Transporting nuclear waste is too dangerous

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed deep geological repository (DGR) Project in Revell Lake Ontario. While the actual repository is a big worry, I will focus on the transport of the nuclear waste.

Transportation of the nuclear waste should have been an integral part the Initial Project Description (IPD). The possibility of a serious accident is obvious to anyone who has been on the highways or railways in Ontario.

If the project goes ahead, the NWMO will transport 150,000 tons of high level nuclear waste to the DGR site from reactors that are more than 1500 km away. They are planning on 2 or 3 shipments per day for 40 to 50 years.

I see two major categories of potential problems transporting nuclear waste. First is the possibility of an accident caused by the breakdown of technology. History is full of examples - collapsing bridges, road washouts, mechanical problems with trucks and trains. We like to think  the things we design and build are perfect, but there are far too many examples that prove that is wrong. A flaw in one container could potentially lead to an extremely serious incident. The second problem concerns the fact that the transportation of nuclear waste involves human beings operating machinery. Humans are not perfect. While driving, we often lose focus, are distracted and do not deal with conditions like snow, rain and wind appropriately. In 2022, there were over 9000 accidents involving transport trucks in Canada.

The NWMO would like us to believe that transporting nuclear waste is safe. They state that in the event of an accident, the containers that would be used to transport the waste would suffer only minor damage and that there would be little risk. To back up this claim, they mention tests they have conducted. One test involved dropping a container 9 metres onto a flat solid surface. Another test involved dropping a container 1 metre onto a 15 cm diameter steel bar. My concern is that there are places along the route where if an accident were to happen, a container full of waste could fall a lot further. And given the geology of much of the region the waste would pass through, there could well be sharp rocks at the bottom of the location of the fall. As an example, the bridge over the Nipigon River is about 70 metres above the river, which is full of rocks. Surviving a 9 metre fall onto a flat surface or a 1 metre fall onto a steel bar does not prove that a container would remain intact after falling 70 metres onto rocks.

I understand that the risk of a serious accident is small. But the consequences of such an accident would be devastating and last for thousands of years, potentially affecting huge parts of North America if the accident were to happen near a river or lake.

Some proponents of DGR’s cite Finland as an example for Canada. What they don’t mention are the differences between the two systems. Finland has a total of 5 reactors at 2 sites. 3 of the reactors, at the Olkiluoto site, produce 77% of the nuclear energy in Finland. They are within 5 km of the DGR. The other 2 reactors, at Lovissa, are about 350 km from the DGR. Finland currently has about 2400 tonnes of nuclear waste to dispose of in the DGR. Most of that waste does not need to be transported, as it is generated on site. Canada has 19 operational reactors at 4 different sites. 3 of those sites are about 1700 km from the proposed DGR site at Revell Lake. The fourth reactor is about 2600 km from Revell Lake. Canada currently has about 62 000 tonnes of waste. All of that waste needs to be transported a long distance. It is clear that the situation in Finland is much different than what we have to deal with in Canada.

Given the risks, I believe nuclear waste should be kept near where it is produced. I have heard the argument that it is not a good idea because of the high population near nuclear reactors in Canada. My response to that argument is that if you can design equipment to safely move the waste over 1500 km, you should be able to design equipment to safely store it where it is produced. If we used the estimated $26 000 000 000 that would be spent to move and store the waste on solar power instead, we could provide 500 000 to 1 500 000 homes with truly clean electricity.