Radioactive Dump Site Close to the Great Lakes?

  • In the United States, low-level nuclear waste is stored in landfills. An Ontario town is proposing to put Canada's low-level nuclear waste in an underground chamber a mile from Lake Huron. (Photo courtesy of the NRC)

In Canada, just across Lake Huron from
Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of
Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive
material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake
Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann
Colihan reports on the town’s work to
get the site and the concerns about putting it close
to one of the Great Lakes:

Transcript

In Canada, just across Lake Huron from Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan reports on the town’s work to get the site and the concerns about putting it close to one of the Great Lakes:


Right now, Canada has nowhere to permanently store its low-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste. This waste is not spent nuclear fuel from power plants. It’s contaminated material that’s been exposed to radioactive substances. It could be anything from the protective clothing workers wear at nuclear power plants to parts from reactors, anything that’s been exposed to radioactivity.


The Ontario town of Kincardine – located about 250 miles north of Detroit – has proposed that it be the site of a nuclear waste dump.


So why would a beach town want a nuclear dump?


Kincardine is also a company town. It’s home to the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant. Eighty-percent of the folks who live there work in the nuclear industry. Larry Kraemer is the former mayor. He explains why the permanent dump is essential for the local economy.


“The Bruce nuclear power plant, which is the biggest nuclear power development in North America as well as the largest local employer and one of the largest Canadian investment in any industry that there is.”


Because Kincardine knows the nuclear industry, the residents aren’t afraid to take on these jobs.


But no one ever asked the question if burying nuclear waste a mile from Lake Huron was the best location in Ontario to put the waste site. Frank King is the Director of Nuclear Waste Management and Engineering Technology for Ontario Power Generation, also known as OPG. He says Kincardine does not have to be the best site for the dump.


“It’s not an issue of whether it’s the best. Nobody has to say it’s best. It just has to be shown that it’s safe; that it’s a good site. There is no requirement to show that it’s the best site.”


OPG already stores low and intermediate-level waste from all twenty Ontario reactors at the Bruce Power plant in Kincardine. But above ground storage is getting tight. OPG began looking at its options and with Kincardine’s “bring it on” attitude it seemed like a good place to start.


OPG paid for members of the Kincardine city council to visit nuclear waste storage sites around the world. Councillors came back especially impressed with how the Swedes do it. They bury their nuclear waste in solid granite.


But the stone below Kincardine is not granite. It’s limestone – and no place in the world uses limestone to contain nuclear waste. William Fyfe is Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Western Ontario. He has spent decades studying geology and nuclear waste around the globe.


“Limestone can be much more porous than granite. It has no ability to absorb nasty elements, like you get with some clay minerals and things, to absorb all the dirty chemical species like uranium, for example.”


He does not like the idea of a man-made cavern full of nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.


“Just because you made the waste doesn’t mean you should put it in your backyard. There may be a better place.”


Local environmentalists agree. Given OPG’s record, they don’t trust that the waste dump will be safe. Jennifer Heisz is a founder of the public interest group, Woman’s Legacy, which is focused on the impact of the Bruce nuclear plant on Lake Huron. She says when she requested environmental records from Ontario, she found evidence that the regulators haven’t done a good job of stopping pollution at the plant.


“I received approximately 10 or 15 reports regarding leaking waste sites and the levels coming from the plant were very high – sometimes at 45 times the provincial level for chromium. Vanadium was also one of the chemicals that was contaminating the groundwater and it’s found to be mutagenic to animals.”


Heisz says if OPG is polluting at its existing dump sites, what’s to keep the agency from doing a poor job of storing nuclear waste underground? Ontario regulators say they plan to conduct an environmental assessment. Heisz and her environmental group are raising money for an independent review of deep nuclear storage. The geologist, Professor Fyfe, thinks Kincardine should hold an open house to get the opinions of experts.


“Before we start putting stuff away, let’s invite the bosses of the Swedish group to come and take a look. They are using hundreds of scientists, technicians, and engineers which we are not doing in Canada.”


Few outside the Kincardine area are aware of their nuclear waste dump plans… and fewer still know the site is planned for so close to Lake Huron.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.

Related Links

Pollution Cleanup Program Underfunded

A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:

Transcript

A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being
underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than
originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:


The Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed by Congress in 2002… with a promise of 54 million
dollars a year for five years to clean up some of the 31 so-called “Areas of Concern”… the most
heavily polluted areas along the Great Lakes.


But in 2004, the first year money was allocated, only 10 million dollars was released by
Congress. Even so, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientist Mark Tuchman says this is
money available for clean up now… a change from the notoriously slow Superfund process.


“This is a focused program. The focus is on contaminated sediments at AOCs. So we’re
optimistic that this program can start making a significant dent in the contaminated sediment
problem in these Great Lakes sites.”


Congress is allocating 24 million dollars for Great Lakes clean up projects in 2005. That’s still
less than half the annual amount promised.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Related Links

Roadblocks to Closing Toxic Waste Loophole

  • Trash and toxic waste cross the U.S.-Canada border every day, and untreated toxic waste often ends up at the Clean Harbors facility. Some are trying to restrict this practice and purge the idea that waste is a commodity.

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps
toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:

Transcript

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is a big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:


(Sound of trucks)


6,000 trucks cross the Blue Water Bridge every day between Canada and the United States. Just under the bridge, Lake Huron funnels into the skinny St. Clair River on its way to south to Lake Erie. The Blue Water Bridge connects Port Huron, Michigan with Sarnia, Ontario. This is the second busiest truck crossing between the United States and Canada. With post 9/11 security, the border can get backed up for miles in both directions. A lot of these trucks are carrying garbage back and forth across the border. Canadian trash and toxic waste is going to the U.S. and American toxic waste is going to Canada.


During her first month in office, Ontario Member of Parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, found out just how much toxic waste was coming into her district.


“In 1999 that year, it was over 450,000 tons. To put it in perspective, the Love Canal was 12,000 tons.”


Di Cocco went on a five year crusade to change the Ontario laws that govern the trade in toxic waste. She adopted the U.N. resolution known as the Basel Agreement, as her model.


“The notion from that Basel Agreement is that everybody should look after their own waste and it is not a commodity.”


Di Cocco is not alone in her fight to slow or stop the flow of garbage and toxic waste from crossing the border. Mike Bradley is the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario. He can see the backup on the Blue Water Bridge every day from his home.


“One of the ironies on this is that while Michigan is very much upset, and rightly so, with the importation of Toronto trash, there are tens of thousands of tons of untreated toxic waste coming in from Michigan crossing the Blue Water Bridge into the Clean Harbors site.”


The Clean Harbors facility is the only place in North America that does not pre-treat hazardous waste before it dumps it into its landfill. Frank Hickling is Director of Lambton County Operations for Clean Harbors. He says imports from nearby states in the U.S. accounts for about forty percent of its volume.


“It’s from the Great Lakes area. We do reach down and take waste that our facility is best able to handle. We’re right on the border.”


Rarely do lawmakers on both sides of the border agree on an environmental issue. But pre-treatment of hazardous waste is the law in all fifty states, Mexico and every other Canadian province and territory except Ontario. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of toxic waste or transforms it into a less hazardous substance. But Hickling says disposing hazardous waste in Clean Harbors is a better economic bet.


“Obviously, if you don’t have to pre-treat it, it is cheaper there’s no doubt about that. But what isn’t obvious is the security of the site. Pre-treating waste doesn’t help immobilize the material forever.”


Clean Harbors’ company officials say their landfill won’t leak for 10,000 years. They say that the U.S. pre-treats hazardous waste because they expect their landfills to leak in hundreds of years or less. Hickling says the blue clay of Lambton County that lines Clean Harbors landfill gives them a competitive edge as a toxic dump.


“The facility is in a 140-foot clay plain and we go down about 60 feet. So there’s 80 feet below.”


But Clean Harbors has had big environmental problems. When volume was at its peak in 1999 the Clean Harbors landfill leaked methane gas and contaminated water. Remedial pumping of the landfill is ongoing.


Caroline Di Cocco found other ways to deal with toxic waste rather than simply dumping it in her district.


“First of all, there has to be a reduction of the amount of generation of this hazardous material. The more expensive you make it for industry to dispose of it, the more they are going to find creative ways to reduce it. Then there are what they call on-site treatments and closed-loop systems. You see technology is there but it’s expensive and again we go to the cost of doing business. And so a lot of the hazardous waste can be treated on site in a very safe way. And then what can’t be, well then you have to have facilities to dispose of it. But I believe that the days of the mega dumps have to end.”


Meanwhile, Clean Harbors looks at what the new Ontario regulations for pre-treatment will cost them.


“Certainly when you’re making the investment in pre-treatment and you’re adding all that cost for no additional environmental benefit we’re going to have to be getting larger volumes to ensure its profitability.”


Until we see a reduction in the loads of toxic waste that need to be dumped in Clean Harbors, it’s likely the trucks will roll on down the highway.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.

Related Links

Breaking Down Groundwater Pollution

  • While the idea of cleaning up the water with bacteria may be oxymoronic, Michigan State University is saying that it works. (Photo courtesy of the National Science Foundation)

Scientists in the Great Lakes region are seeing good results from a new method that fights groundwater pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has more:

Transcript

Scientists in the Great Lakes region are seeing good results from a new method that fights groundwater pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has more:


Researchers at Michigan State University are using a process that introduces microbial bacteria into contaminated aquifers. Over time, the microbes break down hazardous waste, usually from industrial spills. Before this new technology, the most common cleanup technique was called “air stripping.” That requires groundwater to be pumped to the surface, where toxic chemicals are basically blown out of the water and into the air.


Professor Mike Dybas says the new process doesn’t leave pollution in the ecosystem.


“It’s treatment actually occurring where the pollution is, and it is physically destructive of the contaminant. So at the end of the day, the contaminants are broken down into harmless end products.”


Dybas says the process could be used in any type of industrial or agricultural spill. He says since the microbes move with the water, cleanup could stretch for miles underground.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

State Tests People for Mercury Levels

  • While people are now aware of the health benefits of eating fish rich in omega 3 fatty acids like salmon, a study has shown that the risk of high mercury levels and heart disease might counteract those benefits. (Photo by Bartlomiej Stroinski)

Researchers in one state in the region are trying to
find out how much mercury load their residents are carrying.
So far, 300 samples have been collected for the study. And
the researchers have found that one-quarter of Wisconsin men participating in the study have high levels of mercury. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

Researchers in one state in the region are trying to find out how much mercury load
their residents are carrying. So far, 300 samples have been collected for the study.
And the researchers have found that one-quarter of Wisconsin men participating in the
study have high levels of mercury. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


The EPA says the safe level for mercury is one part per million. In the ongoing Wisconsin
study, one in four men and one in eight women have more than that in their bodies. The
study subjects volunteered for the study, so officials say they may not represent the
population overall.


Eating fish contaminated with mercury has long been thought to cause developmental
problems in young children. But now there’s research from Europe showing it can also
contribute to heart disease in adult men.


Lynda Knobeloch is a toxicologist with the Wisconsin Department of Health.


“There have been several studies that show that people who eat fish have less heart
disease because of omega 3 fatty acids, but the European study was able to sort out the
good effects of omega 3s from the bad effects of methyl mercury, and see that the mercury
actually can overwhelm the beneficial effects of omega 3s and actually cause heart disease.”


Wisconsin is requiring its utilities to reduce mercury emissions by 75% over ten years.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Work to Begin at First Great Lakes Legacy Act Site

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it’s beginning the first clean-up project under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The measure allots 270 million dollars in federal funding over five years to target contaminated sediment in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is beginning the first
clean up project under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The measure alots 270 million dollars
in federal funding over five years to garget contaminated sediment in the region. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:


The EPA and the state of Michigan will spend 6.5 million dollars to clean up the Black
Lagoon on the Detroit River. The area was given its name when aerial pictures showed oil
and grease swirling in the lagoon. The project is the first that will take place under the
new Great Lakes Legacy Act. EPA administrator Mike Leavitt says plans to build a new housing
development nearby played a role in making the Black Lagoon project a priority.


“The most important thing is the where we can make the biggest difference and the fastest.
Because there is a good plan in place that will not just improve the environment, but also
boost the economy, that’s so much the better.”


The EPA says about 90 thousand cubic yards of sediment contaminated with oil, mercury, and
PCBs will be dredged from the Black Lagoon. The agency says the project should begin
in mid-October and be completed by mid-January.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jerome Vaughn in Detroit.

Related Links

Tragedy Prompts New Drinking Water Proposal

Environmental groups are praising a proposed law that aims to protect the sources of Ontario’s drinking water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups are praising a proposed law that aims to protect the sources of
Ontario’s drinking water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


In the year 2000, seven people died after drinking tainted water in Walkerton, Ontario.
Ontario passed laws to improve the testing of tap water.


Now the province is proposing a new law to help prevent the sources of drinking water
from becoming polluted in the first place.


It plans to create special committees that will oversee protection in the different regions.
Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association describes it as a step
forward.


“If it’s completed in the direction its going it would be one of the best around and
certainly a thousand times better than we had before Walkerton’s tragedy.”


However, Muldoon and others say the province still must find a way to fund these
protections. They want Ontario to introduce water meters so that industry and residents
pay for the water they use.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Ijc Report Calls for More Action

A commission that monitors the environmental health of the Great Lakes says current trends fall short of protecting the Great Lakes from pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:

Transcript

A commission that monitors the environmental health of the Great Lakes says current trends fall
short of protecting the Great Lakes from pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark
Brush has more:


Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the U.S. and Canada decided to reduce and
clean up pollution in the Great Lakes.


Thirty years have gone by… and now the commission that monitors the progress says that the
countries have yet to make a strong commitment to clean up the lakes.


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. Chair of the International Joint Commission.


“The public cannot always safely swim at Great Lakes beaches, nor safely eat
many of the fish from the Great Lakes.”


Schornack made the statement while presenting the Commission’s latest two-year report on the
lakes. This report echoes much of the criticisms of the Commission’s last report.


Schornack says despite the current focus on national security issues in Congress – it shouldn’t
overlook spending to clean up the Great Lakes. He says it’s a pressing public health issue.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush..