[2] In May 2020, after 15 years of environmental assessment, OPG withdrew its application for a construction license on Saugeen Ojibway Nation Territory.
[4] The proposed project was to store about 200,000 cubic meters of L&ILW from the operation of these three OPG-owned nuclear sites, about 90% of which would be low-level waste.
[13] Under the 1996 Government of Canada's Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, OPG was responsible to implement a long-term solution for managing its L&ILW.
The purpose of the MOU was to set out terms under which OPG, in consultation with the Municipality of Kincardine, would develop a plan for the long-term management of L&ILW at the WWMF.
[18] The study, published in 2004, included technical feasibility and socio-economic impacts, as well as a review of international practices for waste management.
[19] Ultimately, the Municipality of Kincardine identified a deep geologic repository as its preferred option for the long-term management of L&ILW, and endorsed the project on April 21, 2004.
On February 1, 2020, members of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation "overwhelmingly" voted to reject the proposal to construct a deep geologic repository at the Bruce nuclear power plant, "likely spelling an end" for the project in the vicinity of Kincardine.
[34] When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 came into effect in July, 2012, the federal Minister of the Environment and the President of the CNSC amended the Panel Agreement, confirming that the project review was to continue under the new legislation.
The Panel report, which was delivered to the Minister of the Environment, summarized the information received by the Panel, including comments from participants, and the Panel's conclusions related to the purpose, need and alternatives; design features and project development; waste management; effects on the natural environment; effects on human health and safety; malfunctions, accidents, and malevolent acts; social and economic aspects; Aboriginal interests, rights, and title; post-closure safety case; Lake Huron and the Great Lakes; and cumulative effects.
[40] On February 18, 2016, The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, requested additional information and further studies from OPG on the environmental assessment for the proposed DGR project.
[41] In requesting additional information from OPG concerning alternate locations, Minister Catherine McKenna requested "a study that details the environmental effects of technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the project, with specific reference to actual locations that would meet Ontario Power Generation’s criteria for technically and economically feasible" [42] In a response letter from OPG dated April 15, 2016, OPG outlined their interpretation of Minister McKenna's request for additional information.
OPG stated that they intended to provide an assessment of the environmental effects of two technically and economically feasible geologic regions in Ontario for a new L&ILW disposal facility.
Included in this response were a series of GPS coordinates mapping the perimeter of the Crystalline and Sedimentary alternate locations, which encompass more than 70% of the province of Ontario [45][46] On December 12, 2016, the Governor in Council, under subsection 54(4) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, extended the time limit for the issuance of the Decision Statement for the proposed DGR project by 243 days.
Following the enactment of CEAA, 2012, amendments were made to the Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel for the DGR Project by OPG within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario, between the Minister of the Environment and the CNSC.
[50] Multiple factors have induced strong opposition like the lack of precedent, the scope of rock testing and OPG's refusal to explore other locations for the DGR.
[54] In 2012 a retired Ontario Power Generation research scientist and chemist Frank R. Greening wrote to the review panel stating that OPG has "seriously underestimated, sometimes by factors of more than 100" the radioactivity of material to be buried.
[58][59] Previous research focused on the feasibility of constructing a DGR facility in the Canadian shield, formed of igneous, not sedimentary rock.
OPG’s presentation of assumptions about the DGRs geochemistry is an underestimation of the potential risks of constructing a DGR in limestone formation, as seen in the case of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico that leaked radioactive plutonium to the surface after a drum barrel leaked: "These accidents illustrate how difficult it is to predict potential failures of such a disposal system over millennia.
"[73] Western University professor, Erika Simpson observed that DGRs constructed in geological formations other than granite have a risky track record.
In an op-ed for a London newspaper, she wrote, "It didn’t help soothe critics that the only example OPG offered of a similar DGR — the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico — is no longer operating, after an underground fire and loss of containment resulted in radioactive releases to the surface in 2014.