The following article was submitted to North Renfrew Times for publication and was published in their Wednesday 09 October 2019 edition.
————
03 October 2019
Hi
Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF)
Just a thought ! How come this development at Chalk River site is still pending ?
What is the issue? What’s the snag? Why there is a delay in approval by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ( CNSC )? The CNSC’s quiet is deafening – to say the least !
It’s been a long while and not much has moved except the much talked about recent CNL advertisement on the back page of recent edition of North Renfrew Times (NRT) .
Yes, there have been a few Letters To Editor to NRT pertaining to be about NSDF but really these were polemics ( I would say academic polemics) about the definition of a ” mound ” and also about the mute point of whether CNL can claim about many wonderful technologies developed over the years at Chalk River nuclear site.
Well let that be as it may be but it seems the development is stalled.
I may be wrong but to my simple mind it (this proposed development) is a few years late when it should have been implemented for the good & planned development of the Chalk River site — impacting the future of the local community and for the good of the country as a whole.
I understand that there is so much legacy wastes lying around and scattered at various locations at the CNL site – which do present a danger ( both radiological and non-radiological ) to habitat. Further, CNL site is old and most existing buildings /structures / site services may be somewhat non-code compliant and tending towards being decrepit and building structures seem to be mostly of wooden construction and could be ” tinder ” and thus posing a definite fire hazard.
Added to that – many of these structures and services are somewhat contaminated by radioactivity – the site being a nuclear site operating nuclear research reactors and related facilities over many years.
So it is in the interest of the safety and environment that such a facility is built which would allow engineered operation , monitoring over long period and be able to take corrective steps in time , if a need arises .
While I am fully in favour, in principle , for the development of such a facility at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) site – it is troubling to note the proposed site is in close proximity of the Perch Lake close to Ottawa River ( and the Perch Creek which facilitates the flow to the Ottawa River ).
I believe that the facility will be designed to withstand a very high seismic event but am not sure about the details . It may be safe when fully completed but would the seismic event be managed when the facility is part complete ? I understand that that it will take a long time for the facility to be fully complete.
I am not sure that unusual climatic conditions such as cloud bursts are part of the design criteria. I assume that this and other environmental conditions are considered when designing the facility .
All this can be assured to public if CNL or CNSC or AECL come out and step up to the plate and identify or announce whether the siting, the detail design and operation of the said facility – all have been professionally reviewed by identified independent and qualified reviewers . Their (the professional qualified reviewers ) concurrence may contribute towards the much awaited approval by CNSC.
I really would not worry about the name given to the facility.