Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel Project Initial Project Description APM-REP-05000-0211

As a Manitoban resident who lives near the Winnipeg river watershed and often spends time visiting and travelling in Ontario along the proposed transportation route to the DGR I am extremely concerned that this project is not getting the Comprehensive Impact Assessment it warrants.

The establishment of a DGR for Canada’s nuclear waste, a plan that could potentially have devastating long term effects on the environment and all that live in the area must undergo a Comprehensive Impact Assessment including the transportation, packaging and burying of the waste.

Nuclear waste is one of the most toxic and dangerous products we make and transport. Proceeding with this project without careful authentic assessment of the potential environmental impacts is irresponsible.

Suggesting that the DGR will allow Canada to provide the energy we need to meet our needs in a sustainable manner is misleading. Nuclear power is the slowest, dirtiest and most expensive form of energy production and will not meet our needs to respond to the climate crises in a safe, economical and timely fashion.

The nuclear industry is far from sustainable. Strong evidence suggests that building more nuclear plants and refurbishing old ones will in fact cause increased greenhouse gas emissions while we delay transitioning to sustainable energy sources. Building nuclear plants and refurbishing old nuclear facilities takes years and while we wait Canada’s fossil fuel emissions will rise. The continued use and potentially new build of fossil fuel generated electricity will delay the reduction of emissions and our chances of mitigating climate change.

Not only will it increase greenhouse gas emissions but the danger of nuclear waste doesn’t go away just because you bury it.  The proposed DGR does not negate the problems with nuclear waste. It remains the most dangerous byproduct of energy production on the planet.

For a site to be selected, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) will need to demonstrate that a deep geological repository can be safely implemented with a strong technical safety case. The repackaging and transportation of the waste to the site must be included in the assessment.

I am very concerned about NWMO’s statement that there will be no impacts outside of Ontario. I own a residence near the Manitoba Ontario border and if and when an accident occurs the proximity to watersheds that drain into Hudson Bay, via Lake of the Woods, the Winnipeg River and Lake Winnipeg is extremely problematic. Any release of radioactive contamination into water, such as from the interface between ground and surface waters, or from the above ground operations of the Used Fuel Processing Plant, or from movement of nuclear materials around the site, or an accident that may occur on the site, could result in radioactive releases into the watersheds. The same is true of any airborne radioactive contamination which can travel with the wind into Manitoba. Therefore I have a direct and local interest in this project.

I am also gravely concerned about a number of other issues with this proposal.

Canada’s limited resources are being diverted from energy sources that are proven safer, more sustainable and reliable, faster to bring online and considerably more affordable. 

 

The 30 day comment period on the Initial Project Description is inadequate, especially considering that this project has been contemplated for decades, and will have repercussions well beyond the 160 years that is allocated to operations and post-closure monitoring. 

There has been limited information made available and or consultation with the public outside of the immediate vicinity of the project to those who could be negatively affected by unsafe practices during the repackaging, transportation and burial of this extremely dangerous material. If this project is to proceed it must meet the safety standards of a Comprehensive Impact Assessment.