Transportation and other options

I have a number of concerns that I am writing to request be included in this assement plan:

>Transportation must be included. The distances from some of these nuclear powerplants to the proposed site are extremely far and so a detailed plan with all contingencies and pitfalls must be included for discussion as a part of the overall assessment. There needs to be a clear plan for what would happen if there is an accident along the route and how the many communities on the route could potentially be negatively impacted. Furthermore, a clear and concise mitigation plan should be included to specify how the waste would be cleaned up if a spill happened along the route. Citing that the containers would protect the waste is not a sufficient answer or an emergency protocol. Things fail, a well-thought out safety plan needs to be thought of in advance. Not at the time of disaster. 

>The option of permanently storing the waste at the nuclear facilities should be more throughly explored and detailed why this option is not preferable to long distance transport of highly dangerous materials. Canadian roads, especially up north, in the winter are unpredictable and frequently shut down due to snow storms or accidents. This needs to be put into consideration when deciding the best long term plan. 

>An inclusion of potential negative impacts downstream from the Revell site should be studied and included as part of the impact assessment. This site is located near the Waubaushene watershed and if a leak or spill happened at this location and nuclear waste gets into our waterways that would be catastrophic. Considering part of the proposal includes transfer of the waste from the travel containers to permanent storage containers at this site, there is an opportunity for error and for the area to be exposed and contaminated, so the worst-case scenarios and the plans to negate those impacts must be included.