Concerned Northerner

I am a long time resident of Dryden who has chosen to move here, start businesses here  and raise my family here. I am deeply concerned about the safety of the proposed transportation and burial of high level nuclear waste 30 minutes from our community. 

Current Location- 5.5 to 5.9 million used nuclear fuel bundles (132,000 to 164,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste) are currently proposed to be transported on the often 2 lane Trans Canada - 1600 km from southern Ontario  to NWO  - to be buried in a Deep Geological Repository between Ignace and Dryden. This is 2 loads per day of radioactive materials for 50 years.  It would seem that, like in Finland, they would keep this at the source, where they create the waste. Why transport it such long distances? It should be repackaged and maintained where it is to eliminate the necessity to transport it. There it could be repurposed so that there is less waste. It should be kept in an area where: people are more familiar with the industry; they have the resources to make further use of it; and they have the emergency capabilities /infrastructure and know how to deal with any problems. I’d like to see a real solution, not just the best solution we can come up with at this moment. 

NEVER DONE - Nuclear waste is one of the most hazardous materials in the world because it gives off intense radiation that can be lethal. High level nuclear waste has never been buried anywhere in the world. There are no long term safety records so it is critical that all safety aspects are considered thoroughly. Countries including the USA have looked at the option of burying high level nuclear waste and so far have no projects moving forward. Finland has built infrastructure  but is years away from actually burying anything. Germany was digging up their low level nuclear waste and shutting down their nuclear reactors until the war in Ukraine started. This has been a dilemma for decades. It is clear that the industry, which is a popular choice for energy, and is currently extremely profitable wants to expand quickly, but it should be expected to find a real solution to the waste. We, in the north, should not have to house dangerous waste that we have not created so the industry can carry on without a true solution for their byproduct. We are literally burying the problem. If we don’t find a real solution we are ramping up production just to create more waste to bury. 

CONSENT - In my opinion, there has to be a study about legal consent for this location. The Town of Ignace may have agreed to be the host but the property designated is not within its municipal limits. But who can legally consent to that location? It is not in the Town of Ignace. It is not in the City of Dryden. It is not in Wabigoon First Nation. It is unorganized territory. The only organization that it fits within is Treaty 3 Territory. My understanding is that Treaty 3 is not supportive of the location.  Surely we are not going to move forward without being able to prove that this will not cause contamination of the surrounding lands, waters and communities. Furthermore, if this is planned to move forward at that location, the entire potentially affected area should have some financial benefit to compensate for the risk. 

LONG TERM EFFECTS - This nuclear waste will generate heat for decades and will be radioactive for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Safety considerations must be made for our generation and many future generations as the decision has consequences that we know will affect them. It is not ethical to create a problem expecting future generations to solve. We have to ensure this is not short term gain for long term pain. 

FUNDS - Decisions should not be made when communities have received millions of dollars from NWMO. A good idea would not require money to be paid up front. At a later stage, funds for infrastructure makes sense but decisions should be based on facts and not funds as it gives the perception of influence, lack of transparency and puts into question the legitimacy of a ‘vote’. Finland promised on going tax advantages to the area and not up front payouts. If this does move ahead, this makes more sense. There should be funds paid (to a catchment area where they face potential risk) for every load delivered. This means that the next generations that have to deal with it at least get some on-going benefit as opposed to the current generation getting millions of dollars up front. 

INDEPENDENT STUDIES - It appears that a small percentage of the NWMO funds have been granted to the communities to hire independent geologists, engineers, hydrologists or doing legal/regulatory/peer review of any existing reports or processes. Independent studies with no perception of bias re:safety are critical and must be done. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was created by Ontario  Power Generation (OPG), Hydro Quebec and NB Power (the power generators creating the waste) as mandated by the government to find a solution to where to put this hot, unstable waste. This group is primarily Industry funded. It is therefore critical that we ensure that every safety aspect is reviewed independently. Funds are available for the communities to study what is being done but while tens of thousands are spent on this type of research, millions are spent on communities under the heading of assistance with infrastructure.

Transportation risks. It is likely that we would need four lanes on our highways to ensure that long distances travelled or highway closures don’t result in individuals in close proximity to a truck carrying radioactive materials for lengthy periods. We have to ensure that our emergency response teams are safe in dealing with rollovers/accidents along the travel route. I understand some physical impact studies exist but we require reports on water and fire issues as well. Currently there does not appear to be a requirement to prove that this high level nuclear waste will be safe to transport for 1600km from where nuclear energy is used and waste created. This must be mandatory. 

Risk of environmental contamination - if containment fails or there is error at the repacking stage, radioactive materials could enter groundwater and soil ecosystems. It should be proven that the levels will be monitored, and measured on a systematic and regular basis. We need to know who is responsible for the monitoring once stored under ground. There has to be an emergency plan for the neighbouring communities. How will they contain any spill to avoid our pristine area facing catastrophe. There should also be studies of potential earthquakes/ seismic activity/ future geology changes and long term climate impacts/glaciation in the area to ensure there is no risk.  Strong engineering systems must be in place and must be proven to work for extremely long timeframes as the risk is tens to hundreds of thousands of years. 

Risk to Water - Residents downstream - Wabigoon Lake, English River, Winnipeg River, Lake Winnipeg - some site water will go into settling ponds. We need to understand what the time frames and contamination levels will be before it is released. They need to prove what levels are acceptable. We have to ensure our fresh water and most valuable commodity is guaranteed to stay safe as any contamination could negatively affect drinking water, wildlife and/or the food chain.

Risk to economy - once this property is a burial site for unstable nuclear waste, the land will be unuseable in many ways.  A study of impacts should be done to ensure it will not cause losses re: other good economic/commercial opportunities in the area by limiting industry, tourism, or other business ventures.  Exploration and mining would unlikely be feasible. The land and surroundings may not be useful for forestry, tourism or recreational based business. Property values and business/commercial values could be affected due to perception of risk re: the close proximity of a high level nuclear waste burial site. They should study these economic risks and the area in which the limitations would exist and what they would be. 

Loss of enjoyment - They should study the impact on the loss of enjoyment of the area - for nature, recreation, hunting, fishing, farming etc. Again, we need to know what size area will be unuseable and what limitations there would be. We don’t want to mitigate negative impacts, we want to avoid as many as possible. 

Thank you for your time and your consideration.