Dear Editor;
In the spring I attended a Nuclear Waste Mangement Organization (NWMO) meeting and twice the question was asked, does NWMO plan on reprocessing the used nuclear waste fuel in Canada? No, there is a ban on reprocessing plutonium.
Canada’s Access of Information Act reveal that behind closed doors for over two years, the nuclear industry has been crafting a policy framework that could overturn the ban and legitimize the extraction of plutonium. Plutonium is the stuff that gets used for atomic bombs.
In 1977 the Canadian government was seeking approval to build two reprocessing plants and it was mentioned “that plutonium is an extremely useful material and we will be dealing in it.” In 1978 the Canadian government was advised no central storage of used nuclear fuel because centralized storage would assume the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel.
Recently I attended a NWMO meeting and a question was asked and this is the response from Dorian Charette NWMO site engagement associate – “This question is about recycling of the used nuclear fuel and reprocessing, things like that. Technology is of course being developed, there is a lot of progression but it is not at a point in Canada where this is happening. So this question is complex in a sense that there could be a day we can do it and do it safely and that is why it makes the Adaptive Phased Management approach so important for the NWMO. We do have the ability to retrieve the used nuclear fuel if there are better ways to manage it for the long term. For now this is the most suitable management style to plan for the long term. We don’t have that technology to reprocess yet.”
At the information forum last week the question was asked, why does the NWMO talk about a cycle from uranium mining to used nuclear fuel and on their slide it shows almost a circle and it is a chain. Can you explain why NWMO uses the phrase cycle? Dr. Gordon Edwards said that basically they talk about the nuclear fuel cycle reveals their intention is to extract plutonium. This is the only way that you can recycle and plutonium is mostly used for military purposes. The reprocessing sites are the most contaminated sites on earth.
Also it was brought up be Brennain Lloyd at the forum, why do we put the nuclear waste in transport casks and at the DGR site we repackage it again in the burial container. Why two times handling of this extreme dangerous material and more chance on accidents and radioactive releases in the environment? The assumption is made by Gordon Edwards that the extra handling step is put in place for reprocessing purposes.
Why, so close to the referendum, are the residents of South Bruce not informed about reprocessing? A lot of the attention goes to the underground multi barrier system. We know nothing or almost nothing about the hot cells, the repackaging plant and the (potentially highly dangerous) reprocessing plant. Yet the hosting contract signed by South Bruce Council effectively limits future councils to being mere promoters of the NWMO and its project.
Make sure you vote by Oct. 28. You should have received your voter letter by now. If not, contact the municipal office in Teeswater. A ‘No’ vote will only count if over 50 per cent of the electorate cast a vote.
Vote, it matters!
Rita Groen
South Bruce
