To the editor,
The Integrated Strategy For Radioactive Waste report, submitted in June by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources on June 30, raises more questions and concerns.
In the report, which can be read online at nwmo.ca.ISRW, it is recommended that intermediate-level waste and non-fuel high-level waste from medical isotope production should also be disposed of in a deep geological repository (DGR), with implementation by the NWMO.
According to 2019 figures from the Natural Resources of Canada 2019, Canada had 12,718 m3 of high-level waste and 15,681 m3 of intermediate-level waste. How much larger will the proposed DGR need to be to accommodate this waste? How much waste will the proposed small modular (nuclear) reactors – SMRs – produce if the industry goes ahead with their plan? What type of waste will be created by SMRs? How will the future decommissioning of nuclear reactors affect the final size?
In this report under implementing principles, two principles leave me concerned about the NWMO’s commitment to safety. They state that “the design of facilities should prioritize the protection of water” and “long-term caretaking should be established for disposal facilities.” Should? It should prioritize the protection of water and long-term caretaking should be established?
It MUST protect the water, the environment and the residents! Like the wording in the draft Memorandum of Understanding the NWMO has with South Bruce, where we see a lot of “when possible”, “if possible” and “as much as possible” – what happens if the NWMO says it wasn’t possible? Who will be held accountable?
2024 is quickly approaching and it is time for all residents to decide where they stand. It is time to demand a paper ballot referendum. This referendum result will forever determine the future of our community and it must be tamper proof.
Only with a paper ballot and scrutineers from both sides of the issue verifying results, can the community be confident in the referendum outcome. We must not allow the municipality to claim cost as a prohibitive factor. If the municipality and NWMO can afford to send a group of council approved participants on a first-class trip to Finland, they can afford a paper ballot.
If the NWMO honestly wants to determine willingness on such an important decision, why wouldn’t they fund a paper ballot referendum that can truly be verified?
Michelle Stein
Teeswater
