[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ Comments due: Nuke waste plan may impact Great Lakes
- Subject: E-M:/ Comments due: Nuke waste plan may impact Great Lakes
- From: Kay Cumbow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:05:26 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-to: Kay Cumbow <email@example.com>
Apologies for double postings!!
Canadians will likely choose a permanent high level nuclear waste dump by
November, 2005. This dump may be sited on or near the Great
U.S. citizens need to speak as stakeholders now.
For more info, visit Sierra Club of Canada:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/ click on
- Nuclear Waste Disposal Also see:
Nuclear Waste Watch
You can download a copy of the Draft Study Report on the proposed
burial of irradiated fuel in Canada: "Choosing a Way Forward,"
at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's website:
The deadline for comments on this draft study (and perhaps the last
time U.S. residents may be able to comment to the Canadian government) is
Wednesday, August 31, 2005. I would encourage all U.S. or Native
American, First Nation residents/groups that reside in the Great Lakes
area to speak out now. Since the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization, created by the Canadian legislature, is
considering at least some sites on the Great Lakes to put Canada's high
level wastes, they should include other residents of the
Great Lakes In their presentations and hearings.
From what I understand there will be as much or more high-level toxic,
lethal wastes placed at this proposed dump than is proposed for Yucca
Mountain. At the very least, we should remind the Canadian government and
the Nuclear Waste Management Organization that we all share
responsibility for the Great Lakes, and that since they are contemplating
areas such as nearby the Bruce site on Lake Huron - (page 160 of
the Draft Study Report: Choosing a Way Forward has a list of
communities that may be considered for centralized storage) -that we have
the right to be at the table - we all are guardians of the
For those who
are writing comments on Canada's high level waste plans: an excellent
statement by the Nuclear Waste Watch coalition
A Network of Organizations Concerned about High Level Radioactive Waste
and Nuclear Power in Canada
Adopted November 2003
- The first priority
of responsible waste management is reduction at source. High level
radioactive waste in Canada can only be reduced at source through a
binding commitment to the early phaseout of nuclear power. Early nuclear
phaseout means that there would be no new reactors and no major
refurbishment of reactors to prolong their current lifespans.
- Neither the safety nor the acceptability of deep geological disposal
of radioactive waste in perpetuity was established to the satisfaction of
the federal environmental assessment panel (the Seaborn Panel) that
reviewed the evidence. Any waste management option should, for the
foreseeable future, be based on surface and/or near-surface monitored and
retrievable storage -- at least until a nuclear power phaseout has been
achieved, the technical case for an alternative option (or options) has
been thoroughly reviewed, and a social consensus has been achieved.
- The Seaborn Panel called for the creation of a nuclear fuel waste
management agency ?at arm?s length? from the nuclear industry, with its
board of directors representative of independent ?key stakeholders?. In
direct opposition to this, the government created the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization (NWMO) with its board comprised solely of nuclear
industry representatives. The nuclear industry strongly supports deep
geological disposal of radioactive waste, so the ability of the NWMO to
make an objective recommendation is questionable.
- Given the importance of this issue to present and future generations
of Canadians, the government should guarantee a joint federal/provincial
environmental assessment panel on the full range of radioactive waste
management options following the NWMO recommendation in November 2005.
The process should be adequately funded by the proponents in order to
allow public interest intervenors to retain independent technical
expertise. The federal government should also guarantee a full
parliamentary debate and free vote on the recommendations of the NWMO and
the environmental assessment panel.
- If the Government of Canada decides on any kind of centralized waste
management option (whether above or below ground), there will be risk to
communities along the transportation route, as well as to the potential
recipient community. In such a case, the potential recipient and
transport route communities should all have veto power, and should
receive funding from proponents for independent research and community
- The Canadian Government should guarantee that Canada will not import
high level radioactive waste.
Amended March 2, 2004
Some resources on nuclear waste in Canada:
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Nuclear Waste Watch
Some resources for nuclear phase-out and a transition to
Campaign for Nuclear Phase-out
Sierra Club of Canada also has good information.