Commentaires reçus : 2002 à 2005
Une section distincte présente les commentaires reçus après la réalisation de l’étude.Nous avons également reçu des commentaires par voie postale et correspondance personnelle. Ceux-ci ne sont présentés ici qu’avec la permission de l’auteur. Tous les commentaires sont publiés dans la langue reçue.
Cunningham, PhilPhil Cunningham, Jan 9, 2010
Griffiths RobertThoughts on Nuclear Waste
Ces commentaires ont été initialement reçus par la poste et sont publiés ici avec la permission de l'auteur.
Elder Two RiversElder Two Rivers, Jan 1, 2010
Beveridge, ElizabethElizabeth Beveridge, Jan 1, 2010
Rainville, ClaudeClaude Rainville, Jan 1, 2010
Shrives KenThe NWMO needs to get the Fuel bundles away from the city areas. It should keep the bundles until such a deep dispository area can be found. In the mean time, isolated areas should be chosen, such as northern Saskatchewan or Laborador, with concern for aboriginal people, Strict security should be prime, and deep geological shafts should be drilled such as other countrys have, ( Sweden,) and be retrieval for when technical advancements are made.
Radiological monitoring should be in place at all times, and an important topic is to let people know what is happening. such as keeping people informed as to what is going on. As stated strict security should be in place at all times to prevent terrorism. Salt mines should be considered also. Respectfully submitted. Ken
Piche, AlainAlain Piche, August 18, 2009
Response by J.A.L. Robertson to an “Invitation to Review a Proposed Process for Selecting a Site”
Appendix – Detailed Comments
Bennet, RobertRobert Bennet, July 23, 2009
Cragg, GregoryA deep Depository could have problems in the future from weak rock and geological activity. Looking at another solution that can be located above ground in an area controlled by the government that answers all of the problems associated with nuclear waste as well a site to put and monitor this waste. My solution is very simple and inexpensive.
A Response to Choosing a Way Forward: The Future Management of Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel
Williamson, ScottI strongly urge you to faze out nuclear power because there is no true safe way to store nuclear waste. More effort should be put into developing renewable energy resources and reducing energy consumption
Malo, AndreThe volume of waste produced in Canada must be large enough to consider more than one site. With more than one site an accident would be of reduced importance. Something like the actual situation with active nuclear power plant.
Labrecque, Jeanthis population consultation (mostly private companies)is not very serious as Canada signed the Northcom, the thaughts of people from other countries being accepted and USA nuclear wastes will sooner or later be (imported or accepted) in Canadian soil.
Cuttler, JMJM Cuttler, May 21, 2009
My Wife and I stand 100 % behind Nuclear power. It is a safe and clean source power generation. I wish there was some way to convince Canadians that the waste we can store (nuclear), is far better than the waste that is put into our air from fossil fuel plants.
If there is any way we can help your organization, Let me know.
W R Russell
It seems that the NWMO Board chose Saskatchewan as a disposal site with no input from its citizens. Our Premier Mr. Calvert found out this week following his comments, where the people in this province stand on this issue when he stated he would consider such a site. I found it interesting that Calvert stated that his comments were misinterpreted. I find it hard to believe that anyone could misinterpret the premier’s voice stating that he would “consider a nuclear waste facility.” Calvert seemed to be arrogant enough to speak about the subject and then had to attempt to repair his position (because of an onslaught of correspondence and phone calls from outraged citizens) and by placing blame on the media that his comments were misinterpreted. Furthermore he then stated it was unfair for Stephanie Lanagenager(sp?) to ask such a question when he had no time to review the report. If Calvert was ill prepared to speak on the subject as he said then why wouldn’t he say just that. This banter between Calvert and the media is suspicious at best and could be construed as a policy already considered by his caucus.
It was mentioned in the interview that there is a moral responsibility and issue because we mine uranium. I feel that our moral responsibility is to the environment first and last. The communities or other countries that make the choice of using nuclear power must accept the pros and cons! They also must accept that they are responsible for the waste products they are creating and should not expect any other country or provinces that are promoting wind power and small hydro projects to eliminate its coal-fired generators, to be expected to take another countries nuclear waste.
In no other industrial cycle are the companies producing raw materials (from mining iron ore for making of steel products, wood for paper products or even aluminum) to be responsible for disposing the end product. The end user of the end product is responsible for recycling or disposal and must pay for it. If you want all the so called benefits of nuclear generated power then you must bear the responsibility for your own waste.
I was surprised to see representatives for the nuclear energy companies on the NWMO board of directors but no representation for the environment. Only on the advisor committee who are not privileged to attend the “in camera” sessions of the Board meetings have connections to groups concerned for the environment.
Furthermore the idea of targeting first nations communities who suffer to near third world conditions are expected to make life altering decisions which pay high profits now have no information to protect them from potentially devastating their environment. The domino effect following a leaking fuel cell could and would contaminate all the major fresh water supplies here in Saskatchewan, not to mention the Artic Ocean.
I simply can not accept the argument and will never support this initiative.
United Church of CanadaAttached is the response of the United Church of Canada to the final report and recommendation from NWMO. It is published here with the permission of the organization.
Submission on the topic: Choosing a Way Forward - Final Study Report
Robertson, J.A.L.This editorial was submitted by Dr. J.A.L. Robertson in cooperation with the author Dr. Richard V. Osborne. It is published here with their permission. The editorial has been published in the Bulletin Canadian Radiation Protection Association as follows: A Cautionary Tale (À propos de précaution), Richard V. Osborne, Bulletin Canadian Radiation Protection Association, Volume 26, No. 4, pp 16-19, December 2005. Dr. Osborne is the Founding President of the Canadian Radiation Protection Association.
Submission on the topic: Choosing a Way Forward - Draft Study Report
Van Vliet, PieterCes commentaires sont publiés avec la permission de l'auteur.
Submission on the topic: Response to the United Church of Canada submission to the NWMO
Robertson, J.A.L.Comments on NWMO's Draft Transparency Policy
Submission on Draft Transparency Policy 2008
Buckingham, DarleneIt is far too dangerous to store nuclear waste near the Great Lakes - the source of drinking water for millions. Money for research must be given to bioremediation and find a biological way to deal with nuclear waste. To store nuclear waste is impossible the way you are proposing - we do not have the technology to build an impermeable structure that will last for hundreds of thousands of years.Future generations will have to pay for this storage method. We have a responsibility to future generations to stop right now producing any more nuclear waste until we have a biological solution. To store waste as you have proposed will not stand the test of time. Begin decommissiong of nuclear reactors NOW - spend the money saved on research to find a natural way to neutralize nuclear waste. It is a crime against future generations to store nuclear energy under the earth - it is doomed to fail. Please do not let a nuclear disaster force your hand or subject the future children to a future nuclear disaster. Start now. Thank you.
Elvish, Robert J.
my query, (and i have yet to recieve an adequate pesponse), is, what steps or studies are being used to attempt to find a way to neutralize Nuclear waste?
too much is made (in my view ), of how we will store this waste, and too little Public information finds it's way to the general public. i fully agree that Nuclear Power is the way of the future, i only hope that EVERY avenue of storage , and in the long run, the ability to render the waste harmless , is being looked at.
as my submission starts out, "what are the possibilities of Neutralizing Nuclear Waste"? and, are we studying the possibility?
thank you for your time
Robert J. Elvish
Robbins, WalterSubmission on: Moving Forward Together: Designing the Process for Selecting a Site
December 12, 2008
Please see attached submission on design of siting process
Walter Robbins - December 12, 2008
I have read your Final Study, Choosing a Way Forward. Having done so I still have a major concern which you have not addressed in the material.
The Adaptive Phased Management plan which is going to lead to a centralized storage facility and deep geological repository may appear to be the best solution.
The problem I find is that if this concept is not proven to be safe there is no backup plan as an alternative. It appears that the final decision has been made.
Considering the money that will be spent in the lead up to the point of centralized storage and testing there will be no turning back.
In other words there should be an added section to the plan which clearly states that if the deep geological repository cannot be proven to be safe another "Safe" alternative should be found.
Without this important section being added to the plan all of your hard work and planning will have been for nothing or at least lacking in a important safeguard.
Lawson, Tom and PatriciaSubmission on: Moving Forward Together: Designing the Process for Selecting a Site
December 15, 2008
Please see attached submission on design of siting process
Robertson, John A.L.
Comments on NWMO’s Draft Plan by J.A.L. Robertson
“The road to Hell (somewhere unknown deep underground) is paved with good intentions.”
The proposed planning in the Draft Plan is necessary and laudable but I am concerned that there is not yet any open discussion on the siting process. The primary purpose of these comments is to urge urgency on the NWMO in preparing an information package before mention of any specific location, including those considered for only research.
This recommendation is based on painful experience. In the 1970s proposed geological field research, notably a site near Madoc, Ontario, had to be abandoned in the face of public protests. In a mass meeting in a school auditorium about a thousand people opposed the research fearing that it would lead to a repository. As one of a handful of those trying to explain the proposal, I found the atmosphere threatening.
In the 1990s the Siting Task Forces (STFs) for Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Management ran into similar trouble, largely attributable to inadequate preparation. The result was that antagonistic attitudes were established in communities before the nature and details of any proposal were known. Social scientists, e.g., Fischhoff and colleagues, claim that how people digest new information may depend on their preconceptions: it either reinforces existing opinions or is rejected. Opinions, once formed, are hard to change.
The lesson to be learned from these experiences is that any potential host community should have available a fair account of what is proposed before opposition arises. In any community there will be some people who will oppose the proposal and they will be quickly reinforced by well organized anti-nuclear groups with prepared material. The NWMO must anticipate this if it is not to repeat history.
The generic information package should contain, in language intelligible to the public, an illustrative description of a repository, essential and desirable geological criteria, an explanation of why it is believed to be safe, an unbiased list of the advantages and disadvantages to the host community including illustrations of mitigation and compensation, and how safe operation would be ensured. This should be available before any approach is made to specific communities and, ideally, before the siting process is announced publicly. While such a generic proposal would not be perfectly suited to any community, it would be better than the alternative, a vacuum.
Another lesson from the STFs was the need, from the start, for a proposal champion. Because the STFs and their Community Liaison Groups (CLGs) wished to be seen as facilitators and unbiased sources of factual information they did not promote the proposal. The communities and their media were subjected to much criticism of the proposal with nobody identified to defend it. The NWMO will have to accept that in its implementing role it is no longer unbiased and has to champion the proposal actively.
The STFs experience also demonstrated that the question of what constitutes the affected community is a difficult one that deserves serious discussion before approaching the public. To avoid causing intercommunity antagonisms the negotiation for benefits and the compensation package should ensure that these are attractive beyond the host community as defined on a narrowly legal definition. Ideally, the attractiveness should extend to all communities that perceive themselves to be subject to the risks. The possibility of having zones of different radius for different purposes should be considered. The need for surrounding communities to learn the positive as well as the negative aspects from the start should be recognized in preparing the generic proposal.
A lack of definition of “community” was one of the factors responsible for the STFs’ first-referendum fiasco in Deep River. This experience demonstrated that any referendum must be carefully planned and managed to ensure its integrity.
CLGs can serve a useful function but, like “community” their composition and terms of reference require advance consideration. The objective should be to have the affected communities feel that their CLGs truly represent them. Direct election, to replace nomination by elected councils, is a possibility. Constitution of a CLG as a committee of council would encourage the council to take a greater interest in the process but would exclude surrounding communities. Having councillors from all affected communities on the CLG might be an acceptable compromise but would impose an additional burden on busy councillors.
The Deep River CLG’s frustration culminated in a mass resignation. Part of the cause was a failure to obtain answers from the STFs for the communities’ questions. STF activities were heavily weighted to the technical while the community sought more information on the social side. Based on STF experience, the NWMO will have to maintain control over its scientific and engineering staff that may, by reason of their training and culture, favour a more technocratic approach. (Some professional codes of ethics require the practitioners to do what is best for their clients, which can be interpreted as requiring them to ignore public perceptions where these differ from their own professional assessments.)
The single page (p.22) of the Draft Plan devoted to the “Siting Process” provides little information on the NWMO’s approach to this vital activity, one on which many previous proposals have foundered. The wording is reassuring in its talk of collaboration. However, reference to “The site selection process…” (stress added) suggest the old paternalistic (DAD) approach of Decide, Announce, Defend. I strongly recommend that the NWMO include in its considerations the voluntarism principle, whereby communities, having been provided with the information package and any desired follow-up, state the conditions under which they would be prepared to accept a repository. The NWMO would still be responsible for selection but only after establishing what communities would require for them to accept a repository in a free market. The selection should be based not only on technical optimization but also on community acceptance. This process was working in Deep River until the relevant federal minister failed to endorse an agreement reached with one of her officials.
First of all, stop spending millions trying to brainwash civilians into hating nuclear power less. If you're serious, use the money to really find a use for the waste you produce so as not to have it come and bite our future generations...or stop producing it.
Chernobyl ring a bell?
Secondly, how can you justify increasing production of nuclear power when it also produces waste at the same rate?
Could you not use your scientific minds to find an economical and safe way to use sun and wind, which I believe do not produce waste? Is it really all about money? Money, to many thinkers, really translates into the rape and eventual destruction of our earth. Just contemplate.
United Church of CanadaPlease post the attached submission, which is a response to Pieter Van Vliet's comments on the past submissions of the United Church of Canada to NWMO.
Submission on the topic: Response to Pieter Van Vliet