High-level irradiated fuel waste (spent nuclear fuel) is considered one of the most dangerous and hazardous materials in the world, primarily due to its intense radioactivity, high heat generation, and long-lived toxicity. Certain radioisotopes within the waste remain hazardous to human health and the environment for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. High level irradiated nuclear fuel waste has been steadily accumulating in Canada for more than five decades. 

Many people who have studied the problem agree that there is no good solution to the issue of what to do with this waste. All possible strategies have drawbacks and none is guaranteed to keep this toxic waste out of the biosphere for the unimaginably long time period that it will be hazardous.

In Canada, a nuclear industry-owned body, the “Nuclear Waste Management Organization,” is pursuing a deep geological repository for this waste despite the fact that a decade-long  Environmental Assessment Panel Review of the concept (the Seaborne Panel) found that it was not socially acceptable. The NWMO recently produced draft guidelines for its proposed deep geological repository project. Input was invited from the public. Hundreds of civil society groups and individuals from across Canada submitted comments, most expressing strong reservations about the proposal.

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area’s comments on the initial stages of this project are appended below. Our concerns can be summarized as follows:

– The Initial Project Description does not provide a clear, fully detailed plan for nuclear fuel waste management. 

– Discussion of activities at reactor sites, such as fuel storage (including prolonged storage), and fuel transfer into casks, is inadequate. 

– Key topics such as fuel types, design and function of transport casks, means of transport, and transportation routes, are not well addressed or are omitted altogether. 

– Also inadequately addressed are the following ~  the need for, and functions of, the Used Fuel Packaging Plant, the
Underground Characterization Facility, the shallow cavern for centralized storage, and the radioactive liquid waste handling facility. 

– Repository design alternatives (shaft versus ramps) have not been considered.

– The draft Guidelines are supposed to identify specific factors to be considered by a Review Panel in assessing the DGR project, and provide direction for the NWMO in preparing an Impact Statement. In their current form, the draft Guidelines would not allow a credible assessment.