NWMO reaffirms safety of Canada's 1st nuclear waste repository but there's still heavy pushback
CBC
The body tasked with selecting the future storage site for Canada's nuclear waste has reaffirmed its confidence in the project's safety, but others remain concerned about the potential risks of burying spent nuclear fuel hundreds of metres below the earth's surface.
By the end of this year, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is expected to decide on its preferred site for the country's first deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.
The potential locations are:
Earlier this month, the NWMO released updated "Confidence in Safety" reports, which say both sites are suitable for the safe, long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel.
However, We the Nuclear Free North and the First Nations Land Defence Alliance, for example, remain concerned about what's known as the Revell site in northwestern Ontario.
The alliance issued a letter to NWMO president and CEO Laurie Swami on March 5, saying: "Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying 'no' to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace. We call on you to respect our decision."
Paul Gierszewski is a technical subject matter expert with the NWMO and lead author of the "Confidence in Safety" reports, which build on previous reports but include more details around geology, design and safety assessment.
While the Revell site is composed of crystalline rock and the South Bruce site of sedimentary rock, "they both meet our criteria for that stability, durability, hydraulic barrier, suitable chemistry."
"They're both good sites. We think that both of the sites would be safe," Gierszewski said.
Brennain Lloyd is project co-ordinator with Northwatch, which is part of We the Nuclear Free North. Members of the organization feel less confident about the project's safety, she said.
"I think this newest report from the NWMO tries to put the best face possible on a project which is absolutely loaded with risk and uncertainty, and uses a lot of language that's difficult for the public, for non-technical leaders to work through," Lloyd said.
"There are no resources available in any part of this process for the public to be able to get technical assistance from independent third-party peer reviewers."
While Gierszewski says the 2023 reports expand on the previous year's findings, Lloyd questions whether they contain new information or airbrushed statements that "paint a better picture."
Gierszewski said more detailed assessments will be done once the preferred site is chosen.