Safety would come first for regulators in deciding whether Creighton could store nuclear waste, but it’s too early to say whether such a project would indeed be harmless.
That was the message Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) officials brought to a public meeting last week to discuss the controversial question of whether the town should host the nation’s radioactive waste.
“There’s been no application submitted right now,” said Julie Mecke, a senior project officer in the waste and decommissioning division at CNSC. “Our commission has made no decision, so at this point, absolutely, I can’t say it’s safe when we’ve had no application.”
But Mecke stressed that if an application is made to deposit the waste in Creighton, CNSC would have full regulatory oversight and require the project be proven safe in the short and long term.
Mecke said the process of obtaining a CNSC licence typically takes about two years, but she believes it would be a “lot longer” and involve many hearings for an underground repository to store used nuclear fuel, the type of project Creighton is investigating.
The repository would be subject to extensive safety inspections, either planned or unannounced, Mecke said, adding that the facility operators would also have to submit reports to prove regulatory compliance.
Though she would not make the decision herself, Mecke said her sense is that CNSC would have a site office near the repository, wherever it ends up being built.
Mecke made the comments as a guest speaker at a meeting of the Community Liaison Committee (CLC), which forms a bridge between the public and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the agency mandated to find a location for the repository.
Mecke and colleague Karina Lange, who works in environmental risk assessment at CNSC, found themselves bombarded with questions from an inquisitive, sometimes skeptical public at the Creighton Community Hall.
Since the repository would be built underground, Lange was asked how regulators can ensure there are no fractures in the adjacent rock once construction begins.
Lange said work to determine the existence, size and location of fractures would be completed before the placement of any nuclear waste.
“There are a number of barriers in place,” Lange added. “It’s not just the rock itself…so what lacks in the rock could be made up, to some extent, in the [other] barriers [around the waste]. But there are milestones all along the way to prove that what [the operators of the repository] have modelled is actually what they’re finding. If they do find a giant fracture, they’re not going to keep going.”
Lange stressed the independence of CNSC, saying it is not working with NWMO on any research. She also said CNSC does not solely rely on research supplied by the entities it is tasked with licensing.
In response to another question, Mecke said a repository storing Canada’s nuclear waste would be subject to CNSC licensing “forever” under the existing licensing policies.
Mecke said the waste in question will remain radioactive for millions of years, a comment that surprised some of the roughly 40 members of the public in attendance.
But Mecke said the safety record around the transportation of nuclear material in Canada is “very good.”
Mecke said nuclear substances are transported every day, such as in the form of medical isotopes, and there have been no accidents resulting in “radiation jumps” affecting the public or transport drivers.
Some other, more pointed questions from the public were directed at the CLC members themselves.
At one point Nadine Smart, a vocal anti-repository activist, rose from her chair brandishing a homemade placard that read “No Dump Say No” below an obscured image of the trefoil, the international symbol for radiation.
Smart called out as bogus claims from the CLC that use of the trefoil on protest signs is illegal. When she asked NWMO spokesperson Mike Krizanc about the legality of using the trefoil, he replied: “I know what I’ve read in the paper. It’s not illegal.”
Earlier this year, the CLC voted to urge area municipalities to remove from public places any protest signs that bear the trefoil. Creighton complied with the request while Flin Flon declined.
At last week’s meeting, another woman from the audience appealed to the CLC to examine research on the social and health impacts of “dividing a remote community.” The suggestion drew applause from several audience members.
The CLC also faces a decision on whether to bring in as a guest speaker Dr. Gordon Edwards, an anti-nuclear activist and head of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
Suzanne Daigle, a concerned area resident, told the CLC that Dr. Edwards is willing to come to Flin Flon and Creighton as early as mid-October in exchange for a $2,000 honorarium plus travel expenses.
Daigle argued that a visit from Dr. Edwards would go a long way toward educating the community beyond information presented by NWMO. The CLC added Dr. Edwards to its list of possible speakers.
The CLC meeting ran more than two hours, much longer than initially planned. When CLC co-chair Rod Gourlay initially tried to wrap up the meeting’s question period, he was met with resistance from the public, so the queries continued.
A composed Gourlay said the CLC appreciates people’s questions and, like the public, is learning about nuclear waste storage.
“We’re trying to understand this, too, and we’re not going anywhere until we do understand it,” said Gourlay.
