Buz Trevor laments that politics played a decisive role in the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project for burying nuclear waste in the USA (Letters to the Editor,
Dec. 19).
But NWMO is looking for a “willing host community;” if a potential community is not willing, for whatever reason, is it not entitled to say “No”?
If becoming a storage site for Canada’s high-level nuclear waste is such an appealing economic prospect, why does Manitoba have a law forbidding it? Why has the Quebec National Assembly unanimously opposed it? Perhaps Mr. Trevor does not believe that communities should be allowed to say no. If that is his premise he should say so.
When the US tried to site a high-level nuclear waste repository in the northeast USA, the Canadian government under Brian Mulroney sent a diplomatic note through its ambassador in Washington saying that Canada would not look kindly on a high-level waste repository on the US-Canada border in a watershed draining into Canada. That move was prompted by Sherbrooke MP Jean Charest, who later became leader of the federal Progressive Conservative party and, eventually, Premier of Quebec.
Regarding NWMO’s effort to allow Canadian nuclear waste producers to abandon their nuclear waste in some remote community, Mr. Trevor seems to be labouring under three misconceptions.
First, the idea of a temporary centralized storage facility is built right into the NWMO’s Adaptive Phased Management strategy. There is no commitment at the present time to turn the temporary facility into a permanent one, as that decision is left to future generations, after all of today’s decision-makers have passed away.
Second, the decision to reprocess irradiated fuel, after it is moved to the selected community, will be made by the waste producers and the government, not by the host community.
Third, the Ontario Porter Commission didn’t endorse the notion that there is a solution to the nuclear waste problem. It recommended a moratorium on new nuclear plants if the problem isn’t solved, or on the way to being solved, by 1990. This puts NWMO is in a conflict of interest, since it is a creature of the waste producers, some of whom plan to build new reactors.
Besides the undisputed importance of governmental politics, there is political manoeuvring from the nuclear industry too. The industry claimed decades ago that nuclear waste is not a technical problem but a public relations problem. Since then, cost estimates have escalated from hundreds of millions to tens of billions, and unexpected technical problems have delayed implementation. Such uncertainties led the California Energy Conservation and Development Commission to conclude that there is no final solution to the nuclear waste problem at hand, and may never be one.
The only deep geologic repository for nuclear waste in North America is in New Mexico. The waste there is less radioactive than high-level waste, but still dangerous. In February a container exploded underground, and 22 workers at the surface – more than 700 metres away – were contaminated with plutonium dust. The facility has been closed since then.
Many organizations think nuclear waste shouldn’t be moved off-site, away from the reactors, until there is a proven safe method for neutralizing it. Meanwhile a policy of “rolling stewardship,” with constant monitoring and retrievability, can be pursued.
There are many considerations that need to be aired in public with input from knowledgeable people of all persuasions – not just nuclear enthusiasts, and not just nuclear skeptics.
