Dear Editor,
Sarah Trevor (Letter to the Editor, Dec. 12) clearly fails to understand Gordon Edwards’ thoroughly objective and factual letter of Dec. 8 on the subject of nuclear reprocessing.
While Ms. Trevor’s misunderstandings will hopefully be rectified when Dr. Edwards is invited to Creighton, it is important, meanwhile, to correct her on one point of fact.
She states that “NWMO has rejected reprocessing as being too risky.” One does not have to read far in NWMO’s own literature to find that this is not the case. In “Frequently Asked Questions – Adaptive Phased Management,” NWMO states: “In Canada, any decision to reprocess would have to be made by the nuclear operators in conjunction with government and the regulators.... NWMO would be responsible for the long-term management of high level wastes resulting from reprocessing and we continue to monitor ongoing research in the area of recycling used nuclear fuel.”
Other NWMO documents consider in detail options for retrieving used fuel rods – which would of course be necessary for reprocessing.
Reprocessing may not be on NWMO’s current active agenda but it remains a future possibility – and if official policy moves in that direction, then any community hosting a repository will have little choice in the matter.
It is therefore a valid concern for any community on NWMO’s list. Any attempt to censor discussion on reprocessing would be a disservice to the people of the Flin Flon-Creighton area, and to all who live downstream and downwind of them.
