Nuclear waste transport risks to be conveyed

THUNDER BAY -- Two groups will make presentations at the Feb. 14 meeting of Thunder Bay city council's Inter-governmental Affairs Committee, citing the dangers of transporting nuclear waste through Ontario.

Dodie LeGassick, of Environment North, will illustrate the transportation risks of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's (NWMO's) proposed plans to transport all of Canada's nuclear fuel waste into Northwestern Ontario via Thunder Bay and bury the waste at a site between Ignace and Dryden.

LeGassick said she presented a deputation to Thunder Bay city council in September asking them to adopt the proximity principle by requesting that the province of Ontario have the nuclear waste kept nearest to the point of generation as possible.

"They are doing this now and have been for the last 56 years, and they've been doing it successfully because it avoids the inherent risk of transporting the toxic waste over long distances and over long periods," LeGassick said.

"It's going to be two to three truckloads a day for 50 years each carrying 190 nuclear fuel bundles from as far as New Brunswick and Quebec. The majority of it will come from southern Ontario."

She said councillors "haven't really considered their constituents about this whole issue, so we want them to give their constituents a vote, or a survey, anything that shows that they're considering all of the interests of this community."

She added the second piece is about liability and the risk on the transportation route along Highway 11-17, Highway 102 and the rail line coming right through the city and through Marina Park.

"Check your own home insurance. Loss and damage due to a nuclear incident or contamination is likely not covered in anyone's household insurance policies," she pointed out.

The three active groups opposing the transportation of nuclear waste through Thunder Bay include Nuclear Free North, Nuclear Free Thunder Bay and Environment North. Each has been running petitions to determine willingness which has garnered more than 17,000 opposing signatures.

Wendy O'Connor, with Nuclear Free North, will make the second presentation that evening and focus on the ethical considerations, the willingness and the issues around consent.

"All of the communities along with transportation routes from southern Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec are not going to be consulted as far as consent to the project," O'Connor said.

She added the communities in the watershed of the potential project in Northwest Ontario are also impacted.

"Downstream, you have Dryden Grassy Narrows First Nation, Kenora and all the little communities around Lake of the Woods out towards Winnipeg and Hudson Bay and none of those communities are being canvassed for consent," she said.

Vince Ponka, Nuclear Waste Management Organization's communications manager, says there is a strong international safety record for transporting used nuclear fuel.

"The transportation in Canada wouldn't begin until at least the 2040s when the repositories are operational and that's important to know," Ponka said.

"There's a lot of time for ongoing planning as well. But in terms of safety, shipping (of used nuclear fuel) around the world has been going on for more than 60 years with more than 20,000 shipments around the world, covering more than five million kilometres and none of those have caused harm to people or the environment as a result of the release of radioactive materials."

He added they would need to prove to regulators that that transportation package won't open.

"We will have to study the entire route and make sure that even in the worst accident scenario, that package will remain closed and that there'll be no release of radiation," he said.

"In terms of risk to that radiation getting out, we'll have to prove to regulators that that's not a concern."

The Chronicle-Journal