Forum : Évacuation des déchets

Au Canada, les propriétaires de déchets sont responsables du financement, de l’organisation, de la gestion et de l’exploitation des installations, des emplacements ou des sites d’évacuation, ainsi que de toutes les étapes applicables de la gestion des déchets, nécessaires à leurs déchets radioactifs.  

L’évacuation est l’étape finale de la gestion des déchets radioactifs, et désigne le placement des déchets radioactifs sans intention de les récupérer. Les activités de gestion et d’évacuation des déchets sont soumises à des exigences politiques nationales ainsi qu’à un cadre réglementaire pour la sûreté.

Les décisions relatives aux méthodes d’évacuation peuvent varier d’un pays à l’autre, en fonction de facteurs tels que la politique nationale, la géographie, les types de déchets, le volume, la mobilisation des Autochtones et du public, les facteurs environnementaux et socioéconomiques.

Avant de participer à la discussion, veuillez lire les lignes directrices sur la modération du site Web de mobilisation en matière de gestion des déchets radioactifs et sur la publication de commentaires.

Dites-nous ce que vous en pensez

Responsive image

1. Quels sont, selon vous, les facteurs politiques importants qui devraient influencer le choix des méthodes d’évacuation par les propriétaires de déchets et qui devraient être pris en compte dans le cadre de la politique canadienne en matière de déchets radioactifs?

Responsive image

2. Quels devraient être les rôles et les responsabilités du gouvernement, de l’organisme de réglementation et des propriétaires de déchets en ce qui a trait aux installations d’évacuation des déchets radioactifs, notamment :

  • Le financement;
  • La fermeture d’une installation d’évacuation et son contrôle institutionnel;
  • La mobilisation des Autochtones et du public et participation à la sélection du site et aux opérations post-fermeture?

Veuillez lire le document de travail (PDF, 774 ko)

Rejoignez le forum de discussion : Évacuation des déchets

Dans la section objet ci-dessous, veuillez insérer le texte intégral de la question à laquelle vous répondez.

Si vous préférez soumettre vos commentaires à notre boîte de réception, veuillez remplir ce formulaire.

Comment Sort

Commentaires

Portrait de Matthew Mairinger
fév 8, 2021 - 11:47

I think after the "specific landfill disposal" bullet point additional criteria should be added to explain when this would be used and to stress this would not be utilized for LLW/ILW/HLW. REGDOC-2.11.1 does not mention "landfill disposal" so I believe it should have clarifying details in the policy.

"The waste owner is also responsible for implementing those plans and ensuring that funding is in place to maintaining institutional control, unless that responsibility was transferred to a third party"- should this be clarified to identify how long the control must be maintained? Should there be a mention of optimization or about revisiting LNT assumptions for when control would no longer be required?

In regards to the question about whether the State's disposal facilities would only accept radioactive waste of national origin or from other States as well I believe there should be a clause added which would state that if we accept fuel from an international origin (i.e. SMR fuel, "spent" PWR/MOx/BWR fuel for feedstock in CANDU reactors, etc.) we should accept disposal responsibility for the waste rather than shipping the waste internationally for disposal. Essentially if we are utilizing the international fuel for domestic energy and are therefore gaining usefulness from the import we should accept responsibility for disposal rather than transporting it back internationally for disposal.

Ultimately I agree that we should continue with the Adaptive Phase management and not be in a rush to permanently dispose of spent fuel as there are technologies/reactors which can still extract energy from them but I strongly encourage the creation of a spent fuel repository as the lack of this facility has been used as an argument that nuclear should no longer be pursued.

  • Like this comment 0
  • Dislike this comment 0
Portrait de David Wood
fév 16, 2021 - 04:32

The municipality of South Bruce along with Ignace are the two remaining communities that may be considered "a willing host" for disposal of all of Canada's spent nuclear fuel. The concept for disposal is by way of a deep geological repository (dgr).
The municipality of South Bruce, where I have been a resident for over 30 years and served on council for two terms in my opinion, is currently split on support for this proposal in spite of several million dollars already contributed from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to the community's "well being". This division has occurred in spite of the process for community discussion or should I say the learning process that has gone on for 10 years now. For the most part the learning process has almost entirely focused on whether the science is good to support this project. However, most residents are of the rural agricultural sector not nuclear scientists and have no expertise to review properly. And those residents who can make their living at the Bruce Power nuclear station and would likely be favorable to the NWMO's proposal as it would enhance the marketability of nuclear power for having solved it's decades old waste dilemma.
In getting to an agreement with a rural community such as South Bruce to be a "willing host" on such a massive ($28 billion estimate) project, one that will truly impact the quality of a rural community of less than 6,000 two things have to occur in the next 2 years:
1. An honest learning process has to take place regarding the socio-economic impacts of this project has to occur led by someone other than the NWMO
2. Assurances have to be made that a formal referendum takes place in the upcoming 2022 municipal elections on a question reviewed and supported by the community as to whether South Bruce is a willing host.

  • Like this comment 0
  • Dislike this comment 0

Ajouter un commentaire