Engagement

Members of the Review Panel,

I have four significant cocncerns:

(1) Whilst the public announcemnts mentions two first nations there is no actuall statement that there has been any actual consultation with the First Nations, concerning risks, risks assoicated with actual storage, transportation, funding, on going responsibility, long term responsibility and funding, potential increase in volumes, type and level of danger of the "nuclear waste". Until this "Consultation" can be demonstrated that it is complete, by declaring when it started, who was included, what was discussed, including all of the above, it appears to me that the announcement is not only premature but also illeagal. The required consultation is a first step not a last step.

(2) Without the complete scope of the "Storage of Nuclear Waste" known, inlcuding where it will be transported from, by what routes, how much, and what types, with full involvement of all persons including, transportation engineers (for bridge, roads, rail lines etc),  transportation design (of the containment vessels for the nuclear waste), f of all the municiplaities through which the "waste" will be transported, any announcment must be considered premature and be declined until this basic work scope is defined.

(3) History continues to repeat itself, in who will pay for this "Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste". Will the existing Utilities and OWners of the Nuclear Power Plants, actual pay not only for todays costs but all associated costs for the next 160 years?

Where is the "Risk Register" that identifes all and every risk to this proposal, with the mitigation action, and the resultant risk if the mitigation action is completed, without such a Risk Register it is impossible to assess the risk and viability of the Long Terms nuclear Storage Facility.

In effect this announcement is not only premature, but diseigned to get approval to proceeed with actually fully defining what is being approved, at what risk level and  at what cost.