Community Member

These  enclosed comments are submitted as  a community member who resides in Saint John , New Brunswick  about 40 Km from the Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Station .Having followed the nuclear industry in this regional area  for many tears ,I have carefully read  the 72 page summary Initial Project  Description  for the proposed Deep Geological Repository  and offer the following comments ;

First of all the 30 day comment period is insufficient to prepare and provide commentary especially  if one reviews the 1200  page page  full Project Description  document included in the public notice  .  Therefore, this writer would recommend that the comment period be extended beyond the 30 day comment 

At this early stage in the public review process there is as yet no decision that a Comprehensive assessment with  a full Panel review process  will occur . Although it may be assumed such a comprehensive assessment process will occur  under the Impact Assessment Act  ,it is important that  I make  such a recommendation be made to ensure  such an enhanced  public review will in fact  will be made .

 Next point has to do with the need to include that the transportation of the high level  radioactive nuclear waste is included in the Project Description. This  Project would not exist without the transportation of the nuclear waste being transported to the site.   This writer does not have the confidence that the Dangerous Goods Act  and regulations  under the Dept of Natural Resources and the NWMO oversight review mechanisms will be sufficient or robust enough to handle all the many issues  within a wide travel  areas in Canada . The two review  regulatory mechanisms will not ne able to allow  the public along these travel routes ample opportunity to be engaged and offer input . Therefore , it is recommended that the transportation of the high level radioactive waste  be included in the project description to allow the transportation component to revceive the same extensive  robust  review  as the DGR will be under going .

There needs to be included a detailed public participation plan incorporated into the Project Description .  There are rerferences on how the public can participate on the web site etc but  such a specific PP  needs to  customized  to this specific project  . If the transportation component had been included then such a plan would inform the residents along the travel routes on how they will be informed and given opportunity to be  consulted and engaged  This is another reason why the transportation  of the high level radioactive nuclear waste neerdfs to be part of the formal public review .

 One aspect of this project that needs to be included under health impact is what is known as psycho social health effects especially on vulnerable populations . It is well recognized that mental health problems have been increasing over the last  few years . There is no question that this project will for many people generate stress anxiety for other aggravate already fragile mental heralth conditions . In the Executive Summary  there is references to limited  mental health resources in the areas of the DGR .  This entire topic as noted above needs to engage expertise with specialist  from the Public health Agency of Canada who will need  to be  heavily involved in  identifying  and mitigating  the ecpected psyho social health  effects , This topic areas was indentifies in a Public Health Risk Assessment  ordered by the Province of New brunswick's   Dept of Health in 1999  as EIA condition for the expansion of the largest petroleum refinery in Canada.  It was recognized in this report that even the public perception od fear and anxiety of such a project in the city could result in  such fear stress  etc thast it could aggravate   resident existing health condition causing them to get worse  One of the key  mitigation  recommendations to offset this kind of effects was  public information engagement with redsidents  in the area  This writer didnt see much recognition of the expected psychosocial health effects impacts  less still on how such will be managed and mitigated  Additionally  no reference to vulnerable populations such as recently defined by the Halth Canada  .  this needs much more atention as well .

 This writer didnt see much if anything on  alternatives listed respecting proximity principle .  One alternative would be to have this nuclear waste continued to be stored on the sites where it is produced but in enhanced  robust  storage silos  This writer is not opposed  with the DGR in principle providing that there is a Comprehensive Assesment as well the entitre transportation component is included  To be quite honent this writer would prefer to see this high level radioactive  waste material securely buried in this DGR as oppopsed to having in in abobe ground  storage  silos where millions od people reside in Ontario including my adult children  and grandchildtren in and area of Markham , ON about 25 km from the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant  .  

 This public review needs an independent panel that will be working for the public interest just as such a panel was selected for the EIA for  Canaport LNG Project in2004.   Please review the EIA documents as part of that N B   EIA public review process 

At this point i will submit these comments however there may be other issues of concern i would like to submit prior  to the deadline of Feb 4 ,2026.

Respectfully Submitted ,

Gordon W Dalzell, BSW  Community Member