Concerns re Ignace repository for Nuclear waste

Good morning

i have shared concerns for the past several years during the NWMO about the development of this project in our region. These concerns and questions I have presented have not been addressed by NWMO via Facebook, nor when I asked in person at their presentation in our community. (Nor followed up on despite promises to do so and taking my contact information with a promise that someone would contact me.  Here are my concerns:

Process for getting "host communities". 

During the selection process the community of Ignace was told their community would grow to 5,000 people. Based on that community members have suggested our school board needs to plan for the population of the school to quadruple. When checked on this was inaccurate information provided to the community upon which they agreed to be a host community for a property 40+ km beyond their town limits. 
The way the host  questions were phrased also was misleading. The questions were misleading for voters. 
The reason I begin with this point is many of us are very concerned about the safety of our region long term when inaccurate and misleading information is used in decision making.  When Inwas reading the background material on NWMO's site I was very concerned about safety and mentioned this in a FB post in discussions in response to one of their posts. With a few days that research paper was taken offline and unavailable to people. This shows that this was not just mistakes by NWMO but deliberately misleading people in our area. There was a campaign to win over the host community not based on safety but on coercion and straight up bribery with money distributed to many area communities to win over their support. Not what a safe process looks like. 
So I am very glad to raise the following safety concerns about the site and look forward to scientific and professional responses to ensure the long term safety of our generations to come. 
 

Safety concerns/questions

1. Long term monitoring: while the plan seems to be to close the site after 160 years, from what I have read the material will be heating up for 10,000 years and the half life is 250,000 years. What plans are in place for monitoring the area long term and what will be done if there is an issue ( who will pay and take responsibility for the damage and fix it)?

2. Water: while it being said by NWMO during their campaign that no water will be affected by the repository, technical papers referred to it being safe because by the time it reached where communities would be affected it would be diluted and therefore safe. Having worked in mines in the region at similar depths there will likely be water and cracks which if not there now being heated for 10,000 years will likely create ways water moves through the site. How will this be managed and why if the support of Indigenous people and their permission was to be freely received is the letter from the chief of Grassy Narrows being ignored?  They are downstream from the project and have already been traumatized by the Mercury from the Dryden mill. This water flows from the site to Wabigoon Lake, past Kenora to Manitoba and into the Arctic Ocean. A massive watershed that must be protected for central Canada!  How will the safety of the watershed be ensured for the next 250,000 years with respect to this project?

3. Transportation 

We experience many accidents on our highways which are the only roads across this country. Already this winter we have had many deaths and damage creating road closures of 8 hours or more. How will you keep the material being shipped safe for over 2000 kms on our mainly single lane highways. If trains are used there are also derailments and difficulty responding to remote areas for cleanup.  
So how will you ensure safe transportation of the material and also not result in long term closures on our roads if there is an incident along those routes?

4.  Finally what exposure of radioactive material will occur on site?  NWMO told people that the material would be simple brought and put in the ground ... but from what I read there is repackaging of the materials that will created "low level nuclear waste" which will be dealt with and stored at another repository elsewhere ... this other repository does not exist yet so what is the plan for this waste?

As you can see we are very concerned as this is the future of our region which currently ( upstream of Dryden) is pristine wilderness and with a strong tourism based economy. If you allow this project I go forward please be ABSOLUTELY sure our area and families safety is ensured for the next 250,000 years!