New & Noteworthy

A special section to keep you up to date on events, research, and stories relevant to the NWMO’s proposal to site the Deep Geological Repository in South Bruce. It will be updated regularly. Sign up for updates here.

South Bruce All Candidates Meeting Overview

Date: Wednesday October 5th, 2022

Time: 6:30pm to 9:30 pm

Place: Formosa Community Centre, 13 Community Drive

Video: Video recorded and posted to YouTube, post event, with closed captioning

 

AGENDA:

  • Candidate information tables open 6:30 pm

  • Introduction of council candidates 7:00 pm

  • Candidate debate (mayoral candidates only) 7:30 pm to 9:00 pm

  • Close of event 9:30

For information contact: Anja Vandervlies [email protected] 230.226.1254

CANDIDATES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE:

  • For MAYOR - Robert Buckle, Mark Goetz, Rita Groen

  • For COUNCILLOR, TEESWATER CULROSS, - Mike McDonagh, Mark Ireland, Michelle Stein, Gordon Ripley

  • For COUNCILLOR, MILDMAY CARRICK– Jeff Goetz, Audrey Bross

  • For COUNCILLOR AT LARGE - Nigel VanDyk, Mike Niesen, Sandy Bunker, Doug Kreller

  • All Council candidates will be provided with a table for their campaign materials and a chair

  • School Board candidates are also welcome, but space restrictions do not allow sufficient space to provide a table

PURPOSE:

  1. To provide all South Bruce voters with opportunity to meet with the candidates running for a place on municipal council.

  2. To provide all candidates with an equal opportunity to meet voters, hear their concerns, and answer their questions.

  3. For candidates to be able to share and distribute any campaign material they wish.

  4. To host a moderated debate between the candidates for mayor.

MODERATOR:

  • Tony McQuail, Lucknow, ON

  • Tony McQuail and his wife, Fran are semi-retired farmers helping their daughter Katrina on the farm near St. Helens. McQuail served as a Huron County School Board Trustee for three terms and also served as the executive assistant to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs. McQuail has a long-standing interest in democracy and is a member of Fair Vote Canada.

FOR VOTERS:

  1. Registration at the door, name, address, email (optional)

  2. Voters will be provided a card on which to write ONE question they would like answered by the mayoral candidates during the debate.

  3. The questions will be provided to the moderator who has sole authority have the question asked to the mayoral candidates



FOR ALL CANDIDATES:

  • All candidates will be provided with a table and tabletop sign. The sign will provide attendees with the name of the candidate and the position they are running for. Candidates are responsible for providing campaign material and signage.

COUNCIL CANDIDATE SELF-INTRODUCTIONS

  • Each candidate for council will be given 3 minutes on stage to introduce themselves

  • They will be invited to the stage by the moderator

FOR MAYORAL CANDIDATE DEBATE (90 MINUTES)

  • Moderator will welcome audiences, introduce candidates, and explain the format and rules of the debate

  • ROUND 1: Each candidate has a 3-minute opening statement

  • ROUND 2: Moderator will take one question from attendees, from pre-registered community organizations

    • Protect Our Waterways

    • Willing to Listen

    • South Bruce Community and Business Association

    • Mildmay Chamber of Commerce

    • The question will be directed to one candidate, who will then have 2 minutes to answer the question. The other two candidates will have two minutes each to respond. Candidates will not be able to interrupt each other’s statements

  • ROUND 3: Moderator will take questions from the audience, taken from the submitted question cards. The questions may be directed to a candidate or all three. Candidates are limited to a 1-minute answers. Each candidate may response to the other candidates answer

  • ROUND 4: Each candidate will be one question of the other two candidates. Responses limited to 1 minute

  • ROUND 5: Closing remarks by each mayoral candidate (2 minutes)

  • CLOSE of event

  • South Bruce All Candidates Meeting Overview

    Date: Wednesday October 5th, 2022

    Time: 6:30pm to 9:30 pm

    Place: Formosa Community Centre, 13 Community Drive

    Video: Video recorded and posted to YouTube, post event, with closed captioning

     

    AGENDA:

    • Candidate information tables open 6:30 pm

    • Introduction of council candidates 7:00 pm

    • Candidate debate (mayoral candidates only) 7:30 pm to 9:00 pm

    • Close of event 9:30

    For information contact: Anja Vandervlies [email protected] 230.226.1254

    CANDIDATES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE:

    • For MAYOR - Robert Buckle, Mark Goetz, Rita Groen

    • For COUNCILLOR, TEESWATER CULROSS, - Mike McDonagh, Mark Ireland, Michelle Stein, Gordon Ripley

    • For COUNCILLOR, MILDMAY CARRICK– Jeff Goetz, Audrey Bross

    • For COUNCILLOR AT LARGE - Nigel VanDyk, Mike Niesen, Sandy Bunker, Doug Kreller

    • All Council candidates will be provided with a table for their campaign materials and a chair

    • School Board candidates are also welcome, but space restrictions do not allow sufficient space to provide a table

    PURPOSE:

    1. To provide all South Bruce voters with opportunity to meet with the candidates running for a place on municipal council.

    2. To provide all candidates with an equal opportunity to meet voters, hear their concerns, and answer their questions.

    3. For candidates to be able to share and distribute any campaign material they wish.

    4. To host a moderated debate between the candidates for mayor.

    MODERATOR:

    • Tony McQuail, Lucknow, ON

    • Tony McQuail and his wife, Fran are semi-retired farmers helping their daughter Katrina on the farm near St. Helens. McQuail served as a Huron County School Board Trustee for three terms and also served as the executive assistant to the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs. McQuail has a long-standing interest in democracy and is a member of Fair Vote Canada.

    FOR VOTERS:

    1. Registration at the door, name, address, email (optional)

    2. Voters will be provided a card on which to write ONE question they would like answered by the mayoral candidates during the debate.

    3. The questions will be provided to the moderator who has sole authority have the question asked to the mayoral candidates



    FOR ALL CANDIDATES:

    • All candidates will be provided with a table and tabletop sign. The sign will provide attendees with the name of the candidate and the position they are running for. Candidates are responsible for providing campaign material and signage.

    COUNCIL CANDIDATE SELF-INTRODUCTIONS

    • Each candidate for council will be given 3 minutes on stage to introduce themselves

    • They will be invited to the stage by the moderator

    FOR MAYORAL CANDIDATE DEBATE (90 MINUTES)

    • Moderator will welcome audiences, introduce candidates, and explain the format and rules of the debate

    • ROUND 1: Each candidate has a 3-minute opening statement

    • ROUND 2: Moderator will take one question from attendees, from pre-registered community organizations

      • Protect Our Waterways

      • Willing to Listen

      • South Bruce Community and Business Association

      • Mildmay Chamber of Commerce

      • The question will be directed to one candidate, who will then have 2 minutes to answer the question. The other two candidates will have two minutes each to respond. Candidates will not be able to interrupt each other’s statements

    • ROUND 3: Moderator will take questions from the audience, taken from the submitted question cards. The questions may be directed to a candidate or all three. Candidates are limited to a 1-minute answers. Each candidate may response to the other candidates answer

    • ROUND 4: Each candidate will be one question of the other two candidates. Responses limited to 1 minute

    • ROUND 5: Closing remarks by each mayoral candidate (2 minutes)

    • CLOSE of event

  • NWMO extends timeline for site selection on heels of strong ‘no’ from Nishnawbe Aski Nation

    Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Protect Our Waterways members respond

    TORONTO – The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) revised its timeline for the site selection for the deep geological repository (DGR), pushing the date for a final decision back by a year, from 2023 to 2024.

    The announcement released on Aug. 12 comes one day after news broke about the Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) vehemently opposing the whole project being located near Ignace, Ont., one of the two remaining locations being investigated for the DGR.

    Forty-nine NAN chiefs passed a resolution at their recent 40th annual Keewaywin Conference held in Timmins from Aug. 9 to 11, sending a clear message to the NWMO: no nuclear waste on their traditional territory.

    The NWMO says they need more time to provide information to potential hosts for the project.

    “We have experienced significant delays in our face-to-face consultation and interaction activities, particularly in communities exploring their suitability to host the project,” said Lise Morton, vice president of site selection at the NWMO. “Making this small adjustment to our schedule will also give us and potential host communities additional time to review and absorb new information as they determine whether the project’s arrival will align with their vision and priorities.”

    Although Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) has not officially voted on the DGR project in South Bruce, some of its members spoke out after the NWMO’s announcement, reiterating the 2020 vote that shut down the low to intermediate-level nuclear waste DGR that the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) proposed to build near the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant in Kincardine.

    SON member Patrick Lavalley told Midwestern Newspapers that he is opposed to the DGR and believes that SON already made their decision when they voted on the matter in 2020.

    “The Saugeen Ojibway Nation voted 85 per cent against a low-level nuclear waste dump in January 2020,” Lavalley said. “Ontario Power Generation said they wouldn’t build the $2.4 billion underground facility under the Bruce Power site without the SON’s approval. That should have been the end of this issue. Instead, OPG doubled down and is now trying to inflict a medium- and high-level nuclear dump on us.”

    When asked if the decision to wait another year would affect his decision, Lavalley said, “OPG’s altering the nomenclature and re-issuing the question is breaking their original oath to us. My opinion will not change based on that alone. They cannot be trusted at their word.”

    Ephraim Sandy, also a SON member, has been following the DGR discussions for years and opposes the high-level nuclear waste project.

    “There is a giant elephant in the room; no one wants to bridge this subject,” said Sandy. “Look, this nuclear waste will not be shipped, railed, driven out of the territory, period. It’s not going to happen. We said ‘NO,’ however, this reality has to be discussed. We need to leverage what position we have today. And benefit from this impossible situation that isn’t going anywhere before our leverage is taken and they legislate us out of the storage equation.

    “There are no agreements with us for storage. We need to move forward and press them for payment before we even discuss this issue further. Rent is due before we talk about permanent storage.”

    Officially, SON has not decided on the high-level waste DGR being built on their territory, but a source close to the band who chooses to remain anonymous for now said that several “legacy” issues need to be addressed with SON before they would consider any new agreements.

    A source within SON indicated that there would be an announcement soon regarding SON’s position on the DGR.

    Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste (POW-NNW) responded to the NWMO announcement with several points, including questioning the timing of the announcement.

    “Why the sudden decision to delay site selection? Is it a coincidence that this was announced after Nishnawbe Aski Nation Chiefs voted to ‘vehemently oppose’ the NWMO’s concept of a DGR near Ignace?” POW said in an email.

    “Is this delay to allow more time for the NWMO to follow the Systematic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC)? SDIC is a strategy used by several of the NWMO consultants and employees who have participated in this training by Bleiker. Is it to give the NWMO a chance to spend more money in an attempt to manufacture ‘informed consent?’

    “Just because the NWMO is postponing its decision it doesn’t mean the community has to wait until 2024. The current council has time and time again told residents it is too soon for the community to make a decision, yet our current council continues to sign agreements with the NWMO to continue further into the process. We need a council that will listen to the community. Our risk. Our choice. We need a council willing to listen to the voices of the residents and ratepayers.”

    An Aug. 12 media release from the NWMO said, “This schedule change should not impact the overall Canadian plan schedule. Construction of the repository is still expected to begin in 2033, and operation of the repository is expected to begin in the early 2040s.

    “Since 2010, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been leading a process to identify a site for a deep geological repository. The selection of a site is a crucial step which will mark the beginning of a new series of activities, in particular the regulatory decision-making process.

    “With a project of such complexity and generational scope, we always anticipated that we would have to adapt things as we went along without losing sight of our longer-term goals.

    “As with all organizations and businesses, several provincial lockdowns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted our work. Reviewing our five-year implementation plan and considering the impacts of the pandemic, we have made the decision to postpone the timing of site selection. We now expect that we will identify the optimal site by fall 2024.”

  • Medicine and Nuclear Power

    FACT SHEET PRODUCED BY THE CANADIAN COALITION FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY: www.ccnr.org

    Modern medicine does not need nuclear power. In fact, all electricity producing reactors could be shut down permanently with little or no impact on best medical practices.

    1. X-rays & CAT-scans are by far the most common forms of “radiation” used by doctors, dentists
      & nurses in hospitals & clinics. These have nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear reactors.
    2. When X-ray machines and CT scanners are turned off, they are completely harmless. There is
      no more radiation emitted. There is no radioactivity at all associated with such machines.
    3. Occasionally radioactive materials are also used in medicine for diagnosis or therapy. Some
      are used to sterilize instruments & equipment such as masks, gloves, and other paraphernalia.
    4. But radioactivity is hazardous – and it cannot be turned off like an x-ray machine. So the use of
      radioactive materials in medicine requires careful control at all times – before, during & after use.
    5. Radioactive materials for medical use are called “medical isotopes” or “radiopharmaceuticals”.
      Some of them emit gamma radiation (similar to x-rays), others emit energetic subatomic projectiles
      – negatively charged beta particles, or positively charged alpha particles.
    6. All these radioactive emissions are harmful to living cells. Accordingly they can be used to destroy
      malignant growths or to kill microorganisms. At low doses, damage is not immediate but delayed.
    7. Some radioactive materials used in medicine, such as radium, radon and thorium,
      are extracted from naturally-occurring ores and have nothing to do with nuclear reactors at all.
    8. Some radioactive materials used in medicine are created in “particle accelerators” such as
      cyclotrons or linear accelerators. These machines also have nothing to do with nuclear reactors.
    9. Some radioactive materials used in medicine are created in small research reactors that do
      not generate electricity and are typically 20 to 200 times smaller than nuclear power reactors.
    10. A few medically useful radioactive isotopes are produced in power reactors, but these can
      equally well be produced in research reactors. In many cases the very same radioactive material,
      or an equivalent material that serves the same purpose, can be created in a particle accelerator.
    11. Many medical procedures that previously relied on radioactivity have been replaced by
      procedures that are just as good or better and do not require handling radioactive waste.
    12. Example: Winnipeg General Hospital pioneered the use of cobalt-60 therapy to destroy
      cancerous tissues but stopped it in 1970 and now uses beams of charged particles instead. This
      more modern technology has nothing to do with radioactivity or nuclear reactors.
    13. Extremely powerful gamma rays from radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137 are often used to
      sterilize medical instruments and equipment, but this job can be accomplished in other ways
      that do not require the use of radioactive materials at all, including autoclaves and accelerators.

    The use of radiation in medicine, including the use of medical isotopes (radioactive materials), in no way requires the use of large electricity-producing reactors. Small research reactors are just as effective. To paraphrase Amory Lovins, “You do not need a forest fire to fry an egg.”

    FOR MORE DETAILS ON ANY OF THESE 14 POINTS SEE: www.ccnr.org/medical_fact_sheet_2022.pdf

  • Choosing a host site for a DGR will be later than first planned

    The site selection process for a proposed Deep Geologic Repository in Ontario has been extended to 2024.

    The NWMO, the organization spearheading the research, says the extension from 2023 considers the impacts of the global pandemic and the various provincial lockdowns for the shift.

    Officials say the added time will allow for more face-to-face engagement and interaction.

    And it’s also giving people in the area additional time to review and absorb information available.

    Once a site is selected, construction is expected to start in 2033.

    The two communities being considered as host are South Bruce and Ignace.


    Click the title of the news to read the NWMO’s full statement

  • South Bruce Council Vote Shuts Downs Pro-Referendum Petitioners Before Hearing Them.

    Over 1000 residents signed a petition demanding a referendum during the 2022 municipal election vote but have been ignored.

    SOUTH BRUCE, Ontario, December 15, 2021 --- Protect Our Waterways (POW) was shocked to learn during the December 14 South Bruce Council meeting, the mayor and councillors not only debated a motion about holding a referendum on hosting the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Deep Geological Repository (DGR), but also voted unanimously to postpone any community vote on the issue until well into 2023. POW had already been scheduled to present the results of its petition to Council at its first meeting of the New Year (January 11). The Council vote in December denies the opportunity for the over 1000 petition-signers – who want the referendum held alongside the 2022 municipal election - the right to be heard and present their case before a decision was made.

    “Town council continues to belittle, ignore, and undermine the efforts of the residents of South Bruce who may be opposed to hosting the DGR,” said Michelle Stein, Chair, Protect Our Waterways. “To make this important decision without inviting the representatives of over 1000 residents to speak at the debate is unfair. Council was well aware that we were scheduled for the first Council meeting in January but chose to vote ahead of our presentation.”

    At the December 14 council meeting, municipal staff presented a report on the implications of the NWMO-funded Willingness Study. Tony Zettel of the Willing to Listen Group also made a presentation, where he stated, ““We are optimistic that when the community benefits are clearly defined for us that more ratepayers in the municipality will wish to explore this partnership further.” The mayor thanked Zettel and his group “for their position”.

    Stein said, “The council meeting’s agenda was clearly orchestrated to push for the referendum decision that evening. Council had ample opportunity to request that POW present our case as well, but instead chose to listen only to pro-DGR voices.”

    Protect Our Waterways still intends to make its case to Council, as scheduled, on January 11. It will be holding a rally outside Council chambers prior to its presentation.

    Stein said, “It would be wrong to assume that everyone who signed our petition is against hosting the DGR. But they were concerned enough about the Council's decision-making process to sign it. By ignoring them, the Council has only confirmed their worst fears – our municipality intends to manufacture the consent of its residents rather than listen to them.”

    Michelle Stein
    Chair of Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste

  • STATEMENT BY REPS. KILDEE, LEVIN, MEIJER ON MEETING BETWEEN PRESIDENT BIDEN AND CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER TRUDEAU

    November 18, 2021| Press Release
    WASHINGTON—Congressman Dan Kildee (MI-05), Chief Deputy Whip of the House Democratic Caucus, Congressman Andy Levin (MI-09) and Congressman Peter Meijer (MI-03) issued the following statement as President Joe Biden meets with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:

    “Canada is an important ally and trading partner to the United States with whom we work on many binational issues, including protecting the Great Lakes. We are disappointed the Canadian government has proposed building a permanent nuclear waste repository in the Great Lakes basin, threatening the drinking water of more than 40 million people on both sides of the border. A growing number of Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are opposed to this dangerous proposal.

    Continue Reading this Statement Here 

  • Michigan lawmakers want Biden to stop proposed Canadian nuclear waste storage near Great Lakes

    Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are calling on President Joe Biden to formally oppose Canadian plans to permanently store nuclear waste at a facility near Lake Huron.

    Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization has five facilities slated for nuclear waste storage — among them the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in South Bruce, Ontario. South Bruce is about 30 miles east of Lake Huron. While the facility is currently approved for interim waste storage currently, NWMO unveiled plans for permanent storage last year.

    Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Flint, led lawmakers in introducing the resolution. Reps. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, and Peter Meijer, R-Grand Rapids, are also among the resolution's 20 co-signers. 

    “The Great Lakes are the pride and joy of Michigan. They are home to wide range of plant and animal species, generate more than $3.1 trillion in economic activity, support hundreds of thousands of jobs, and underpin Michigan’s flourishing fishing, boating, and tourism industries,” Upton said in a statement.

    “The long-term preservation of these natural treasures remains a top priority for me and the entire Great Lakes Caucus. We can never allow hazardous materials of any kind — particularly nuclear waste — to be stored anywhere near the Great Lakes. Period.”

    Continue reading this article at the Holland Sentinel →

  • Draft Willingness Study published by NWMO funded consultants

    Study shows community preference for referendum

    Four months after beginning its community-wide consultations, the draft results of the South Bruce Willingness Study Report identified a public referendum as the preferred method to determine the willingness of the community to host the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Deep Geological Repository (DGR). Of the 229 South Bruce residents who participated in the public meetings (virtual and in-person) and online surveys, 136 confirmed a referendum as their preferred method. The study was conducted by GDH Consulting for the Municipality of South Bruce using funds provided by the NWMO.

    “We are pleased to see the Willingness Study reflect our long-held position,” said Michelle Stein, Chair, Protect Our Waterways. “A binding referendum is the only legitimate way to determine willingness. It guarantees everyone a voice and respects both their choice and their privacy.”

    Quotes from some of study participants are highlighted in the report include:

    “Processes that do not provide an opportunity for input by all citizens cannot be true and full representations of community willingness.”

    • “Ability to move on with lives after vote. Sooner the better. The people have a voice.”
    • “All residents need a method to voice their willingness or unwillingness.”

    Stein said, “Hosting the DGR will permanently change the character, reputation, and economy of our community. Every resident and business will have to live with the risks and any promised benefits for generations to come. Such a momentous decision cannot be made a small group of people, however well-intentioned they may be.

    Stein said, “We urge the Mayor and Council of South Bruce to move quickly and include a binding referendum as part of the next municipal election in October 2022. Our community must be given the opportunity to answer a clear yes or no question on whether we want to host the NWMO’s DGR.”

    A link to the published study is here.

  • Sweden taking more time to determine safety of copper canisters proposed to store nuclear waste

    Sweden, the country that designed the original nuclear waste container concept, has delayed their decision on approving the DGR concept as the Sweden government request more research and examination of the copper cannisters proposed to encapsule and seal the nuclear waste at the site. The issue of corrosion discovered in test canisters was identified by Sweden’s Land and Environmental Court in January 2018.

    Copper’s corrosion rate was earlier underestimated. (Credit: mkg.se.)Photo:

    Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) stated: https://www.develop.w3539.hemsida.eu/en/mkg-and-member-organisations-to-the-government-say-no-to-the-spent-fuel-repository-or-continue-to

    “the copper corrosion results from the 20-year experimental packages if they are reported in a fully scientific way can show that copper does not behave in the repository environment in the way SKB describes in the safety analysis of the application. The organisations understand that it cannot be ruled out that for this reason SKB took as long as possible to retrieve the LOT experimental packages, then did so in the secretly and after this was discovered, initially claimed that the results would not be presented until after a licence for the application had been given.”

    According to the Norwegian journal Bellona When haste makes risky waste: Public involvement in radioactive and nuclear waste management in Sweden and Finland - Bellona.org

    “SKB’s research was found to be incomplete and, in certain cases, inaccurate. It turned out, for instance, that there is significant disagreement over the estimated corrosion rate of the copper canisters – which are considered the main engineered barrier to prevent the escape of long-lived radionuclides into the surrounding environment. SKB asserts the canisters will remain intact for the next 100,000 years, while independent university research shows that copper’s corrosion rate in an oxygen-free environment but in the presence of salty seawater is considerably higher than expected and that the canisters may start to decay within the first thousand years.”

    Click here to view an update from the Swedish government from the end of August.

  • NWMO funds copper corrosion research at Western University

    The actions of NWMO prove that “DGR is safe” is a hope and not a fact.  More testing required – so why push to develop site until technology is proven safe?

    Posted at https://news.westernu.ca/2021/08/nwmo-research-used-nuclear-fuel/

    A corrosion scientist newly appointed to Western will add research heft and innovation in the international quest to safeguard used nuclear fuel. Samantha Gateman, an award-winning electrochemist, is the new chair in radiation-induced chemistry at Western. Gateman’s research will be funded through a new $1.1-million grant from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).

    Gateman’s arrival will bolster the university’s already-strong team of chemistry, physics and engineering researchers who are acknowledged leaders in testing nuclear-waste storage solutions. Currently at Sorbonne Université in France, Gateman will begin her work at Western in January 2022.

    The NWMO is responsible for implementing Canada’s plan for the safe, long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The organization’s plan for Canada’s three million used fuel bundles includes containing and isolating them in copper-coated steel containers and then placing the containers in dense bentonite clay within a deep geological repository. But the NWMO first needs rigorous testing of every element of its nuclear storage strategy.

    Laurie Swami, CEO of the NWMO

    In that research, Western is the NWMO’s longest-running university partner, said Laurie Swami, president and CEO of the NWMO. The organization has invested millions into Western’s anti-corrosion research and other projects in chemistry, engineering, physics and earth sciences over the past two decades.

     

    “It’s important to have a robust understanding of the underground conditions, including corrosion conditions, that would exist in a deep geological repository,” Swami said. “That requires really qualified researchers as well as strong programs … Western is one of the ones we’ve worked with the most.”