Bruce C Nuclear Project Public Comment

My name is Lydia Schroeder-Hart. I am a resident of south-eastern Manitoba. I am involved as an activist with an anti-nuclear organization but this comment is my own personal response to the proposed Bruce Project.
The Bruce Nuclear project is proposed to be doubled to be the largest nuclear generating energy project in the world. it will also generate a correspondingly increased amount of spent highly reactive nuclear waste. 
There has been a process in Ontario to plan for a Deep Geological Repository at Revel by Wabigoon Lake in Ontario which would serve as the repository for nuclear waste from across Canada that is a matter of concern for me as a Manitoba resident. I am located within the Winnipeg River watershed. The Deep Geological Repository is untested in practice. The plan is for projects like the proposed Bruce site to transport their nuclear waste to the Revel site, then the waste will be unloaded, processed for depositing into the DGR and then executing the deposit. There are expected to be 5 truckloads per day for 50 years. Wabigoon Lake drains into Rainy River which drains into Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg River which drains into Lake Winnipeg. There is also a shallow fault line that runs from Wabigoon Lake to Lake Winnipeg. The watersheds are connected. If an accident occurs (a spill or packaging and unpacking or processing for deposit to the DGR, or within the DGR), the contamination at that scale would affect the human, animal, plant and fish populations on the Winnipeg River system and Lake Winnipeg as well as North-west Ontario. I'm deeply concerned that not enough research has been done to assess the health and welfare impacts to human, animal, fish and environmental health in the event of accidents and that the proposal appears to treat those risks as remote possibilities. I'm sure every nuclear accident that's occurred has been considered a remote possibility before they occurred. There is a lot of room in the proposed processes for human error that could result in such accidents. 
The issue is that nuclear fuel is highly dangerous to human, plant, animal and fish health so it is necesssry to fully research those worst case senarios that so far I haven't seen addressed. If an accident occurs, then what? Can it be mitigated or is it a very long term massive disaster? How many people will die and of what? It is necessary to eliminate as many steps that could result from human error, weather or road condition hazards and assessments that are necessarily specific to the technology proposed. If you've ever driven north-western Ontario roads in the winter you should readily understand where there might be concerns. If the nuclear energy industry is going to result in ongoing accumulating highly reactive waste, this seems like a huge risk to present and future generations and it isn't by far the least expensive technology to construct and use and provide for the end of life for the waste. It begs the question, why are we doing it?