February 22, 2016
1670
Dear Editor:
RE: Ontario Power Generation (OPG)'s proposed Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) for low-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste at the Bruce Nuclear site in the Municipality of Kincardine
Please find below my rebuttal to a series of five similar letters (dated Feb. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14), purporting to be attempts to sway the new federal minister of climate change and environment regarding a decision for the Joint Review Panel.
Before I start to comment, I hope that the author ascertained her “facts” before writing her letters.
I noted the repeated use of three words in these letters – reject, stop, and quash. These are very harsh words to use. They almost imply a note of desperation.
My comments are as follows and they apply to several main themes in the letters:
No one consulted us - This is blatantly false. A Community Consultation Centre was opened on the main street of Kincardine and staffed at all times by both a municipal member of council and an OPG representative to welcome people in and answer questions. Displays were also located there. A variety of methods was used to communicate with the public, such as newsletters, presentations, advertisements, etc. The public dialogue was then followed by a Community Consultation. A separate report to council was made along with an independent review of the results. The results were positive and thus the Municipality of Kincardine became a willing host community (by passage of Bylaw # 2004-157) on Oct. 13, 2004). This negates the statement in the third letter: “I would like you to be aware of the unscrupulous charade that project proponents called a public consultation.”
Every DGR in the world has failed – This is not true. Representatives of our council visited several sites in Europe and the United States to determine the best technology available. An underground DGR is the universal standard.
Low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste will be dumped on the shoreline of the Great Lakes – a very poor choice of words. These statements are very misleading. The Western Waste Management Facility has safely stored this waste for many decades now. The actual location of the proposed DGR is below the water table and at a very deep level that ensures safety by several orders of magnitude over the two other options considered.
Catastrophes involving public water supplies - the Flint, Michigan; Walkerton; and California drought situations have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. In fact, their reference is just a red herring to distract people’s attention and promote fear-mongering.
The rock used in the DGR is not appropriate – around the world several geologic media have been considered for disposal of nuclear waste, including clay, shale, tuff (volcanic ash), basalt (volcanic rock), salt, and hard rock. The DGR would be located 660 metres below ground surface in low permeability limestone with overlying low permeability shale.
I hope that these comments help to correct any misunderstandings that the letter writer may have had.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenn R. Sutton
Former mayor of Kincardine
Retired nuclear engineer
Kincardine
Related Stories