Reader questions need for OPG's proposed DGR at all

To the Editor:
RE: "W5 draws small crowd to town hall meeting about OPG's proposed DGR in Kincardine"

I just read your article about the W5 coverage of the DGR debate held at the Legion. It is good to see open and transparent discussion on this issue that has divided the community.

One aspect of the debate that I have not seen an OPG response to, is simply explaining the need for such a depository. The waste is currently stored safely above-ground and once a solution has been found for the long-term management of spent fuel, the nuclear waste can be managed in a similar way without the need for a second site. I have posed this question to OPG numerous times and never received a response.

My opinion was shared by Duncan Hawthorne (former president and chief executive officer of Bruce Power) who also was at a loss as to why OPG was so hell-bent on the DGR. The current Bruce Power CEO has now revealed his true colours and has thrown his support behind the project, placing Bruce Power on a very slippery slope. In my time, Bruce Power was viewed as a competitive alternative to OPG and now it would appear the lines are very blurred.

On a side note, OPG will not release details on how much has been spent in promoting the DGR project nor how much funding would be given to the host community or other proponents should the project proceed.

One final thought, since OPG has identified other potential DGR sites, some in the Golden Horseshoe area, why not seriously explore those sites since the science supports it?

Regards,
Randy Hughes
Kincardine