April 28, 2016
1926
Dear Editor:
RE: "Reader cites misinformation about OPG's proposed DGR project, once again"
I recently read the Feb. 29, 2016, Letter to the Editor, submitted by Glenn Sutton and felt that it lacked both substance and research.
As a resident who has serious concerns about the proposed repository, I have spent thousands of hours researching and obtaining information on this project.
Several of Mr. Sutton's assertions are blatantly incorrect.
Indeed, the Municipality of Kincardine set out to quickly survey the community in January, 2005, regarding the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Repository project. The municipality was given a short timeline by OPG in which to conduct the survey and chose to do a telephone survey. Many residents of the municipality are away during January, so this timeline immediately disenfranchised a portion of the population.
Mayor Larry Kraemer promised on several occasions, especially during his mayoral race, to conduct a referendum on the project but this did not happen.
Credible pollsters would tell you that a telephone survey is not a reliable way to obtain accurate results. As well, polls normally exclude anyone who has direct and indirect employment ties to the proponent of the project on which you are commenting.
There has been much said about the content of the local study area survey but, in fact, a deep geological repository was not mentioned in this survey nor was nuclear waste. The main thrust of the survey was to indicate that the municipal politicians were in favor of the project and that it was a "permanent solution" for the Western Waste Management Facility.
In addition, the municipality grouped all respondents who chose not to give a yes or no response under the "yes" category in order to boost the numbers. Without that manipulation, 60 per cent of the respondents were in favour - a weak majority, with snowbirds and seasonal residents not able to participate.
Mr. Sutton dismisses the failing repository history around the world. This confounds me, as it is fact that three deep geologic repositories have indeed failed and there are no other deep repositories constructed and functioning at the moment.
The ASSE 11 repository in Germany is an environmental disaster; the Waste Innovation Pilot Project in New Carlsbad, New Mexico, had an internal combustion explosion in February, 2014, and is still not able to be examined nor is it operational. The Morsleben repository in Germany, which was constructed in a salt mine, is in jeopardy of collapsing.
I have never read that opponents to this project are insinuating that the waste will be dumped into Lake Huron. Locating this facility immediately adjacent to Lake Huron is a risk that we need not take in a large country with so much available land. The minister of the environment and climate change has asked for other sites to be studied. This is a wise approach. Having one municipality offer to host the project and receive millions of dollars is not sufficient for a project of this magnitude to go forward with its environmental repercussions.
It is interesting to note that Saugeen Shores was on the list to host a second repository for high-level nuclear waste but it was eliminated from the site options because the host rock was not suitable.
Mr. Sutton talks with certainty about the type of rock chosen for this project. However, no other repository (either proposed or constructed) has been housed in sedimentary rock. The Seaborne Commission, 1999, after 10 years of study, recommended that, should a repository be the chosen option (of four suggested proposals), it should be housed in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield.
The Joint Review Panel in its report (page 115), criticized OPG for not taking into account future advances in technology that may eliminate the need to store nuclear waste (of all levels).
Mr. Sutton refers in his letter to the Property Protection Plan. There is a lack of specificity and detail in the reference to this item in the Hosting Agreement. In this text, there is the need for a property owner to prove contamination before any compensation is considered. In addition, such property is evaluated at the discretion of the proponent. Home insurance does not cover nuclear incidents, so protection is strictly by the proponent.
Although Mr. Sutton insists that the Flint water crisis is not connected to the OPG project, it is but one more example of why citizens need to be alert relative to their water supply and it is, unfortunately, an example of elected officials turning a blind eye to risk when money is a higher priority and when human error cannot be controlled. In the past, our society has had a trusting approach to people in charge of the oversight of our water, but like the Flint water situation and the Walkerton water contamination, this trust can be betrayed.
Many of the opponents of the repository and, in fact, the council in Kincardine, as well as the management of Bruce Power, have adamantly said that Kincardine does not want to host the repository for high-level nuclear waste. However, Neil Menage, a councillor in Saugeen Shores, recently questioned the need for two repositories at the council meeting, indicating that one repository should suffice for all levels of waste.
I understand why Mr. Sutton supports the OPG project - he was a nuclear employee and the co-signer of the Host Agreement. However, his lack of outside research and his simplified statements are misleading.
Marti McFadzean
Inverhuron
Related Stories