February 29, 2016
1899
Dear Editor:
This is my second letter of rebuttal, in response to a letter dated Feb. 27 (to both Saugeen Shores and the County of Bruce) regarding the federal minister of climate change and environment’s request for more information about the low- and intermediate-level waste DGR, which was sent to Saugeen Shores council. This letter was used as a basis for my delegation at the Saugeen Shores council meeting Feb. 29.
I hope that my additional comments help to correct any lingering misunderstandings that the letter writer continues to have.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: As a former councillor and mayor for both the former Town of Kincardine and the new Municipality of Kincardine and now a current resident of the Township of Huron-Kinloss, I am here tonight to address and clarify a few of the misconceptions related to Ontario Power Generation (OPG)'s proposed low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste Deep Geologic Repository (DGR). Also, I am a retired nuclear engineer and a member of both the PEO (Professional Engineers of Ontario) and the PMI (Project Management Institute) with my PMP (Project Management Institute) designation.
THE TOP 10 MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING OPG'S PROPOSED DGR
No. 1 - 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.
No. 2 - 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. Also, the European Union has adopted the DGR as the standard. Even when Generation III & IV reactors are brought on-line, that produce less nuclear waste than current types of reactor and also when nuclear fuel reprocessing is used, there will still be a need for DGRs.
No. 3 - Low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste will be dumped on the shoreline of the Great Lakes – a very poor choice of words. These types of 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.
No. 4 – Flint, Michigan, public water supply issue - the Flint, Michigan, public water supply situation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. In fact, referring to it is just a red herring to distract people’s attention and promote fear-mongering.
No. 5 - 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.
No. 6 - Is the DGR safe? – Yes. The Independent Assessment Study, prepared at the start of the study period, was accepted by Kincardine council. The municipality accepted the concept of a DGR over continued above ground storage (i.e. the status quo) and enhanced above ground storage.
No. 7 – Are housing prices protected? – Yes. Bylaw # 2004 – 157 was passed Oct. 13, 2004. This bylaw is called “Property Value Protection Plan (PVPP)”. Property owners will be provided with compensation, as per terms of the plan, for any economic losses to their home.
No. 8 – What about our American friends? – several politicians in Michigan have concerns about this DGR. All of us should be concerned about the safety of the water in our Great Lakes. It is absolutely essential that long-term storage of low- and intermediate-level waste in this DGR proceed as it offers the greatest level of protection to the Great Lakes than other alternatives.
No. 9 – What about Climate Change? – once the low- and intermediate-level waste is safely stored underground in its DGR, it is protected from re-glaciation when it occurs in the future.
No. 10 – Is it moral and ethical to build this DGR? – Yes, otherwise I would not support it. In my opinion, we need to discuss “energy ethics” and promote a fuller understanding between philosophers and theologians on the one hand and engineers and scientists on the other.
In summary, I respectfully request that Saugeen Shores council support the motion for continued support of OPG's proposed DGR project.
Respectfully submitted,
Glenn R. Sutton
Former mayor of Kincardine
Retired nuclear engineer
Related Stories
No related stories.