| Nuclear Waste: Don’t Worry,
Be Happy? To the editor: I am writing in regards to D. Ellis’ letter to the editor “Keep on keeping on” (Jan. 15th) in which he offers his opinion on my “A perspective on nuclear waste” article (Jan. 8th). Mr. Ellis claims that I make my living from “stirring up your doubts.” It seems to me that Mr. Ellis’ response to the questions I raise boils down to little more than “don’t worry, be happy.” As was noted in Anne Andres’ letter to the editor of your paper last week, Mr. Ellis does not substantively address any of the concerns I have raised regarding nuclear waste, its incremental build-up on our shoreline at the Bruce site and the apparent lack of financing for the permanent disposal of this waste, here or elsewhere. Putting our heads in the sand regarding nuclear waste issues does a disservice to future generations. It’s not an easy issue to deal with. But now is the time to tackle this. These issues are real. In my opinion, they cannot be seen as a gift we give our children. Since the 1950’s at the dawn of the age of nuclear power in Ontario, authorities have told the public that a permanent solution for the problem of toxic nuclear waste is just around the corner and that we must all have faith. Experts are looking after this. But the solution is still not here. And now we have ever growing piles of nuclear waste at reactor sites, particularly at Bruce and the shoreline of Lake Huron. Like Mr. Ellis, I have a specialty. My expertise is in actuarial/financial analysis and risk management. I am a certified actuary, and I have analyzed many of the substance and situations on this planet too. My calculations suggest that the owners of this nuclear waste appear to have a severe underfunding problem for its disposal, and that this situation may get even worse in the not too distant future. I’ve offered some of my concerns in the article Mr. Ellis wants you to ignore and just be happy. Neither he nor other authorities have offered a substantive reply. Apparently, there will be a referendum this year in the Municipality of Kincardine to determine whether all the low and medium level radioactive nuclear waste at Bruce, imported from all of Ontario’s commercial nuclear reactor sites, is to be permanent. This wasn’t supposed to be the plan. Documents suggest that at least some of this waste was to be co-located with the often publicly promoted centralized site for high level waste (mostly used fuel bundles). That high level site has yet to be identified by any agency. Do they plan to put all of Canada’s nuclear waste above ground here? “Hey, folks, you agreed step by step to take the rest of it, so why not take the worst too!” Would this be a prudent thing to do? The Americans are proposing to bury their nuclear waste deep inside a mountain (Yucca) in Nevada, and even that is considered controversial and dangerous by many scientists! A new “Waste Management Organization, ” whose board of directors is comprised only of industry representatives, has been created under new federal law to make its recommendation within three years on how to permanently dispose of Canada’s high level nuclear waste. Underfunding for nuclear waste limits the options they may propose. That is another reason I suspect a less expensive recommendation to centralize all of Canada’s high level waste at Bruce may be on the table. I believe our community already is exposed to more than its fair share of risk for the good of all citizens of Ontario, even given the local economic benefits we have seen. When do we cross the line in terms of concentration of risk? OPG was effectively ready to leave this community in economic turmoil in 1997 by shutting down the reactors at Bruce “A.” The only ongoing operation that OPG still runs at Bruce nuclear is the waste site. Nuclear plants were not designed to run forever. The cold reality is that in 20 years, all that will probably be left at the Bruce site is the waste operations, which will employ relatively few but yet possibly continue to import low, medium and perhaps high level waste from other places. In order for the public to make an informed opinion, they need to be informed. In addition to hearing about the positive economic benefits, this also means not glossing over or avoiding discussion of the potentially negative aspects regarding nuclear waste issues. Last week’s letter from Anne Andres also suggested “Being concerned about the proper storage of nuclear waste is appropriate and a vigorous debate should be held to assure that the public is not put at risk!” Perhaps OPG would sponsor a public discussion forum? I would be happy to participate in the exchange of statistics, documentation and financial/risk estimates. I respectfully suggest to Mr. Ellis, OPG and the Municipality of Kincardine that such a forum would be in the public interest and should be encouraged. Normand de la Chevrotiere |