To the editor,
In a letter to the editor sent by Dr. Mirco Walther, D. B. A, titled: “Deep disappointment over council’s opposition to store nuclear waste in Northern Ontario” brings great opposition to his/her letter and a great deal of support for the City of Thunder Bay’s Council.
With respect to Dr. Walther analogy of a deep geological repository (dgr) to be located in Northern Ontario as being the greatest economic turn-point that could possibly ever happen to the Thunder Bay, I totally disagree. I will address each topic separately and state a couple of my own comments to justify why I disagree.
SAFETY
1. Repository in Onkala. The repository has similar ground conditions as that found in the Great Cambrian Shield. No argument here. However, the geology of rock formation should not be over-emphasized. Let’s take the “Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine Bridge-Tunnel that was dug under the St. Lawrence River bed joining Montreal to Reviere-du-Loop, which was completed in 1967. The type of rock formation in this area is sedimentary with multiple fractures and separation in layers. Point being – the type of ground formation is not relevant as engineering has been able to control any seepage of water to maintain safe passing to/from Montreal. Don’t be sold on the ground formation. It was only used by NWMO and their consultants to help sell the idea to ship nuclear waste to an area in the north.
2. Also, it should be mentioned that Onkala is only 5 km. from Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in the municipality of Eurajoki on the southwest coast of Finland. The ‘Proximity Principle’ is applied here. Apparently, Finland had applied the ‘Cost Principle’ as well to their decision not to send nuclear waste to Lapp Land – the most northern district in Finland. The total land mass of Finland is 338.48 km.2, and the total land mass of Ontario is 1.08 million km.2, which equates to about 1/3 the size of Ontario. It would be fair to say that similar land masses could be compared to the whole area of Finland and that of the area of land from North Bay to the southern tip of Ontario. Cost and Proximity Principles application: travel to dgr in Finland – 5 km. < 1/4 hr. drive, and to a dgr at Revel Lake, Ontario – 1,696 km. > 17 hr. drive. I believe that NWMO and any supporters for NWMO should rethink costs and proximity principles and who will end up paying for these costs. It would be everyone who receives a hydro bill. This is not rocket science, and you don’t need a doctor’s degree to do the math here.
3. As quoted by Dr. Walther, it is stated that: “Further, the amount of spent fuel in each transport container is roughly the size of a softball.” You’ve got to be kidding me – a softball. I do not believe that this doctor knows what he/she is talking about.
4. Also quoted by Dr. Walther, it is stated: “These containers are also built to withstand being hit by a train moving at speed.” What speed? I visited a test facility in 2017, and in viewing a video of a drop test from about 2-3 m., the container showed damage at one of the bottom corners. Certainly, damage due to a roll-over and/or bouncing container descending about 30+ metres would surely part the lid from the rest of the container. When I asked the technician why the test was not conducted at a greater height, he said that these containers are very expensive to produce. The impression left behind is that NWMO will not pay large amount of money for the potential of a container that might succumb to more damage if it is used in a practical test simulation. The container would most likely fail if subjected to our northern Ontario’s rugged highways and the long distance of their sloping shoulders.
5. Finally, with respect to another quote, it is stated that: “The likelihood of a highway accident being a major event is slim to none.” Dr. Walther does not provide any empirical evidence to support his/her comment. The empirical evidence is found in the statistics of all of motor vehicle accidents. One just has to read or watch the news and find that Dr. Walther's unsupported opinions are weightless. Conjecture is totally useless.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
7. With respect to recycling spent nuclear fuel, it does not make any sense to transport these bundles of fuel containers all the way to the north and bury them; only to excavate them in the near future. A storage facility can be constructed on surface and near a power generating plant. A surface storage facility would be more accessible to retrieve spent nuclear waste.
8. Finally in this topic, Dr. Walther's assumption that nuclear is the only non-carbon emitting source of energy is very incorrect to state. Perhaps he/she has not heard of geothermal energy. It is used in countries around the world. In fact, our high school heat source has geothermal heating. Holes (wells) were drilled at the time our high school was constructed. As a former miner by trade, I know what the temperature variance is like the deeper you mine. All miners will agree with me on this one. I disagree with all of Dr. Walther’s comments as stated. With the assistance of wind and solar generated power, and the development of geothermal generating plants, Thunder Bay can be a world-class leader in zero-carbon emission of technology. Now, this is a project that Dr. Walther can bring to his/her board meetings – non-toxic zero carbon alternative energy.
NEW TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE THE PLANET
9. Dr. Walther used the sentence: “The future is nuclear”. I would like to re-phrase his/her thoughts. “The future is unclear if you use nuclear.” Council is correct to act in a very cautious way when dealing with the safety of other peoples lives.
Ed Dunnill
Manitouwadge
Please send your letters to the editor in response to my letter. I don’t read “comments”.
