To the editor,
I am writing regarding the recent Community Liaison Committee meeting, where selected South Bruce residents who had toured Finland’s deep geological repository (DGR) in Onkalo, provided reflections on their experience in a prepared question-and-answer forum.
Although I was also a part of the same exploratory team, I did not attend the meeting nor will I attend any future meeting so long as the CLC refuses to conduct them in a public forum. I would point out that I had presented my concerns on this issue in July to the CLC, only days after we had returned from Finland.
At that time, I was asked to prepare an online report of the trip to present at the next CLC meeting. I expressed my concerns and was assured they would formally be presented to the committee. I was later told postponing the presentations to allow for a public-attended meeting would disrupt the CLC scheduling of other presentations. My request was denied and the meeting went on as scheduled. I don’t have the exact number, but as with most such meetings probably fewer than 24 viewers tuned in online to hear the Finland discussions – somewhat disappointing considering the time, money, and work volunteers went to learn and later report to this community on Finland’s DGR.
We are no longer in the middle of a pandemic, so why the need for such technical social distancing?
These virtual Zoom meetings, held by both the CLC and council, only further alienate and discourage community engagement regarding an issue that has the potential to change this community forever. And how accommodating it is for the CLC (and NWMO?) that any inconvenient or probing questions that may come from the public during a meeting can easily be limited if not reworded in an online forum. This especially applies to the latest meeting in which the questions were prepared by the CLC and given before the meeting to those members to answer.
Although I did not attend this recent meeting regarding Finland’s DGR, it does not mean that I am without impressions and concerns about it, or whether its design applies to the one put forward by the NWMO. There are similarities and glaring differences as well.
First of all, it is located close to the current nuclear facilities of Onkalo and within a community historically acceptable and supportive of the nuclear industry. Much like Kincardine and Port Elgin, most of the locals’ livelihood is dependent on the future of nuclear power. But unlike South Bruce, very few, if any, living close to the Onkalo DGR work in the agricultural sector. It is not likely that a transport carrying spent nuclear fuel to the Onkalo facility will have to share the road with a massive combine or a Mennonite horse and carriage.
Second, regarding the Onkalo operation itself – I agree with others on my team who were most impressed by the containment facility that will transfer the highly-toxic fuel rods into the copper-plated cells to be later entombed in the DGR. But It is interesting to note that the facility is designed to handle only the current type of spent fuel that comes from Finland’s reactors. I was told, while in Finland, that dealing with toxic spent fuel from future small nuclear reactors (SMRs) will require an entirely different strategy for encapsulation and storage.
Finally, I was rather concerned while walking deep into the Onkalo DGR how much running water I saw on the floors near where the entombment holding cells were drilled. Our tour guide said it was just typical runoff from drilling operations. Yet I can say I had such concerns even before this trip when I viewed a documentary (Into Eternity, 2010) about Onkalo, which showed workers deep within the DGR plugging up, with a simple caulking gun, water flowing through the rock walls. Perhaps only a concern if the caulking technique doesn’t hold, but hardly reassuring as an “internationally acceptable practice” I would suggest.
David Wood
Mildmay
