DGR for used nuclear fuel should not be sited near Great Lakes, says writer

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has been talking about safety - now more than ever, since there are people out there voicing their concerns about the proposed DGR (Deep Geologic Repository) for used nuclear fuel in South Bruce.

Despite the NWMO recently trying to placate the public on safety, I am adding my name, again, to that list of those concerned.

In science, there is something called the scientific method. It's essentially the pattern that most everything has to follow to ensure success. It starts with an observation, then a hypothesis, then experimentation, data analysis, and finally, a conclusion.

Similarly, the engineering design process follows this path: defining the problem, background research, specifying requirements, creating alternative solutions (and choosing the best and developing it), building a prototype, testing and redesigning, and finally, communicating the result.

Why am I talking about this? Both the scientific and engineering side of developing have a very important step: experimentation and prototyping. There is one key, unrepairable, problem with the idea of a DGR – we cannot actually experiment or prototype it on a scale that would give accurate information.

Think about it this way, according to the NWMO’s website, “Used nuclear fuel remains hazardous, essentially indefinitely.” How are we to reasonably produce a prototype and test it in a way that represents infinity? We haven’t had nuclear technology for 100 years, so we have to base millennia on merely decades.

Now, I understand the NWMO does research and is doing smaller scale tests to see what it thinks will work in perpetuity. However, because of the nature and the scale of a DGR, the real test will be implementation.

There have been deep storage sites for nuclear waste worldwide, and there have been problems. But there has never been one here. Does that make a difference? Absolutely. We have a specific set of our own circumstances, from the rock type, water flow, arrangement of the tectonic plates, etc. And we have one thing that no one else does – the greatest source of fresh water in the world.

Here’s where the problem lies. I have no doubt the NWMO will try to design the DGR to be as safe as it can be - although even the NWMO admits there is no guarantee. But do we really want the first real Canadian test of just how effective a DGR is, to be by the Great Lakes?

In science and engineering, you always test first, and you don’t test on your most valuable subject. But with the DGR, we have little choice.

If South Bruce is chosen as a site for this DGR, South Bruce becomes the guinea pig for the rest of the world. The Great Lakes Basin becomes the subject of a project that has no prototype. Theory and designing are great, but they don’t hold up to the gold standard of testing - a standard that, in this case, cannot be satisfactorily met unless someone invents time travel.

No location is different in that we have no real prototype; however, we have to decide what we’re willing to risk. All I ask is for it not to be the Great Lakes. Not here.

Laura Cardinal
Lucknow