SUBMISSIONS BY JOHN MANN TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA
JOINT REVIEW PANEL DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROJECT
by
John Mann, Registered Participant Citizen of Saugeen Township and Port Elgin, Within the Municipality of Saugeen Shores, Bruce County, Ontario
Volume XXX of XIII
John Mann Citizen, Registered Participant Saugeen Township and Port Elgin within the Municipality of Saugeen Shores Bruce County, Ontario
February 27, 2017 John Mann
Written Submissions DGR Record Table of Contents
Volume I of XIII: pages 1-212
Volume II of XIII: pages 213-426
Volume Ill of XIII: pages 427-644
Volume IV of XIII: pages 645-855
Volume V of XIII: pages 856-1,069
Volume VI of XIII: pages 1,070-1,173
Volume VII of XIII: pages 1,174-1,327
Volume VIII of XIII: pages 1,328-1,450
Volume IX of XIII: pages 1-145
Volume X of XIII: pages 146-308
Volume XI of XIII: pages 309-476
Volume XII of XIII: pages 477-603
Volume XIII of XIII: pages 604-6680
Volume XIV of XIII: pages 669-716
Volume XV of XIII: pages 1-308
Volume XVI of XIII: pages 309-720 Volume XVII of XIII: pages 721-866
Volume XVIII of XIII: pages 867-984
Volume XIX of XIII: pages 985-1,080
Volume XX of XIII: pages 1,081-1,361
Volume XXI of XIII: pages 1,362-1,516
Volume XXII of XIII: pages 1,517-1,599
Volume XXIII of XIII: pages 1-211
Volume XXIV of XIII: pages 212-454
Volume XXV of XIII: tabs 1-7 [pages 1-56]
Volume XXVI of XIII: pages 57-248
Volume XXVII of XII: pages 249-437
Volume XXVIII of XII: pages 438-470
Volume XXIX of XII: pages 471-676
Volume XXX of XII: pages 677-886 Page 1 of2
John Mann [77
From: "John Mann"
August 4, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario:
Question 3: The fact that there is no need and no urgency to build the OPG DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at Kincardine is also confirmed and proven by simply asking the further following question:
"To transport nuclear waste or not to transport nuclear waste?-- that is the question! For over 10 years now, in an effort to support its safety-case for its DGR on-site for low and intermediate nuclear waste at Kincardine, OPG has successfully scared all of us by repeatedly warning about the extreme
8/4/2016 Page 2 of2 ~ 7J1 dangers and exorbitant costs associated with transporting nuclear waste through our Community to a DGR off-site. As a result, how can OPG ever support transporting OPG's spent fuel to a DGR off-site?"
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
8/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi etje vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je reyois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je revois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes colh~gues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de l'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre reyu a cette adresse.
8/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete rec;:u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
8/4/2016 Page 1 of 1 Gt! John Mann
From: "Nash, Kenneth E."
Your message
To: Nash, Kenneth E. Subject: "In support ofOPG's safety-case for its DGR on-site in Kincardine, OPG has warned us about the dangers and costs of transporting low and intermediate waste to a DGR off-site. How can OPG ever support transporting OPG's spent fuel to a DGR off-site?" Sent: Thursday, August 04,2016 1:10:57 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Thursday, August 04,2016 1:21:14 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
8/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Comments"
Thank you for writing to the Office ofthe Auditor General of Ontario.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. We carefully consider all information at our disposal in selecting and planning our value-for-money audits, including any information that has been sent to us by the public. Please be assured that we will provide your email to the relevant Audit Director for his or her review.
If any follow-up is required to answer your query or ifwe require any additional information from you, the relevant Audit Director will contact you.
For information about our Office, our mandate and our upcoming reports, as well as for copies of our past reports, please visit our website at www.auditor.on.ca
Sincerely,
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario
--This email (including attachments) may contain confidential, personal, legally-privileged, copyrighted information, or information exempt from disclosure under The Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.35. Contact me immediately if you are not the intended recipient and delete this email from your system and do not use, distribute (forward), copy, or disclose its contents.
8/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/4/2016 1:26PM
8/4/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 5, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario:
Questions 4, 5, and 6: The fact that there is no need and no urgency to build the OPG DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at Kincardine is also confirmed and proven by simply asking the further following questions:
"Question 4: In addition to not being able to justify NWMO spending an unimaginable and obscene $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars to merely "talk to 18,000 Canadians about their views on storing nuclear waste/' who authorized paying, and why was Tom Mitchell [an unelected and unaccountable
8/5/2016 Page 2 of2 G1r government bureaucrat and civil servant] paid an obscene $2 Million Taxpayer Dollars a year to lead OPG and lead the disastrous and rigged 2-Track 2-DGR catastrophe? And same question for what the new leader is paid?;
Question 5: And how [what, where, when, who, and why] did embattled SNC-Lavalin come to be the key player in the rigged DGR process? and who, what, where, when, why, and how did Albert Sweetnam become Director of the OPG DGR process after previously being an executive within embattled SNC-Lavalin?; and why did Mr. Sweetnam, after being Director of the rigged OPG DGR, abruptly leave OPG on the eve of the JRP DGR Public Hearings?;
Question 6: And who authorized [and why?] OPG to include in the DGR Hosting Agreement with Kincardine the 30 years [2005 through 2034] of yearly scheduled obscene payments [totaling in the Millions of Taxpayer Dollars] to 6 Municipalities in our DGR Bruce County Community, but only if all of the 6 Municipalities used "best efforts to support the DGR/' and including bonuses to municipalities for writing a letter of support to the JRP even though no referendum was ever taken to gage the Community support, e.g., a $500,000 bonus check to Saugeen Shores for a 1 page letter of support to the JRP without knowing what percentage of Citizens and Taxpayers might be in favour of the DGR?
Consider all of these questions in conjunction with this Freedom of Information request to obtain all documentation related to the questions. All Citizens and Taxpayers require answers and documentation for this wasteful obscene Taxpayer Dollar spending that continues unabated because none of our government officials and so-called "leaders" have had the decency to respond to and stop this obscene Taxpayer waste on an obvious 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle. Let the Public and Judicial Investigation begin to obtain answers for all Citizens and Taxpayers that our government officials and so-called "leaders" ignore and refuse to answer without penalty or recourse. The absolute arrogance and abuse of power in this rigged 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is shameful! Democracy and Trust in government have been unnecessarily destroyed in this process and continues daily!"
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
8/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line {613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re<;u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
8/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Comments"
Thank you for writing to the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario.
This is to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail. We carefully consider all information at our disposal in selecting and planning our value-for-money audits, including any information that has been sent to us by the public. Please be assured that we will provide your email to the relevant Audit Director for his or her review.
If any follow-up is required to answer your query or if we require any additional information from you, the relevant Audit Director will contact you.
For information about our Office, our mandate and our upcoming reports, as well as for copies of our past reports, please visit our website at www.auditor.on.ca
Sincerely,
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario
--This email (including attachments) may contain confidential, personal, legally-privileged, copyrighted information, or information exempt from disclosure under The Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.35. Contact me immediately if you are not the intended recipient and delete this email from your system and do not use, distribute (forward), copy, or disclose its contents.
8/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite avotre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de l'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re<;u a cette adresse.
8/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
Your message
To: McKenna, Catherine- M.P. Subject: "Why obscene $2 Million Taxpayer Dollars a year to leader of OPG and DGR?; Why SNC Lavalin in DGR process?; and Why 30 years of obscene DGR payments to Bruce County Municipalities? And related FOI requests!" Sent: Friday, August 5, 2016 11:23:48 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, August 5, 2016 11:32:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
8/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/5/2016 11:35 AM
8/5/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 9, 2016
Hi MPP Lisa Thompson and MP Ben Lobb:
It is time our elected and unelected government "leaders" finally answered the Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns related to the DGR process!
As you are aware, the Citizens and Taxpayers that you represent have not been able to obtain any answers to our innumerable emails [over the past 4 years] sent to our elected and unelected government "leaders" related to the DGR process. Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, OPG President Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, NWMO President Ken Nash, CNSC President Michael Binder, Auditor General of Ontario Bonnie Lysyk, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, and Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson, all refuse to answer and respond to Citizen and Taxpayer questions and concerns related to the DGR process set forth in our countless unchallenged emails wherein the DGR process has proven to be the Taxpayer boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles. This is inexplicable shameful disrespect shown by our government "leaders" that have the privilege and honour of working for the Citizens and Taxpayers asking these grave
8/10/2016 Page 2 of2 bf't-- questions. MPP Thompson and MP Lobb, we are writing to you as a last resort prior to Judicial mandamus intervention to find out why these public servants ignore and simply refuse to answer our grave questions and concerns. After finding out why they have ignored us and shown such utter disrespect and contempt to us, please then have them finally answer and respond to our questions and concerns. And also have Minister McKenna answer the pending questions posed directly to her by our Free Press. Our Free and Democratic Society that you are elected by and sworn to protect and preserve depends on it!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
8/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
Your message
To: McKenna, Catherine- M.P. Subject: It is time our elected and unelected government "leaders" finally answered the Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns related to the DGR process! Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:15:32 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, August 9, 2016 5:15:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
8/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je rec;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je rec;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de !'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre rec;u a cette adresse.
8/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re~u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN {613-995-0479).
8110/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Lauren Hanna"
Your message
To: Lauren Hanna Subject: It is time our elected and unelected government "leaders" finally answered the Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns related to the DGR process! Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:15:32 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:20:07 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
8/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN)"
Your message
To: Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN) Subject: It is time our elected and unelected government "leaders" finally answered the Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns related to the DGR process! Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:15:32 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Tuesday, August 9, 2016 10:22:35 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
8/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "MPP Lisa Thompson"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/10/2016 11 :28 AM
8/10/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From:
Thank you for contacting the office of Ben Lobb, Member of Parliament for Huron-Bruce.
MP Lobb welcomes hearing from constituents on issues that are important to them. A reply to your email will be provided as soon as possible.
Due to the high volume of email correspondence, priority response is given to residents of Huron-Bruce and to emails of a non-form letter or "email forward" variation. Likewise, if you are not a constituent, then please contact the Member of Parliament for your riding.
If you are a constituent of Huron-Bruce who requires a response from our office, and if you:
• have verified this by including your complete residential postal address and a phone number, a response will be provided in a timely manner
• have not included your residential postal mailing address, please resend your email with your complete residential mailing address as well as a phone number and a response will be forthcoming
Also, if you're a constituent with an urgent matter, please call the constituency office in Goderich at
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
8/11/2016 Page 2 of3 700
Office of Ben Lobb, MP for Huron-Bruce
P:
E:
From: John Mann
August 9, 2016
Hi MPP Lisa Thompson and MP Ben Lobb:
It is time our elected and unelected government "leaders" finally answered the Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns related to the DGR process!
As you are aware, the Citizens and Taxpayers that you represent have not been able to obtain any answers to our innumerable emails [over the past 4 years] sent to our elected and unelected government "leaders" related to the DGR process. Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, OPG President Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, NWMO President Ken Nash, CNSC President Michael Binder, Auditor General of Ontario Bonnie Lysyk, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, and Auditor General of Canada Michael
8/11/2016 Page 3 of3 (,;;; Ferguson, all refuse to answer and respond to Citizen and Taxpayer questions and concerns related to the DGR process set forth in our countless unchallenged emails wherein the DGR process has proven to be the Taxpayer boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles. This is inexplicable shameful disrespect shown by our government //leaders// that have the privilege and honour of working for the Citizens and Taxpayers asking these grave questions. MPP Thompson and MP Lobb, we are writing to you as a last resort prior to Judicial mandamus intervention to find out why these public servants ignore and simply refuse to answer our grave questions and concerns. After finding out why they have ignored us and shown such utter disrespect and contempt to us, please then have them finally answer and respond to our questions and concerns. And also have Minister McKenna answer the pending questions posed directly to her by our Free Press. Our Free and Democratic Society that you are elected by and sworn to protect and preserve depends on it!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
8/11/2016 Page 1 of2 lo1- John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 17, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario:
Congratulations to Minister ofthe Environment Catherine McKenna for being honoured as one ofthe Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers in Canada by the prestigious Canadian Lawyer publication for August 2016. The Canadian Lawyer predicts "McKenna, backed by a majority government with an environmental sustainability mandate, is the first environment minister to stand a chance of effecting real change." Citizens and Taxpayers are fortunate to have a Minister cloaked with such high praise. This lofty position among all Canadian lawyers makes it all the more difficult to understand why
9/4/2016 Page 2 of2 l 0} Minister McKenna refuses to respond to Citizen and Taxpayer Due Process questions and concerns related to the obvious failure and unnecessary Taxpayer expense of the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that must certainly be replaced by a sensible and meaningfull-DGR process for all nuclear waste. All Citizens and Taxpayers in our Free and Democratic Society now look to Minister McKenna to use her acknowledged influence and leadership as a Top 25 Lawyer in her new found role related to arriving at the best possible solution for the grave nuclear waste debacle and nightmare confronting Canada and our planet. Spending billions of Taxpayer dollars on the OPG DGR for clothes and rags is not the answer. It is not necessary. It is not urgent.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann 7oY
From: "John Mann"
August 19, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna:
In all of my wonderful40 years of practicing law [since 1977 in Michigan, and since 1993 in Ontario], I have never received such an insulting and absolutely demeaning letter [attached] from a colleague. Please read your letter again as it relates to my attached May 28, 2016 email that you were responding to! An inexplicable response! And when can I now expect meaningful answers to my grave questions and concerns as a Citizen and on behalf of the Citizens and Taxpayers relying on me to pursue this? It is a very sad day in our Free and Democratic Society that we both have spent defending throughout our careers!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
From: Ministre I Minister (EC) Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:59 PM To: j
914/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to ec.media.ec@canada. ca.
9/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
Your message
To: McKenna, Catherine - M.P. Subject: John Mann's Response to Reply from the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change- MIN 205001 Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:59:25 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, August 19, 2016 2:05:46 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
9/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Your message
To: Ministre I Minister (EC) Subject: John Mann's Response to Reply from the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change - MIN 205001 Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:59:25 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, August 19, 2016 2:34:19 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
9/4/2016 Page 1 of7
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 26, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario:
Hi Minister McKenna:
Overview:
Please review the attached letter sent to me from Minister McKenna on August 18, 2016, as it responds and relates to my attached email dated May 28, 2016. I had asked Minister McKenna to dismiss the OPG DGR application because there was no need to build a separate clothes and rags DGR
9/4/2016 Page 2 of7 (o~ when spent fuel would remain on the surface and all nuclear waste must be part of a 1-DGR process i.e. it is undisputed by all that the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is a complete waste of Taxpayer dollars. Minister McKenna simply says that the Citizen and Taxpayer concerns over this obscene Taxpayer waste is an issue for "adaptive phased management" and "falls within the mandate of my colleague, the Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources." Minister McKenna copied Minister Carr with her comments. Minister Carr has never responded to this issue despite being asked over and over. Minister McKenna then summarily dismisses my Citizen and Taxpayer concerns related to the obscene waste of Taxpayer dollars by condescendingly telling me: "I encourage you to continue to participate in the review process." Why would Minister McKenna "encourage me to continue to participate in the review process" when she has already summarily dismissed my undisputed and unrefuted Citizen and Taxpayer concerns related to the obscene unnecessary waste of billions and billions of Taxpayer dollars related to the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle? Our government inexplicably has adopted an unwavering policy to separate the 2 DGRs -1-DGR for clothes and rags and 1-DGR for spent fuel. The government refuses to combine the 2 DGR processes! And why is "adaptive waste management" not interested in clothes and rags?- because a DGR for clothes and rags is not necessary. It would not matter if OPG investigated every acre of Canada to determine if it was a suitable site for a clothes and rags DGR clothes and rags simply do not need to be stored in a DGR and there is no urgency to store them in a DGR while the fate of spent fuel remains on the surface for at least the next century. And if it is necessary to bury clothes and rags in a DGR to protect Citizens, why have we been lied to for the past 50 years that the nuclear waste has been safely stored on the surface in our Community? And of course it is beyond anyone's wildest dreams that our government might want to amend its illogical [even by government standards] mandate not to combine resources, research, and efforts in finding one solution for all nuclear waste- instead of blindly following 2 separate DGR paths without any cooperation of any kind! And all because Kincardine Council and OPG invented the 2-Track 2-DGR inept boondoggle! How is this possible anywhere on the Planet? Minister McKenna in her attached letter of August 18, 2016, has confirmed that the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles is cast in stone, impossible to amend, and prejudged and predetermined! In other words, the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is rigged, a done deal, benefitting the likes of SNC-Lavalin, and there is nothing any Citizen and Taxpayer can do about it! Participate if you want- but to no end! It is useless! There is no participation, no Democracy, no Due Process! As a result, Minister McKenna has established an actual bias, an appearance of bias, a reasonable apprehension of bias, and Minister McKenna must recuse herself from the DGR process because she has proven by her attached August 18, 2016 letter that she cannot be impartial, neutral, and independent, and will only allow OPG to participate in the continuing process while at the same time allow OPG to set and dictate the Agenda as to how to proceed! It is shameful and despicable- and well-earned by our government! The absolute disrespect shown to Citizens and Taxpayers in this 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is stunning and shocking! If a separate clothes and rags DGR was necessary the so-called leaders of this process would have answered my em ails years ago. They have not answered because they agree and it is undisputed and unrefuted that there is no need for a separate clothes and rags DGR and it is only an idea dreamed up by Kincardine Council over a decade ago so that Kincardine could receive Taxpayer handouts. And OPG allowed the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle to become entrenched for over a decade and now no one can save face from the embarrassment and humiliation caused by following such an absolute inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible boondoggle. The dogged consistent following of the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle has been successful thus far at avoiding media exposure because of the purchase of Freedom of Press by obscene advertising revenue by government and owner friends monitoring what is published. Again, 2 words sum all this up- shameful and despicable!
9/4/2016 Page 3 of7 1{0 1. By letter [attached to this email], dated August 18, 2016, Minister of the Environment McKenna finally responded for the first time to any of my 43 em ails that expressed grave questions and concerns about the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle.
2. A review of Minister McKenna's attached letter establishes that Minister McKenna did not answer or respond in any way to any of my grave questions and concerns that required the termination of the 2- Track 2-DGR boondoggle in favour of a meaningfui1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. This is made clear by simply reviewing Minister McKenna's attached letter in relation to just one of my approximate 43 emails that Minister McKenna decided to attach all by itself to the Minister's answer and response [and also attached to this email for review and dated May 28, 2016]. In fact, Minister McKenna states in her attached August 18, 2016 letter:
"Thank you for your most recent correspondence of May 28, July 16, July 26, July 27 and July 29, 2016, as well as your previous correspondence earlier this year, concerning the [DGR]."
This statement is not accurate. My most recent correspondence with Minister McKenna starting on May 28, 2016 included the following emails to Minister McKenna that she does not even know about and does not even mention, set forth as follows: my emails to Minister McKenna dated:
June 9, 2016 June 27, 2016 June 30, 2016 July 8, 2016 July 20, 2016 July 21, 2016 August 1, 2016 August 2, 2016 August 3, 2016 August 4, 2016 August 5, 2016 August 17, 2016
Prior to May 28, 2016, I had also sent approximately 26 emails to the Minister of the Environment of Canada expressing my undisputed questions and concerns that requires the Minister to terminate the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle in favour of a 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. In addition, on August 19, 2016, and without copying anyone, I again asked Minister McKenna to actually and finally answer my questions and concerns that were totally ignored in her attached August 18, 2016 letter to me. As ofthis email [dated August 26, 2016], Minister McKenna has not responded [other than providing a "read receipt"] to my request for her to answer and respond to my undisputed questions and concerns. As a result of Minister McKenna's failure to answer and respond to my undisputed and unrefuted questions and concerns of Citizens and Taxpayers, I have copied the rest of the list above to show the absolute failure of meaningful Citizen and Taxpayer participation in this 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle of all Taxpayers boondoggles. Citizens have no say and are left with the unaccountable
9/4/2016 Page 4 of7 ltl arrogance of our government officials who dictate to us that they know what is best for us- and there is nothing we can do about it! This is why the Judiciary must intervene to check this abuse of power wherein Citizen Democratic Rights are destroyed and Taxpayer dollars are squandered at the expense of our starving health, education, and legal aid budgets- all in the name of the inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles.
3. In my view, Minister McKenna's non-response and non-answer to my grave questions and concerns addressed in my 43 emails over the past year is insulting, demeaning, and condescending from a top government elected and accountable Public official.
4. What are Citizens and Taxpayers to do when a top government official simply brushes your grave questions and concerns aside with the following main quotations from Minister McKenna's non responsive August 18, 2016, letter attached?:
"I note the concerns you have raised in your letters and appreciate the effort you have made in order to bring these issues to my attention."
What kind of response is that to my May 28, 2016, email attached here? There simply is no need for 2 DGRs. There simply is no urgency for a clothes and rags DGR while spent fuel remains on the surface for the next century. There simply is no need to spend an extra billions and billions of Taxpayer dollars to build 2 DGRs when only 1-DGR can store all nuclear waste. And all nuclear waste continues to be safely stored in one facility above ground. That is why Minister McKenna refuses to answer the simple questions and concerns that are set forth in my attached May 28, 2016 email and my other 42 emails and Record of 28 Volumes delivered to Minister McKenna. If Minister McKenna answered the Citizen and Taxpayer questions and concerns, the Minister would have no choice but to terminate the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud in favour of a 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. Instead the unnecessary Citizen and Taxpayer obscene waste continues each and every day as a result of simply ignoring these grave Citizen and Taxpayer questions and concerns that are unrefuted and beyond any dispute by anyone except maybe SNC-Lavalin! Shameful and despicable!
5. And this condescending and meaningless statement by the Minister is followed by this further condescending and meaningless statement:
"I encourage you to continue to participate in the review process."
Why? To what end? To receive another August 18, 2016 letter from the Minister? Citizens and Taxpayers have absolutely no meaningful participation in this inept, incompetent, and incomprehesible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud that no Citizen and Taxpayer could or would ever support, and that only benefits the government leaders and SNC-Lavalin. A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to properly investigate this entire suspect process. The only thing that I have received from my government by participating as a Citizen and Taxpayer in the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is getting spammed by my government and receiving the insulting August 18, 2016 attached email from a top government elected official.
6. And the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud is highlighted by Minister McKenna's following astonishing statement in her attached August 18, 2016:
9/4/2016 Page 5 of7 {/7.--
"With respect to your concerns regarding the adaptive phased management proposal by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, this issue falls within the mandate of my colleague, the Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources. I am therefore forwarding a copy of our correspondence for his consideration."
Let me be clear. Minister McKenna is telling the Citizens and Taxpayers [that she has the honour and privilege of representing and protecting their best interests] that even though there is absolutely no need for 2-DGRs, government policy has determined and dictates that we must follow a 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that is guaranteed to be the biggest fraud and boondoggle to ever grace Canada and our Planet- at an unnecessary absolute waste of billions and billions and trillions and beyond of Taxpayer dollars from now and into the forever future of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste threatening our Country and Planet. Shockingly, Minister McKenna is telling us that she cannot get together with Minister Carr to work together for the best solution for Citizens and Taxpayers for all levels of nuclear waste. Shockingly, Minister McKenna is telling us that her hands are tied and the government has no choice but to study different sites for clothes and rags while NWMO must continue to separately investigate sites for spent nuclear fuel. Seriously? And what are we left with- "I encourage you to continue to participate in the review process." And the media makes a big deal out of Minister McKenna using a private photographer to photograph her work at an obscene cost of $17,000 of Taxpayer dollars that could have been eliminated by taking selfies or having an overpaid aide snap the picture. And yet the media has no interest in this boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles camouflaged as 2-Track 2-DGR for no reason whatsoever! How is this possible? When will the Public and Judicial Inquiry get started?
And let me address Minister McKenna's statement:
"With respect to your concerns regarding the adaptive phased management proposal by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, this issue falls within the mandate of my colleague, the Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources."
First, Minister Carr has also never responded to any of my emails. Second, I never mentioned anything about the fraud known as "Adaptive Phased Management" that our government secretly camouflages for the process to store the dangerously radioactive forever high level spent fuel nuclear waste in a DGR. Ask any Citizen and Taxpayer what "Adaptive Phased Management" means and I guarantee they won't be able to say it is a DGR process to store dangerously forever radioactive spent fuel nuclear waste. Therefore, the government can continue on its misleading "Adaptive Phased Management" path without any input from Citizens and Taxpayers who have no idea what it stands for. Just look at the Dictionary definitions of Adaptive, Phased, and Management found in Webster's:
"Adaptive" means "showing or having a capacity for or tendency toward adaptation"! "Phased" means "to adjust so as to be in phase"! "Management" means "the act or art of managing"!
Therefore, this condescending and misleading "adaptive phased management" is being pursued by our government, and according to our government officials it is impossible to combine the clothes and rags DGR with it, with government simply saying thanks for coming Citizens and Taxpayers, keep up the
9/4/2016 Page 6 of7 I I) good work and keep participating, and the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud is a rigged certainty and there is nothing you or any other Citizen or Taxpayer can do about it.
7. As though that is not enough! Minister McKenna shockingly states in her attached August 18, 2016 letter to Citizens and Taxpayers:
"As you are aware, the proponent plans to submit its response to my request for additional information by the end of 2016."
Why doesn't Minister McKenna answer the Citizen and Taxpayer questions about Minister McKenna requiring OPG to investigate actual alternative DGR sites and that such investigation must take at least 10 years as was the case required for the present proposed DGR site in Kincardine. Obviously, Minister McKenna is allowing OPG to create the roadmap for her Order. How is that possible? Astonishing! The only way it makes sense is to conclude that Minister McKenna's Order is meaningless. OPG contemptuously tells Minister McKenna that it reluctantly will do 2 hypothetical DGR site studies to confirm that its proposed Kincardine site is the best! Insulting and contemptuous and meaningless at best! As a result, Minister McKenna allows OPG to freely and meaningfully participate in the DGR process to the point of dictating its terms. At the same time, Minister McKenna does not allow for meaningful participation from Citizens and Taxpayer related to the DGR process.
But that is not all. Minister McKenna received this edict from OPG months and months ago. Out ofthe blue and inexplicably late in responding, on August 18, 2016, Minister McKenna now advises Citizens and Taxpayers of the following:
"The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is considering the approach proposed by the proponent to respond to my request for additional information, and a response to the proponent's letter will be sent in the near future."
What does CEAA have to do with Minister McKenna's Order? After all, it is Minister McKenna's Order. Unelected bureaucrats are not responsible for the Minister's presumed thoughtful Order. Nevertheless, we now know from Minister McKenna's own words in her attached letter that these unelected bureaucrats are dictating how Minister McKenna and how OPG will proceed in this 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud. Unconscionable!
8. Minister McKenna concludes her attached August 18, 2016 letter by making this condescending statement:
"The response from the Agency to the proponent and any additional information relating to the process for reviewing the additional information to be provided by the proponent, will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website once available."
So what? Answer all the undisputed and unrefuted questions and concerns from Citizens and Taxpayers. Minister McKenna's attached August 18, 2016 letter is the model of why Citizens and Taxpayers do not trust government. Convene the Public and Judicial Inquiry and put an end to the 2- Track 2-DGR boondoggle Taxpayer fraud in favour of a 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste! Citizens and Taxpayers require a neutral, unbiased, impartial, and independent DGR process. Minister
9/4/2016 Page 7 of7 lli McKenna's attached August 18, 2016 letter confirms that the process is not neutral, unbiased, impartial, and independent. In all the circumstances, the OPG DGR Application must be dismissed and Minister McKenna should recuse herself from the DGR process.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/4/2016 /I~ Ministre de I'Environnement et Minister of Environment du Changement climatique and Climate Change
Ottawa, Canada K1 A OH3
AUG 1 8 2016
Mr. John Mann
Dear Mr. Mann:
Thank you for your most recent correspondence of May 28, July 15, July 26, July 27 and July 29, 2016, as well as your previous correspondence earlier this year, concerning the Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste proposed by Ontario Power Generation (the proponent).
I note the concerns you have raised in your letters and appreciate the effort you have made in order to bring these issues to my attention. As you are aware, the proponent plans to submit its response to my request for additional information by the end of 2016. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is considering the approach proposed by the proponent to respond to my request for additional information, and a response to the proponent's letter will be sent in the near future.
In the coming months, I will outline the process by which the information provided by the proponent will be reviewed and opportunities for registered participants, the public and Indigenous groups to provide comments and input.
With respect to your concerns regarding the adaptive phased management proposal by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, this issue falls within the mandate of my colleague, the Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources. I am therefore forwarding a copy of our correspondence for his consideration.
I encourage you to continue to participate in the review process. The response from the Agency to the proponent and any additional information relating to the process for reviewing the additional information to be provided by the proponent,
... /2
Canada - 2- will be posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website at www. ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/detai/s-eng.cfm?eva/uation= 17520, once available.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. c.c.: The Honourable James Carr, P.C., M.P. 1/7 From: McKenna. Catherine - M.p. To: Ministre I Minister CECl Subject: FW: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Date: May 30, 2016 2:00:44 PM Importance: High
From: John Mann
May 28, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, and Premier Wynne:
The following is a true story that rivals anything produced by Rod Serling:
10. The OPG DGR Application seeks approval from Minister McKenna to build a DGR at a cost of billions of Taxpayer dollars that will consist of 80% clothes and rags.
9. That's right, 80% of the proposed OPG DGR will be used to store the clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers without any special protection and without any special handling.
8. All experts agree that the clothes and rags do not need a DGR.
7. All experts agree that the clothes and rags can be incinerated.
6. All experts agree that the clothes and rags can be stored anywhere without special protection and without special handling. 5. Yet after more than 10 years [more than a decade] of study, investigation, and absolute waste of Taxpayer dollars, OPG, NWMO, CNSC, and the Joint Review Panel have all determined that it is NECESSARY to bury these harmless clothes and rags 1 kilometer underground in order to protect the safety and health of all Citizens and the Environment, at an obscene Taxpayer waste of billions and trillions of dollars in the future!
4. In addition, OPG, NWMO, CNSC have convinced the Joint Review Panel that the DGR for harmless clothes and rags is the BEST ALTERNATIVE and that there is URGENCY that it be built immediately even though the extremely dangerous and highly radioactive spent fuel nuclear waste will remain stored above ground! Really!? Citizens and Taxpayers deserve better.
3. In response, and inexplicably, Minister McKenna has now Ordered OPG to study alternate DGR sites that should have been done in the first place and even though OPG had intentionally refused to investigate other sites for the 10 years it has been incompetently pursuing this boondoggle of all boondoggles. In 2004 the Municipality of Kincardine wanted money and OPG accommodated with the OPG DGR Hosting Agreement boondoggle at obscene Taxpayer expense. This Hosting Agreement represents government incompetence and reckless Taxpayer spending at the highest level.
2. Therefore, the question Peter Mansbridge or any Journalist must ask Minister McKenna boils down to this:
"Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct further studies of alternate DGR sites that will take at least 10 more years to complete, at further irresponsible obscene waste of Taxpayer dollars, when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere?"
1. More to the point:
"Who in their right mind would approve a clothes and rags DGR?" and "Who in their right mind would approve a clothes and rags DGR while spent fuel remains on the surface?"
Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, and Mr. Lyash, STOP THE MADNESS. It is your sworn duty and obligation that you owe to all Citizens and Taxpayers to respond and to be fiscally responsible when you are spending our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars. Send the Tax dollars to health, education, and legal aid. Dismiss the OPG DGR Application.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen Registered Participant Saugeen Shores, Ontario
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 27, 2016
Hi Everyone on the list above:
All Citizens and Taxpayers in Canada must become aware ofthe infamous 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle costing Taxpayers' billions. To help facilitate spreading this critical message to all Citizens and Taxpayers, please forward the following Blackburn News media link by Janice MacKay to all other media (social, traditional, written, audio, video, newspaper, radio, television, cable, internet, electronic, and any other meansL twitter, Facebook, etc., etc., etc. Janice MacKay has written many other articles related to the 2-Track 2-DGR subject that should also be reviewed. Thank you.
http://blackburnnews.com/uncategorized/2016/08/26/environment-minister-responds-concerns planned-kincardine-nuclear-burial-site/
9/7/2016 Page 2 of2
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/7/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCAN/RNCAN)"
Your message
To: Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCAN/RNCAN) Subject: Minister McKenna's attached letter response confirms that the Minister should recuse herself in the DGR process. Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:03:44 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, August 26, 2016 10:22:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
9/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
9/4/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
August 31, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
1. On March 1, 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau stated: "Even though governments grant permits, ultimately only Communities grant permission." http:Uwww.cbc.ca/player/play/2684686536
2. Citizens and Taxpayers of our DGR Community hold Prime Minister Trudeau to his promise as it relates to the OPG DGR: "Even though governments grant permits, ultimately only Communities grant permission [for the OPG DGR]"! Why, therefore, is Minister McKenna, a lawyer from Ottawa, allowed to approve building the proposed OPG DGR nuclear waste dump for low and intermediate nuclear waste prior to "permission" being granted by the vote of the Citizens and Taxpayers establishing a compelling willing Community in favour of the OPG DGR?
9/4/2016 Page 2 of3
3. Which begs the question related to the already obscene waste of Taxpayer dollars in this process: Why has there been no vote by the Citizens and Taxpayers in our DGR Community "granting permission" from a compelling willing Community and required by our Prime Minister?
4. For years now Citizens and Taxpayers have been requesting this required vote to establish a compelling willing Community prior to a green light for any DGR, yet the OPG DGR process inexplicably and alarmingly has no mention of any referendum that is required?
5. As a result and as promised by Prime Minister Trudeau above, when will the Citizens and Taxpayers in our DGR Community be allowed to cast our vote to give permission or not give permission to the building of the OPG DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste?
6. The following are 2 Referendum Questions to be answered by the voters of our DGR Community:
a. As a Citizen and Taxpayer, are you in favour of our Community granting permission to investigate and potentially build 2 DGRs [deep underground nuclear waste dump burial sites] costing Billions and Billions of Taxpayer dollars when only 1 DGR is necessary to store all levels of nuclear waste? Yes or No?
b. As a Citizen and Taxpayer, are you in favour of our Community granting permission to build a separate DGR for 80% clothes and rags [low level nuclear waste worn and used by nuclear workers] and that require no special handling and no special protection, and 20% intermediate level nuclear waste, while high level radioactive spent fuel nuclear waste will remain on the surface for the next century and may never find a separate DGR home? Yes or No?
7. Furthermore, what is the scope of our DGR Community that Prime Minister Trudeau requires to give permission to go forward- Bruce County, Great Lakes Basin, Canada, North America, The World? Certainly not by simple vote by Kincardine Council, in addition to the 30 years of despicable and shameful Taxpayer dollar payments to Kincardine and 5 Bruce County Municipalities given by OPG to buy support for its clothes and rags DGR boondoggle, along with 7 years of unlawful secret closed DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council with OPG, NWMO, and our watchdog CNSC!
8. In addition, how do Taxpayers get reimbursed for the $100 Million Taxpayer dollars wasted by NWMO "talking to 18,000 Canadians about their views on nuclear waste storage"?
9. And finally, and inexplicably, why are we still waiting for a response from all of you to these grave questions and concerns from Citizens and Taxpayers that you all have the honour and privilege of working for!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/4/2016 Page 3 of3
9/4/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d1 avoir ecrit a rhonorable Catherine McKenna/ ministre de 11 Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d1 une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre/ veuillez prendre note qu/il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias/ veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna/ Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister/ please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media/ please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to ec.media.ec@canada. ca.
9/4/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
September 6, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
Please answer the following questions that gravely concern Citizens and Taxpayers that all of you continue and steadfastly refuse to answer:
Minister McKenna must ultimately answer 2 JRP mandated requirements prior to approving the OPG DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste: "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
Citizens and Taxpayers have been told by our government and nuclear officials that low and
917/2016 Page 2 of3 1~~ intermediate level nuclear waste have been safely stored on the surface for 50 years, and will continue to be safely stored on the surface for the next 50 years and foreseeable future.
1. As a result, all of a sudden in the year 2016, why is it necessary and urgent to now store low and intermediate nuclear waste in a DGR 1 kilometre below the surface? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
2. If it is now necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate nuclear waste in a DGR, why then wasn't it necessary and urgent 50 years ago? 40 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago? 1 year ago? In addition, why are we told that low and intermediate nuclear waste will continue to be safely stored on the surface for the next 50 years and foreseeable future? As a result, "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
3. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why is it not more necessary and more urgent to store the high level spent fuel nuclear waste in a DGR? Yet there is no urgency whatsoever in the snaillike spent fuel DGR process that is at least 50 to 100 years away from completion, and may never get built. And why did our government leaders inexplicably wait until the low and intermediate nuclear waste DGR process was almost completed before even starting the spent fuel DGR process? And since all nuclear waste can be stored in 1 DGR, where is the necessity and urgency to build a separate DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste a full century before a DGR will store all spent fuel nuclear waste, if ever? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
4. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why is low and intermediate nuclear waste going to continue to be stored on the surface in Quebec, New Brunswick, Douglas Point at the Bruce Power nuclear facility, Chalk River, and Port Hope? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
5. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why isn't spent fuel included in the OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste, with commensurate costs savings, time savings, and safety savings for all Citizens and Taxpayers in Canada? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
6. Can anyone explain this inexplicable and unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle? Everyone agrees that 1 DGR can store all nuclear waste. "Where's the necessity for a separate and independent DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
And finally, and inexplicably, why are we still waiting for any response from all or any of you to our countless previously sent emails related to our grave DGR questions and concerns from Citizens and Taxpayers that you all have the honour and privilege of working for!?
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/7/2016 Page 3 of3
9/7/2016 Page 1 of 1 1 )( John Mann
From: "Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCANIRNCAN)"
Your message
To: Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCAN/RNCAN) Subject: Minister McKenna must ultimately answer 2 JRP mandated requirements prior to approving the OPG DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste: "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?" Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:03:44 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:05:57 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
9/7/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
9/7/2016 Page 1 of6
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
September 9, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna:
1. Inexplicably, over your 9 month tenure as Minister of the Environment of Canada, you have intentionally and steadfastly refused to acknowledge that the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle catastrophe is a total failure and complete waste of finite and precious Taxpayer dollars that could be easily redirected to our starving health, education, and legal aid budgets that could actually help Citizens and Taxpayers you have the honour and privilege to work for. Instead you have ignored the obvious questions and concerns of Citizens and Taxpayers that establish beyond any doubt that only 1-DGR process is necessary and you have silently and blindly allowed the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle to mindlessly continue at outrageous and unnecessary waste of Taxpayer dollars. This abysmal disregard and disrespect that you have shown to Citizens and Taxpayers in your role as a Top 25 Lawyer in Canada who happens to have been elected as MP and later appointed as Minister ofthe Environment
9/9/2016 Page 2 of6 is astonishing and shameful. [All confirmed by the email below.]
2. In addition/ SNC-Lavalin has now admitted and been found guilty of paying illegal political donations from political slush funds to the Federal Liberal and Conservative parties. Yesterday/ September 81 1 20161 the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star reported on SNC-Lavalin s most recent horrific scandal 1 with the following links and excerpts set forth below: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/snc-lavalin-violated-elections-act-with-contributions to-li berals-tories/article31762290f https://www.thestar.com{news/canada/2016/09/08/snc-lavalin-broke-laws-in-c:jonations-to-liberals conservatives. htm I
"Construction giant SNC-Lavalin has admitted to breaking Canadian election law by funnelling [sic] almost $1181 000 to the federal Liberals and Conservatives between 2004 and 2011./J
"Federal elections commissioner revealed [yesterday/ September 81 2016] that executives at the Montreal-based company solicited donations for the Liberals and Conservatives from their employees/ reimbursing those donations through fake bonuses or bogus expense claims.n
111 (SNC-Lavalin) acknowledges that the proscribed activities compromised the transparency and integrity of the political financing regime created under the act by enabling (the company) ... to indirectly make political contributions and conceal the true origin of the contributions in question./}}
"The unlawful contributions [investigated so far] span from March/ 20041 to May/ 2011 [just prior to the Joint Review Panel Public HearingsL and showcase how dirty money that funded Quebec political parties also found a home in the federal arena.}}
"["The lion/s share of the money}}] senior SNC-lavalin executives illegally donated $83 1 534 to the
Liberal Party of Canada; $13 1 552 to various Liberal riding associations; $121 529 to contestants involved in the 2006 Liberal leadership race; $3 1 137 to the Conservative Party; and $5 1 050 to Conservative riding associations.}}
"SNC-Lavalin 'acknowledges that/ in offering to reimburse its employees for federal political contributions/ and in reimbursing such contributions/ it was in fact making those contributions itself.}}}
"The investigation hasn/t been completed.}}
"Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin has been mired in corruption and bribery scandals over the past decade [in Quebec and in foreign countries] involving attempts to curry favour with politicians and other influential players to win lucrative engineering and construction contracts in Canada and abroad. The RCMP has raided SNC-Lavalin/s offices a number of times over the years.}}
3. This new [and ongoing] horrific political party contributions scandal by SNC-Lavalin is the classic definition of "Pay to Play}}!
9/9/2016 Page 3 of6 JJcy 4. The extremely disturbing "Pay to Play" connection to the DGR process is that SNC-Lavalin's scandalous illegal political party donations correspond to the same time period when SNC-Lavalin landed its bid to become the construction and engineering firm for the DGR- the biggest project by far that SNC-Lavalin has ever secured. The only reasonable explanation is that "Pay to Play" was a factor in SNC-Lavalin becoming the chief construction and engineering firm for the DGR. As a result, Citizens and Taxpayers for the past 4 to 5 years have been demanding an RCMP investigation and a Public and Judicial Inquiry to investigate the "Pay to Play" trail that SNC-Lavalin forged as it secured the DGR contract. While SNC-Lavalin now says it will be a good boy from here on out [further investigations continue to be ongoing that will undoubtedly uncover more criminal and/or civil scandals]- so what? SNC-Lavalin has already secured its biggest prize- the DGR process and project wherein SNC-Lavalin has already been paid an obscene amount of unnecessary and wasted Taxpayer dollars that will only continue into the unlimited future. The idea of SNC-Lavalin being a Choir Boy in its dealings related to the DGR defies all common sense and no reasonable Citizen and Taxpayer would trust SNC-Lavalin in the DGR process in light of SNC-Lavalin's abysmal record for corruption and bribery and other illegality as necessary staples of doing business. As a result, Citizens and Taxpayers are concerned that "Pay to Play" is improperly influencing government continuing the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that no Citizen and Taxpayer could ever reasonably support. And Minister McKenna responds with silence!? How is that remotely possible?
5. Minister McKenna, as Minister of the Environment of Canada, it is your job to thoroughly investigate this very concerning news that SNC-Lavalin's ordinary course of doing business is "Pay to Play," with a persistent and ongoing history of corruption and bribery and other illegal activity as a normal and necessary way of doing business. Your investigation must start with how SNC-Lavalin obtained the contract to be the chief engineering firm for the DGRs. What other firms were competing? How was the DGR contract tendered? How did every detail of the tendering process all the way through today occur and why? Who, what, where, when, why, and how? etc., etc., etc.? Something stinks! Something is terribly wrong! Basic common sense tells you that. When it sounds too good to be true .... ! Citizens and Taxpayers deserve and require to have all these questions and concerns answered by you and all of our elected and unelected government officials. Furthermore, consider this a Freedom of Information [FOI] request for all documentation related to SNC-Lavalin and the DGRs.
6. For years now, Citizens and Taxpayers have been asking why Albert Sweetnam, former Director of the OPG DGR project, suddenly and inexplicably vanished just before the Joint Review Panel was to convene its Public Hearings. This is suspicious because his unknown reason for departing just before the Super Bowl for the OPG DGR Application that he was the head of occurred at a time when SNC Lavalin's World-wide corruption and bribery charges and scandals exploded in the media around 2012. This is astonishing and concerning because Albert Sweetnam prior to 2009 and moving to OPG to supervise the OPG DGR was a high ranking senior vice president official at embattled SNC-Lavalin. All inquiries from Citizens and Taxpayers seeking answers from the government officials and SNC-Lavalin have fallen on deaf ears and the response is summed up in one word- silence!
7. Now that you know why reasonable Citizens and Taxpayers do not trust you and your elected and unelected colleagues related to this catastrophic 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle and your intentional disrespect to all by intentionally ignoring Citizen and Taxpayer grave questions and concerns, we hope that you will find it NECESSARY and URGENT to respond to these extremely concerning SNC-Lavalin's history of "Pay to Play" as a normal business practice with persistent and continuous corruption and
9/9/2016 Page 4 of6 7 JC bribery scandals ruining its reputation. What Citizen and what Taxpayer would want even a dime of our hard earned money going into SNC-Lavalin's pockets? In light ofthe 2 news links above, Minister McKenna, is SNC-Lavalin someone that you think our government should align with and do business with and trust?
8. Even more concerning: What Citizen and what Taxpayer should have to endure the disrespect of our Minister of the Environment of Canada, a Top 25 Lawyer of Canada, who intentionally ignores and fails to respond to the grave questions and concerns related to the DGR?
[see email below]
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
From: John Mann Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 2:03 PM To: Hon. Catherine McKenna ; CEAA National Programs Div. conditions ; Prime Minister Trudeau ; Jeffrey Lyash ; Premier Wynne ; Ken Nash ; Michael Binder ; Bonnie Lysyk ; Minister Jim Carr ; Michael Ferguson ; Ministre I Minister CEC) Cc: Aimee Puthon ; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace ; Dave Myette ; David Akin ; Demers Manon ; Don Matheson ; Eugene Bourgeois ; Frances Learment ; fsteve finch ; Heather [CEAAJ Smith ; Jerry Keto ; Jill Taylor ; Jim Lynch ; John Rich ; Kristina Premachuk ; Linda White ; Luke Charbonneau ; Mayor Buckle ; Mayor Eadie ; Mayor Eagleson ; Mayor Inglis ; Mayor Jackson ; Mayor Mciver ; Mayor Mike Smith ; Mayor Weaver ; Michael Binder ; Mike Myatt ; Mike Strobel ; Mitch Twolan (Warden) ; MP Ben Lobb ; MPP Lisa Thompson ; Neil [email protected]~ ; Pat Gibbons ; info_@_cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca ; Information (CNSC/CCSN) ; Rob Dobos ; Santa Claus ; Sarah Patterson-Snell ; Sarah Roberts ; Scott Berry ; Senator Hopgood ; Steve Chapman ; Kurt Saunders ; Kurt Saunders ; Janice MacKay ; Chris Adams ; Lorrie Goldstein ; John Mann Subject: Minister McKenna must ultimately answer 2 JRP mandated requirements prior to approving the OPG DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste: "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
September 6, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
Please answer the following questions that gravely concern Citizens and Taxpayers that all of you continue and steadfastly refuse to answer:
Minister McKenna must ultimately answer 2 JRP mandated requirements prior to approving the OPG DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste: "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
9/9/2016 Page 5 of6
Citizens and Taxpayers have been told by our government and nuclear officials that low and intermediate level nuclear waste have been safely stored on the surface for 50 years, and will continue to be safely stored on the surface for the next 50 years and foreseeable future.
1. As a result, all of a sudden in the year 2016, why is it necessary and urgent to now store low and intermediate nuclear waste in a DGR 1 kilometre below the surface? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
2. If it is now necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate nuclear waste in a DGR, why then wasn't it necessary and urgent 50 years ago? 40 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago? 1 year ago? In addition, why are we told that low and intermediate nuclear waste will continue to be safely stored on the surface for the next 50 years and foreseeable future? As a result, "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
3. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why is it not more necessary and more urgent to store the high level spent fuel nuclear waste in a DGR? Yet there is no urgency whatsoever in the snaillike spent fuel DGR process that is at least 50 to 100 years away from completion, and may never get built. And why did our government leaders inexplicably wait until the low and intermediate nuclear waste DGR process was almost completed before even starting the spent fuel DGR process? And since all nuclear waste can be stored in 1 DGR, where is the necessity and urgency to build a separate DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste a full century before a DGR will store all spent fuel nuclear waste, if ever? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
4. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why is low and intermediate nuclear waste going to continue to be stored on the surface in Quebec, New Brunswick, Douglas Point at the Bruce Power nuclear facility, Chalk River, and Port Hope? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
5. If it is necessary and urgent to store low and intermediate in a DGR, why isn't spent fuel included in the OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste, with commensurate costs savings, time savings, and safety savings for all Citizens and Taxpayers in Canada? "Where's the necessity for a DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
6. Can anyone explain this inexplicable and unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle? Everyone agrees that 1 DGR can store all nuclear waste. "Where's the necessity for a separate and independent DGR for clothes and rags?" "Where's the urgency?"
And finally, and inexplicably, why are we still waiting for any response from all or any of you to our countless previously sent emails related to our grave DGR questions and concerns from Citizens and Taxpayers that you all have the honour and privilege of working for!?
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
9/9/2016 Page 6 of6
Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/9/2016 Page 1 of 1
/]~ John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
9/9/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Your message
To: Ministre I Minister (EC) Subject: SNC-Lavalin's illegal political party contributions to Liberals and Conservatives are the definition of "Pay to Play"! How did SNC-Lavalin become the engineering firm for the DGR? Is SNC-Lavalin someone that Canada should trust and do business with? Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 1:55:50 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Friday, September 9, 2016 2:13:06 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
9/9/2016 Page 1 of7 1cfi John Mann
From: "John Mann"
September 18, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
An independent RCMP investigation or a Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to determine if any government contracts involving SNC-Lavalin or its related companies have been influenced by SNC Lavalin's admitted illegal political donations!
On September 12, 2016, Janice Mackay of Blackburn News reported as follows:
9/24/2016 Page 2 of7 7i~ A Saugeen Shores man says SNC-Lavalin was working with the Nuclear Waste Managment Organization to estimate a design for a Deep Geologic Repository for nuclear waste during the same time period that $118,000 in illegal political donations were made to the federal Conservatives and Liberals.
SNC-Lavalin was hired by NWMO to complete estimating costs for final design, construction, operation, extended monitoring, decommissioning and closure of the spent fuel facility and for the used fuel transportation system.
Lawyer John Mann, who testified at the joint review panel hearings for the second DGR for low and medium level nuclear waste that Ontario Power Generation [OPG] wants to build in Kincardine, also says former SNC-Lavalin top executive Albert Sweetnam changed jobs in 2008 to become Director of the OPG nuclear waste project in 2009.
Sweetnam left in 2013 as the Joint Review Panel convened public hearings.
Mann adds that OPG owns the majority of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which has worked with the SNC-Lavalin on studies for the DGR for spent nuclear fuel.
Mann adds, "As a result, Citizens and Taxpayers are concerned that "Pay to Play" is improperly influencing government continuing the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that no Citizen and Taxpayer could ever reasonably support. And Minister McKenna responds with silence!? How is that remotely possible?"
In a letter to Blackburn News, John Mann was quoted as saying SNC-Lavalin was the Chief Engineering Firm for the spent fuel project, however SNC-Lavalin had a contract for estimating costs for final design, construction, operation, extended monitoring, decommissioning and closure of the spent fuel facility and for the used fuel transportation system.
In an email, SNC-Lavalin tells us:
that one of the safest places to store low and intermediate level nuclear waste is in a deep geologic repository (DGR). The proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) would be located at the secure Bruce nuclear site in Kincardine, Ontario. SNC-Lavalin does not have an execution-stage contract for the Kincardine DGR; we currently have no contracts with NWMO. SNC-Lavalin has done several small studies for NWMO for Adaptive Phased Management in the past related to the used fuel repository; used fuel will not be stored in the proposed DGR. It is certainly NOT one of our largest projects ever. Far from it. OPG, which is a major funder of NWMO, is a provincial crown. The donations covered by our agreement with Elections Canada were federal. The DGR is not under construction; SNC-Lavalin is therefore not the ""chief construction and engineering firm for the DGR" Albert Sweetnam left SNC-Lavalin in 2008, and he was employed by OPG from 2009-2013, when he left their employ.
9/24/2016 Page 3 of7 3 [end of article quoted] [The article can be found at the following link] 7 '( http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/09/12/update scandal-plagued-snc-lavalin-involved-dgr-high-level-nuclear-waste/
My response is as follows:
1. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin, in its bullet-point explanation, does not even apologize for making the illegal political donations to the federal Conservatives and Liberals!
2. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin shows no remorse for SNC-Lavalin's "Pay to Play" improperly influencing government contracts.
3. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin takes no responsibility for its illegal political donations as it relates to the DGR process because it "does not have an execution-stage contract for the Kincardine DGR" and it "currently has no contracts with NWMO." By not confronting the issue directly, the implication is clear that SNC-Lavalin apparently concedes that its prior DGR contracts were improperly influenced by its illegal political donations!
4. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin down plays its role related to the DGR by stating that it "has done several small studies for NWMO." The implication is clear that while SNC-Lavalin improperly influenced obtaining these contracts for NWMO by making its illegal political donations, the contracts were for "small" studies so the harm was "small." I guess if the studies were "big" the illegal political donations influence would have also been "big" and more of a concern to Citizens and Taxpayers. The difference escapes me.
5. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin goes on to explain that "OPG, which is a major funder of NWMO, is a provincial crown. The [illegal political] donations covered by our agreement with Elections Canada were federal." I call this the 2-Track 2-lllegal Political Donations process that absolves SNC-Lavalin from improperly influencing anything labeled provincial in the 2-Track 2-DGR fraud. Really? So it is okay to make illegal political donations to improperly influence DGR contracts as long as you can use the infamous 2- Track 2-DGR process to separate provincial from federal illegal political donations. So there is no problem? This is SNC-Lavalin's defense to making illegal political donations that improperly influenced SNC-Lavalin obtaining DGR contracts!? NWMO was created by and is owned by OPG pursuant to the federal statute Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, and the OPG DGR is being reviewed by federal Minister ofthe Environment McKenna, and the spent fuel DGR is a federal project. Whether or not OPG is provincial or not is absolutely irrelevant! [Furthermore, SNC-Lavalin was able to obtain a government contract with OPG in March 2013, related to the current rebuild at Darlington Nuclear facility, with former SNC-Lavalin's Albert Sweetnam, OPG's Vice-President of Nuclear Projects, in attendance and favourably commenting at the contract signing ceremony that took place shortly before he mysteriously left OPG !]
6. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin, further in its bullet-points above, emphasizes to Citizens and Taxpayers that the DGR "is certainly NOT [emphasis by SNC] one of our largest projects ever. Far from it." So since the DGR is NOT one of SNC's largest projects ever ["far from
9/24/2016 Page 4 of7 1 yt/ it"] there is nothing wrong with SNC making illegal political donations to influence obtaining these (/lesser" projects!!!??? Really? Seriously? And what other projects have SNC Lavalin been involved in that are worth more than the present $23 Billion Taxpayer dollar price-tag for the DGR?
7. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin defends its illegal political donations influencing its government DGR contracts by stating that the aDGR is not under construction; SNC Lavalin is therefore not the 'chief construction and engineering firm for the DGR. 111 By implication, SNC-Lavalin is conceding that it should not be given the government DGR contract to construct and engineer the DGR because of SNC-Lavalin's illegal political donations that improperly influence government contracts. After all there has to be consequences for the grave illegal political donations that destroy the very foundation of our treasured Democracy. To allow SNC-Lavalin to further profit from its own wrongdoing would set a dangerous and inconceivable precedent that all could follow in the future, that being, go ahead and make unconscionable illegal political donations to improperly influence government contracts and you will be rewarded. After all the World Bank will not allow SNC-Lavalin to bid on jobs for 10 years! If SNC is allowed to continue to work in the DGR process there will be no deterrence or incentive for SNC Lavalin to rehabilitate its illegal conduct. SNC-Lavalin must pay the penalty for its conceded guilt. At a minimum, SNC-Lavalin must start on its road of probation and rehabilitation by repaying the Taxpayer dollars it has received in the DGR process. Another part of the penalty must be that SNC-Lavalin forfeits any further involvement in the DGR process.
8. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin admits that Albert Sweetnam was employed by SNC-Lavalin and then became Director of the OPG DGR, but SNC-Lavalin does not explain what connection there was between SNC-Lavalin and OPG and its clone NWMO, and why Albert Sweetnam (/abruptly" left OPG on the eve of his Super Bowl defining moment in front ofthe JRP Public Hearings as head of the OPG DGR process! At the same time the media was exploding with allegations of scandal against SNC-Lavalin in other parts of the World, including Montreal, related to corruption, fraud, and bribery. What was OPG and SNC concerned about by exposing Albert Sweetnam to scrutiny by Citizens and Taxpayers at the JRP Public Hearings? Why did Albert Sweetnam suddenly disappear from the DGR process after leading it to the threshold of the confirmation Public Hearings? We have been waiting for answers since the disappearance- and we are still waiting!
9. Inexplicably, SNC-Lavalin responded only by the email bullet-points above that could not be challenged by media and Citizen and Taxpayer scrutiny and questions on a live stage. It is the first time we have heard from SNC-Lavalin related to these grave Citizen and Taxpayer questions and concerns! How is that possible?
10. Equally concerning and equally unconscionable is the response by our government from a spokesman at NWMO to all of these (/Pay to Play" grave concerns that Citizens and Taxpayers have as it relates to SNC-Lavalin. On September 13, 2016, Blackburn News reported the following response by NWMO. When you read it you will see that NWMO
9/24/2016 Page 5 of7 7 v-~- does not show any concerns whatsoever about the illegal political donations that SNC Lavalin made to influence government contracts that would include government contracts related to the DGR. Instead of immediately cancelling all contracts with SNC Lavalin and embarking on an investigation into how SNC-Lavalin obtained DGR contracts, NWMO advises all Citizens and Taxpayers that it would not provide any information to be released to the public because "the value of the previous contractual relationship between SNC and the NWMO is commercially sensitive."!!! NWMO further said it would not have any comment on the illegal political donations and other scandals involving SNC-Lavalin other than saying "that we have full confidence in our procurement process." Really? So our government is not concerned that SNC-Lavalin "has admitted to breaking Canadian election law by funneling almost $118,000 to the federal Liberals and Conservatives between 2004 and 2011"? And that is all the federal elections commission happened to discover during its investigation. In light of SNC Lavalin's history and reputation of being involved in corruption, fraud, and bribery in other parts of the World, including Montreal where it is based, there is more of a cloud hanging over SNC-Lavalin than just the $118,000 in conceded illegal political donations. Yet our government and NWMO has no comment, and rewards SNC-Lavalin by continuing SNC-Lavalin's involvement in the DGR process while shielding SNC-Lavalin from any scrutiny about its shady dealings with our government. Without being exposed or suffering any consequences or penalties related to its wrongdoing, SNC-Lavalin is free to continue its wrongdoing while relying on the unconscionable precedent that it will not suffer any adverse consequences or penalties for its illegal conduct. And it is not just any wrongdoing, it is an admission by SNC-Lavalin of making illegal political donations to influence government contracts that go to the heart and soul of the very cornerstone to the foundation of our spectacular Democracy.
11. Our government's response is not acceptable. Simply put, our government should never enter or continue a contract wherein our precious and finite Taxpayer dollars are rewarding this unconscionable and despicable wrongdoing. SNC-Lavalin should repay our Citizens and Taxpayers for whatever money it made through government DGR contracts influenced by its own illegal political donations. An independent RCMP investigation or Public and Judicial Inquiry must convene.
The following is the NWMO response noted above and as reported by Blackburn News on September 13,2016:
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization hired SNC Lavalin to work on the proposed $23 billion Deep Geologic Repository for spent nuclear fuel between 2009 and and 2011
Last week, the federal elections commission reported SNC-Lavalin has admitted to breaking Canadian election law by funneling almost $118,000 to the federal Liberals and Conservatives between 2004 and 2011.
However, NWMO Spokesman Brad Hammond says they have full confidence their procurement
9/24/2016 Page 6 of7 process ensures they hire the best company for the job.
He explains, "Whether it is scientific, or social, or on repository design or transportation of used fuel, that involved looking for the best research possible. And that is always something that we would do, and that's why the RFP (request for proposal) system is designed to find the best people, the best organizations, the best research possible at the best value for the organization as we look to implement this plan."
Hammond adds the value of the previous contractual relationship between SNC and the NWMO is commercially sensitive and as such that information is not released publicly.
"So, in the past, certainly the NWMO has worked with SNC lava lin, as we work with many other firms. But as to matters that are related to SNC Lavalin, and some of the items that were brought up in your (Blackburn News Midwestern Ontario: Scandal Plagued SNC Lavalin Involved In DGR For High Level Nuclear Waste } story earlier today, I think it would be inappropriate to comment, other than to say that we have full confidence in our procurement process." SNC-Lavalin was responsible for estimating costs for final design, construction, operation, extended monitoring, decommissioning and closure of the spent fuel facility and for the used fuel transportation system.
The Adaptive Phased Management Plan has narrowed down the list of possible sites for the huge deep underground storage facility to nine possibilities including South Bruce, Central Huron and Huron Kin loss.
A site isn't expected to be selected until 2023.
Meantime, Ontario Power Generation is planning to build a second Deep Geologic Repository for low and medium level nuclear waste in Kincardine.
[end of article] [The article can be found at the following link] http:ijblackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/09/13/nwmo-says embattled-snc-lavalin-hired-procurement-process/
This all leads to the following conclusion:
The OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags must be dismissed. A new 1-Track 1-DGR fiscally responsible process must commence. And an independent RCMP investigation or Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened related to the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle!
Most Respectfully,
9/24/2016 Page 7 of7
John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores
9/24/2016 Page 1 of 1 7YJ7 John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
9/25/2016 Page 1 of22
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
September 24, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
The facts set forth in this email below prove that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle is rigged and guaranteed to be successful until Citizens and Taxpayers inevitably stop it and replace it with a fiscally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process!
1. This email is dedicated to the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles, how it was born, how it was sold to Citizens and Taxpayers, and how it was set up to guarantee approval of the unnecessary OPG DGR for clothes and rags.
9/24/2016 Page 2 of22 7>0 2. This email leads to only 1 unanimous solution to remedy the unnecessary and ill- conceived 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle, and that is by replacing it with a fiscally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste -low level (clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers, needing no special handling and no special protection and no DGR), intermediate level, and high level (spent fuel or used nuclear fuel).
[Note: Bracketed statements inserted in quoted materials are added by myself and are not part of the original quoted material - added as my editorial comment to the quoted material.]
3. Long ago, in December 2002, OPG updated our government on the DGR nuclear waste dump for spent fuel. The update document "Notice to the Reader" limited liabilities and set forth the purpose of the update in the first line: "This document has been prepared by CTECH Radioactive Materials Management, a joint venture of Canatom NPM Inc. and RWE Nukem Ltd. ('Consultant'), to update the conceptual design and cost estimate for a deep geologic repository (DGR) for long term disposal of used nuclear fuel." [translated in plain language 'a dump to store dangerously highly radioactive nuclear waste fuel forever unsupervised out of sight underground in a constantly moving and changing earth geology.']
4. Place this in perspective. As far back as 2001, OPG clearly was preparing a DGR plan for long term storage of its spent fuel nuclear waste. As a result, it is inexplicable why OPG would enter into a hosting agreement with Kincardine limited to low and intermediate nuclear waste, while expressly prohibiting OPG's spent fuel that had been safely stored on-site for over 40 years. Had spent fuel been allowed, OPG and its clone and agent NWMO would have embarked and stayed on a fiscally responsible 1-Track 1- DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste that would have been nearing completion at the present time. Instead, OPG [the owner of all levels of nuclear waste and with the responsibility to find solutions for all nuclear waste] went ahead anyway and inexplicably signed the hosting agreement with Kincardine, thus guaranteeing that 2 DGRs would have to be built at double cost and double everything to the extreme detriment of all Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment. And OPG says it was Kincardine's idea! While I do not believe that for a minute, it matters not. OPG owns all levels of nuclear waste and had a responsibility to responsibly handle the DGR long term storage process. OPG has catastrophically failed in its duty on behalf of all Citizens and Taxpayers. The only logical reason for OPG to enter the inexplicably unconscionable hosting agreement with Kincardine is that for Citizens and Taxpayers to buy into the DGR solution, the DGR for clothes and rags would have to be marketed initially by OPG to pave the way and assure that at least a clothes and rags DGR was built. Marketing a DGR for clothes and rags, while prohibiting spent fuel, coupled with a guarantee of enormous economic gains in the short term for our local Bruce County DGR Community was a very attractive marketing gimmick by OPG to sell its DGR. The alternative that OPG initially market a spent fuel DGR that was dangerous forever was guaranteed to fail. OPG was not willing to risk that. While everyone agrees that you would be nuts to build 2 DGRs, and certainly OPG and government would never build 2 if they were paying for it out of their own pockets and not out of Taxpayer dollars, once the clothes and rags DGR is built, the government could easily just amend the hosting agreement
9/24/2016 Page 3 of22 7'Jf and strike the word "prohibited" after spent fuel, and replace the clothes and rags with spent fuel in one happy DGR! Otherwise known as a modern day Trojan Horse! All Citizens and Taxpayers take heed and Beware!
5. And let us not forget that OPG in 2001 was already deeply [no pun intended] committed to build a DGR for nuclear waste. Why in the World then did our government later go out and spend $100 Million Taxpayer dollars talking to 18,000 Canadians to get their views on how to store nuclear waste long term [$5,000 spent on each Canadian talked to]!? OPG and our government were already pursuing a DGR and OPG was not about to let ordinary Citizens derail the government preordained scam commitment. Who authorized that spending of $100 Million Taxpayer dollars to talk to 18,000 Canadians? and who owes the Taxpayers a refund for this absolute unnecessary Taxpayer waste? Where is the documentation related to this scam that squandered $100 Million Taxpayer dollars? Who is responsible? The RCMP or a Public and Judicial Inquiry must investigate and find the answers for all Citizens and Taxpayers.
6. And to give Citizens and Taxpayers absolutely no confidence for their Taxpayer dollar, the "Consultant" warned everyone that it never verified any of the "assumptions, data, and information" "independently" "unless expressly stated otherwise." In other words, anyone could have done the report by just compiling what other 3rd parties provided. [Sort of like relying on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to tell you the truth. But I digress.] And, by the way, the so-called "Consultant" gets paid an obscene amount of Taxpayer dollars to collect and act as a DGR repository for unsworn information!
7. The document goes on to say:
"It is proposed that the emplacement of CANDU used nuclear fuel will be undertaken in a deep geologic repository (DGR) excavated in crystalline rock in the Canadian Shield. CTECH has been contracted by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to review the existing repository design, update the layout and construction method, and prepare a cost estimate for construction of the underground repository." OPG commissioned the study in 2001. "At the time the contract was let, CTECH was a joint venture of CANATOM (SNC-Lavalin, AECON) and AEA Technologies (UK) (now RWE Nukem)."
[Thus, embattled SNC-Lavalin was involved from the beginning. SNC-Lavalin has subsidiaries and other related companies that it also uses in projects. The confusion from all the companies known through initials and who is who within the process deliberately makes the process impossible to follow in any reasonable and logical fashion, making it all much less trustworthy and easily manipulated.] [And the Canadian Shield as a potential DGR site was short-lived because of the inconvenience to OPG management and workers having to live and travel such long distances.]
8. So scandal-embattled SNC-Lavalin was a major player in the DGR process at least as far back as in 2001, over 15 years ago, and from the infancy of the DGR Taxpayer boondoggle! And just the other day on September 12 and 13, 2016, Blackburn News reported:
9/24/2016 Page 4 of22 /!)I_ "The Nuclear Waste Management Organization hired SNC-Lavalin to work on the proposed $23 billion Deep Geologic Repository for spent nuclear fuel between 2009 and 2011. [It is important to note here that NWMO was created by OPG in 2002 to handle the technical aspects of the DGR process, and OPG remains 95% owner of NWMO, and OPG has interchangeable employees with NWMO, and work hand in hand, a fiction, a clone, an agent.] Last week, the federal elections commission reported SNC-Lavalin has admitted to breaking Canadian election law by funneling almost $118,000 to the federal Liberals and Conservatives between 2004 and 2011." [What is commonly known as "Pay to Play."] "However, NWMO Spokesman Brad Hammond says they have full confidence their procurement process ensures they hire the best company for the job. He explains, 'Whether it is scientific, or social, or on repository design or transportation of used fuel, that involved looking for the best research possible. And that is always something that we would do, and that's why the RFP (request for proposal) system is designed to find the best people, the best organizations, the best research possible at the best value for the organization as we look to implement this plan. Hammond adds the value of the previous contractual relationship between SNC and the NWMO is commercially sensitive and as such that information is not released publicly."'[!!!???] "'So, in the past, certainly the NWMO has worked with SNC Lavalin, as we work with many other firms. But as to matters that are related to SNC Laval in, and some of the items that were brought up in your (Blackburn News Midwestern Ontario: Scandal Plagued SNC Lavalin Involved in DGR for High Level Nuclear Waste) story earlier today, I think it would be inappropriate to comment, other than to say that we have full confidence in our procurement process."'[!!!???] "SNC-Lavalin was responsible for estimating costs for final design, construction, operation, extended monitoring, decommissioning and closure of the spent fuel facility and for the used fuel transportation system."
This is unacceptable comment by NWMO and quoted above. NWMO must be concerned about the allegations against SNC-Lavalin World-wide, and NWMO owes a duty to all Citizens and Taxpayers to check it out. The question is not whether or not SNC-Lavalin is the best engineering and construction firm for the DGR. The question is was SNC-Lavalin involved in any corruption throughout its involvement in the DGR process from day one over 15 years ago up to the present day. In light of SNC-Lavalin's history and World-wide reputation of being involved in corruption and bribery and fraud scandals, it is essential for the peace of mind of all Citizens and Taxpayers that our government investigate with absolute openness and transparency the entire procurement process. Trust me, NWMO simply saying "trust us" doesn't cut it for any Citizen and Taxpayer and for our government. For NWMO not to comment and to also indicate that it cannot disclose any details about its relationship with SNC-Lavalin because "the value of the previous contractual relationship between SNC and the NWMO is commercially sensitive and as such that information is not released publicly" is alarming and suspicious at best in light of SNC-Lavalin's reputation for corruption. The RCMP should investigate, and there should be a Public and Judicial Inquiry into the entire 2-Track 2- DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles.
9. On September 12, 2016, Janice Mackay of Blackburn News reported:
"A Saugeen Shores man says SNC-Lavalin was working with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to estimate a design for a Deep Geologic Repository [DGR] for nuclear waste during the same time period that $118,000 in illegal political donations were made to the
9/24/2016 Page 5 of22 federal Conservatives and Liberals Blackburn News reported the response to this by SNC-Lavalin through an email:
"In an email, SNC-Lavalin tells us:
"that one of the safest places to store low and intermediate level nuclear waste is in a deep geologic repository (DGR). The proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) would be located at the secure Bruce nuclear site in Kincardine, Ontario." [It is here, in my view, that SNC-Lavalin makes my case that the clothes and rags DGR has inadvertently made it impossible to find a DGR for spent fuel because a DGR for spent fuel would have to be located outside "the secure Bruce nuclear site in Kincardine" with commensurate intolerable transportation of lethal spent fuel off-site! - is anyone listening? Furthermore, SNC's self-serving characterization that the DGR is "one of the safest places to store low and intermediate nuclear waste" is guaranteeing further construction business for SNC-Lavalin. And I also was led to believe that SNC-Lavalin was not involved in the low and intermediate DGR! And how does SNC-Lavalin or anyone explain the WIPP catastrophe in relation to the OPG DGR safety-case based and modeled after WIPP? We are still awaiting an explanation on that!!??] "SNC-Lavalin does not have an execution-stage contract for the Kincardine DGR;" [the question I have is what contracts has SNC-Lavalin or its subsidiaries or related companies had from the beginning to the present day related to the DGR for clothes and rags. And if SNC-Lavalin has not had any contract, who did the work in its place, how did they get the contract, and if SNC-Lavalin is the best, why are Citizens and Taxpayers getting short-changed by some discount operator? It is very difficult to believe, and difficult to place trust in our government, to think that SNC-Lavalin is needed on the spent fuel DGR, but not on the DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste. Of course, if our government was only pursuing 1 DGR as it was supposed to from the very beginning, the work would already be done once and for all by SNC-Lavalin related to the spent fuel DGR that could just allow low and intermediate nuclear to tag along to its combined final resting place. I do not trust any of this. Something is terribly wrong and Citizens and Taxpayers are the victims.] [SNC continues in its email:] "we currently have no contracts with NWMO." [I wonder if SNC Lavalin [or related company] will get the construction contract when Minister McKenna approves the clothes and rags DGR? Or is SNC-Lavalin not interested, and won't be greedy and will merely wait to construct the spent fuel DGR - except the Trojan Horse suggests that SNC-Lavalin better get involved with building the clothes and rags DGR, because a 2nd DGR will never be built!] "SNC-Lavalin has done several small studies for NWMO for Adaptive Phased Management in the past related to the used fuel repository; used fuel will not be stored in the proposed DGR. It is certainly NOT one of our largest projects ever. Far from it." [Citizens and Taxpayers want to know what projects have SNC-Lavalin been involved with that cost more than the present day $23 Billion Taxpayer-dollar price-tag estimated for the DGR project (that under government math will certainly more than double or quadruple by the time it is done)? It is also interesting for SNC-Lavalin to use the word "small" before "studies", yet were paid huge Taxpayer dollars. The reputation that SNC-Lavalin has earned suggests SNC is downplaying its role in the DGR.] "OPG, which is a major funder [95%] of NWMO, is a provincial crown. The
9/24/2016 Page 6 of22 7;-r donations covered by our agreement with Elections Canada were federal." [Last I checked the spent fuel DGR that SNC-Lavalin and its related companies have had extensive experience with is controlled by the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and federal Minister McKenna is reviewing whether or not to approve the clothes and rags DGR, etc., etc., etc. It is ironic how even SNC-Lavalin benefits from the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle. SNC-Lavalin says the illegal political donations do not influence the provincial side of the DGR equation known as clothes and rags. But I guess they do influence the spent fuel DGR. Citizens and Taxpayers expect our government to investigate these serious allegations especially with this type of response that does not deny any wrongdoing.] "The DGR is not under construction; SNC-Lavalin is therefore not the 'chief construction and engineering firm for the DGR."' [Really? Obviously SNC-Lavalin is in line to construct. The question is how did it become next in line in light of a history and/or reputation of corruption, bribery, and fraud? Why is our government still dealing with them? In addition, in 2007, OPG and NWMO released a joint statement that the NWMO has been contracted by OPG to conduct all activities associated with the design and construction of the DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste.] "Albert Sweetnam left SNC-Lavalin in 2008, and he was employed by OPG from 2009-2013, when he left their employ." [The question becomes what interaction was there between Sweetnam and SNC throughout Sweetnam's directorship of the DGR for clothes and rags for OPG? Furthermore, I am still awaiting word on the above and why did Albert Sweetnam leave OPG on the eve of his Super Bowl, the JRP Public Hearings related to the clothes and rags DGR that he was head of for OPG? All I have received is resounding silence to those questions! Trust anyone? Anyone?]
Blackburn News further reports: "The Adaptive Phased Management" [a useless and misleading term coined by OPG and/or its clone NWMO to describe its nuclear waste dump for dangerously highly radioactive forever nuclear spent fuel waste. You will not find the word 'nuclear' or 'spent fuel' or 'radioactive' or 'dangerous' or 'dump' or 'etc,' in the government marketed 'Adaptive Phased Management.' Ask any Citizen or Taxpayer what 'Adaptive Phased Management" means and you will be guaranteed that nuclear waste dump for spent fuel nuclear waste will not be part of the discussion.] "Plan has narrowed down the list" [from an original list of 21 municipalities vying to be considered as a possible site for a DGR for spent fuel]. "A site isn't expected to be selected until 2023. Meantime, Ontario Power Generation is planning to build a second Deep Geologic Repository for low and medium level nuclear waste in Kincardine."
10. Soon after the Joint Review Panel [JRP] was appointed by the Minister of the Environment [who inexplicably is also currently reviewing the work product of the same JRP her office appointed] OPG distributed an OPG Newsletter, dated February 2012, to all Citizens in our Bruce County DGR Community [I live in Saugeen Shores and received the OPG Newsletter in the mail]. Highlighted was the following 2-Track 2-DGR warranty and guarantee so that Citizens and Taxpayers would be aware of the ground rules that questions about spent fuel in a DGR were to be strictly off-limits during the JRP review of the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags. The highlighted in bold warranty is quoted here:
9/24/2016 Page 7 of22
"The DGR [for low and intermediate level waste]
Keeping you informed by answering your questions.
Question:
Will used nuclear fuel be emplaced in the DGR?
Answer:
No.
The DGR will not accommodate used fuel because:
The Hosting Agreement with the Municipality of Kincardine only allows for the emplacement of low and intermediate level waste from OPG-owned or -operated rectors [sic]; The Environmental Assessment for the DGR is only for low and intermediate level waste; The licencing process for the DGR is specific to low and intermediate level waste only; The DGR is not designed to handle used fuel containers; and The Nuclear Waste Management Organization [NWMO]- an independent, not-for profit Canadian company - is implementing a separate siting process for Adaptive Phased Management (APM), which is Canada's plan for the long-term management of used fuel. APM is separate and distinct from OPG's DGR for low and intermediate level waste."
By circulating this bold warranty and guarantee that high level spent fuel was not going to be stored in the DGR in our Community, OPG was guaranteeing to all of us Citizens and Taxpayers that the obvious 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle would never become an issue because the spent fuel DGR was not to be discussed and was not relevant to the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags. Ironically, at the same time the OPG warranty guaranteed that only 1 DGR was necessary for all levels of nuclear waste. If it was not possible to store all levels of nuclear waste in 1 DGR, no prohibition of spent fuel would have been required in the hosting agreement, and OPG would have merely advised all Citizens and Taxpayers that it was impossible to store all levels of nuclear waste in 1 DGR, and 2 DGRs were required!!
11. Let's look closer at this guarantee of 2-Track 2-DGR. OPG tells the Citizens and Taxpayers of our Bruce County DGR Community that the OPG DGR for clothes and rags will not store spent fuel. OPG goes on to tell our Community that OPG's Hosting Agreement with Kincardine allows for storage of only low and intermediate level nuclear waste. That made absolutely no sense to anyone from the very beginning. Nonetheless, Citizens and Taxpayers did not care that a clothes and rags DGR made no sense because the main villain - spent fuel -was not coming and would never come to a DGR in our Community and we all breathed a collective sigh of relief! Query: Why did Kincardine council prohibit spent fuel in the Hosting Agreement when spent fuel had
9/24/2016 Page 8 of22 1r)b been stored safely in Kincardine for the past 40 years? That made no sense to anyone. The official word of why spent fuel was not going to be stored in the OPG DGR for clothes and rags was provided by Kincardine Mayor Kramer who simply said "We did our bit"! [I am not making this up.] Had Kincardine and OPG simply not prohibited spent fuel in its Hosting Agreement, and allowed spent fuel to be included in the DGR for clothes and rags, the 1 DGR for all levels of nuclear waste would be on the verge of approval as I write. But now 5 other municipalities in our Bruce County DGR Community are seeking to host a DGR for spent fuel contrary to the 15 years of promises and guarantees made by OPG throughout. As a result, it is impossible for OPG and NWMO [created by OPG, 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees] to even consider the 5. The Hosting Agreement signed by OPG guarantees that our Bruce County DGR Community is not a compelling willing Community to host a DGR for spent fuel because the Hosting Agreement expressly prohibits spent fuel in the OPG DGR. Ironically, OPG's and NWMO's own inept and incompetent handling of the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle that they created has now guaranteed the failure of both DGRs. Unbelievable! And good riddance. And do not forget that OPG inexplicably entered into the Hosting Agreement with Kincardine with full knowledge that OPG had to find a long term solution for spent fuel long before the Hosting Agreement was ever signed! The only thing left for OPG to do is to disband the now useless NWMO that was created only to handle the 2 DGRs that no longer will ever see the light of day. Even the Trojan Horse has no possibility of happening because there will never be a clothes and rags DGR that can be replaced by spent fuel after being built with a simple amendment of the Hosting Agreement by striking the word "prohibited" after spent fuel.
12. Briefly looking at the other factors set forth in the 2-Track 2-DGR definition by OPG above further establishes how it was just a matter of time before 2-Track 2-DGR would self-destruct in its entirety and disintegrate. The second factor listed informs Citizens and Taxpayers that the Environmental Assessment for the DGR is only for low and intermediate nuclear waste. Citizens and Taxpayers merely have to ask OPG, NWMO, CNSC, and government officials at all levels why not include high level spent fuel rather than reinvent the wheel at double the cost for an unnecessary independent and separate DGR?
13. The third factor insults the intelligence of all Citizens and Taxpayers by informing everyone that the licensing process for the OPG DGR is specific to low and intermediate level waste only. Seriously? Are OPG and NWMO and CNSC and all government officials at every level telling everyone that it is impossible to add spent fuel to the licensing process? We all heard at the JRP Public Hearing that OPG would merely ask for another Public Hearing if a future council in Kincardine amended the Hosting Agreement to permit storage of spent fuel in the clothes and rags DGR!!! - not that you needed and required 2 DGRs - the Trojan Horse.
14. Next, OPG advises all Citizens and Taxpayers that the OPG DGR is not designed to handle spent fuel containers. How about simply changing the design to include storing spent fuel containers? Now there is a novel idea!
15. And the final reason given that spent fuel will never be stored in the OPG DGR- it is a
9/24/2016 Page 9 of22 1)7 2-Track 2-DGR process and each process must remain distinct and separate at all costs emphasis on "all costs." YIKES! Somebody put an end to this nonsense! - Please!
16. And OPG might have gotten away with it had it not been for the next scene in this tragic play.
17. All of a sudden in 2012 after the Citizens and Taxpayers had been guaranteed for years by OPG that spent fuel was separate and would never come to a DGR in our Community, inexplicably and shockingly 5 municipalities [including my own Town of Saugeen Shores- the twin nuclear Town to next door neighbour Kincardine] in our Bruce County DGR Community and bordering the host DGR Town of Kincardine, threw their hats in the ring to be considered as a potential site for the separate and independent spent fuel DGR-2. Inexplicably these same 5 bordering municipalities never showed any interest whatsoever in the clothes and rags DGR-1 proposed by OPG for our Bruce County DGR Community! How is it now possible in 2012 that 5 other Towns in our Bruce County DGR Community did not want anything to do with the clothes and rags, but now had a strong interest in hosting the forever dangerous radioactive spent fuel? It made absolutely no sense, until we now know OPG did not even allow any other municipality to bid on the clothes and rags DGR. OPG did not even tender the clothes and rags for bid simply because it was not economically feasible to check out any other potential DGR sites for clothes and rags because everyone on the Planet agrees that clothes and rags do not need any special handling, do not need any protection, and certainly do not need a DGR! Furthermore, the real reason behind the clothes and rags DGR is because Kincardine had lost certain impact payments when Bruce Power took over the nuclear plant from our government and the clothes and rags DGR fit the bill to get those impact payment reinstated through the 30 year schedule of yearly payments to 6 local DGR municipalities totaling $35 Million unnecessary and wasted Taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste will remain on the surface in New Brunswick, Quebec, Douglas Pointe at Bruce Power, Chalk River, and Port Hope. In other words no necessity and no urgency - the only 2 factors required for approval by the JRP and the Minister of the Environment McKenna. In other words, slow down and start over and only 1 DGR is necessary, if any, for all levels of nuclear waste.
18. Citizens and Taxpayers of our Bruce County DGR Community were played for fools by OPG and defrauded by the breach of the promise that no spent fuel will ever come to a DGR in our Bruce County DGR Community. 5 candidates are now seeking to have spent fuel come to a DGR in our Bruce County DGR Community, and OPG and NWMO are considering all 5 [but has inexplicably ruled out 3 local municipalities as having unsafe geology for a DGR, yet Kincardine has been ruled by OPG to have safe geology for a DGR forever through geologic time- give me a break!]. OPG misrepresented to the Citizens and Taxpayers in our Bruce County DGR Community by telling all Citizens and Taxpayers that spent fuel would never come to our Bruce County DGR Community. I anticipate OPG might try to justify its misrepresentation by saying OPG was referring only to the OPG DGR for clothes and rags would not have spent fuel. OPG might say that the spent fuel is going to a separate and independent DGR for spent fuel only and NWMO is handling that so OPG's promise of no spent fuel in the clothes and rags DGR
9/24/2016 Page 10 of22 7')'Y is still intact. That viewpoint would be characterized as shameful and despicable and an absolute fraud or scam on all Citizens and Taxpayers.
19. The government 2-Track 2-DGR scam is confirmed in a brief summary review of its history set forth below that can be further embellished when more time permits:
20. OPG owns all levels of nuclear waste - low (clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers, that need no special handling, no special protection, and no DGR), intermediate, and high level (spent fuel).
21. OPG is responsible for storing all levels of nuclear waste- low, intermediate, and high.
22. OPG is the owner and licensee of the DGR for 80% low (clothes and rags) and 20% intermediate level nuclear waste throughout the entire lifecycle of the project, according to official NWMO documents.
23. Long ago, in 2002, OPG created its clone, its fiction, and its agent NWMO pursuant to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act adopted to specifically find a long term solution for high level spent fuel nuclear waste. OPG from that time on continues to own 95% of NWMO, has interchangeable employees between OPG and NWMO, and it is a fiction that they are independent and separate related to the overall DGR process. Yet inexplicably from the very beginning and through to the present day, some 15 years, OPG and clone NWMO are separate and independent entities as they relate to the 2-Track 2-DGR process- thus creating and guaranteeing the success of the Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles that has been cleverly and so far successfully marketed as totally separate and independent. It is just accepted and move on. The marketing of this unnecessary and infamous 2-Track 2-DGR process is canvassed below and establishes how carefully OPG and NWMO and our government have misled Citizens and Taxpayers by isolating the 2 DGRs from one another. So masterful was the separation, OPG, NWMO, and our government on every level would go so far as never answering any questions related to how fraudulent, how wasteful, or anything else about the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles.
24. Then in 2007, OPG contracted its clone and agent NWMO to manage and conduct the Regulatory Approvals Phase and Design and Construction Phase activities related to its OPG DGR for clothes and rags under review by Minister McKenna presently. OPG monitors its clone and agent NWMO in a flow chart dated February 18, 2011, jointly released by OPG and NWMO, as it relates to Regulatory Approvals, Design, Procurement, Site Preparation, Construction, Commissioning, Operational Readiness, etc., etc., etc.
25. Therefore, for the past 15 years OPG and clone and agent NWMO have acted in concert pursuing the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR process when only 1-Track 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste was necessary. As a result millions to billions to beyond of Taxpayer dollars have been and will be squandered and wasted on 2 DGRs when only 1 DGR is necessary.
26. And throughout these past 15 years, all OPG and NWMO and government officials at
9/24/2016 Page 11 of22 ?~r all levels have simply put their collective heads in the sand to avoid answering any of the grave questions and concerns related to the obscene unnecessary Taxpayer waste caused by the 2-Track 2-DGR process by simply voicing their continuing mantra defining its infamous and impossible to justify in any way 2-Track 2-DGR process.
27. This 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle initiated and controlled by OPG and our government, if it is left unchecked by Citizens and Taxpayers who are being fleeced, will guarantee the approval by Minister of the Environment McKenna of the unnecessary OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags that need no special handling, no special protection, and no Taj Mahol DGR!
28. Why not combine the extraordinary and obscene Taxpayer expense required to duplicate every step of the DGR process for 2 DGRs, when only 1 DGR process is necessary for all levels of nuclear waste? Why not amend the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to include solutions for low and intermediate nuclear waste, rather than have 2 jurisdictions and 2 unnecessary separate and independent DGR processes duplicate and double the obscene waste of Taxpayer dollars? 15 years have now elapsed and no one at OPG, NWMO, CNSC, and our government at all levels can save-face. Since OPG, NWMO, CNSC, and our government at all levels refuse to do the right thing in the face of undisputed facts requiring only 1-DGR, if any, a Public and Judicial Inquiry must commence and end the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle.
29. The following flow chart and summary briefly describes the 15 year history of the inexplicable and unjustifiable and unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles. This history can only lead to one conclusion and one solution - i.e. the OPG DGR Application for a clothes and rags DGR must be dismissed by Minister of the Environment McKenna, followed by the commencement of a fiscally reasonable 1-Track 1-DGR process to finally determine what to do with the long term storage and fate of all levels of nuclear waste- low, intermediate, and high- instead of a nonsensical piecemeal and random bandaid for only some of low and intermediate nuclear waste, while spent fuel remains stored on the surface without any solution for the next century, and while low and intermediate nuclear waste continues to be stored on the surface in New Brunswick, Quebec, Douglas Pointe at Bruce Power, Chalk River, and Port Hope.
30. As we all know there is no rational explanation for our government continuing the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle that must be replaced by a 1-Track 1-DGR process. The only possible explanation is that our government is ultimately using the fraudulent 2-Track 2-DGR process as the only way to build a DGR for [80%] clothes and rags that will then be replaced by spent fuel as a Trojan Horse. The ultimate government scam.
31. The following flow chart commencing some 15 years ago establishes how our government leaders at all levels have expertly been able to create and maintain the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggle frauds squandering our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary and utterly useless clothes and rags nuclear waste dump:
9/24/2016 Page 12 of22
Commencing shortly after the year 2000
OPG owns all levels of nuclear waste, low level clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers, intermediate nuclear waste, and spent fuel high level nuclear waste. OPG creates NWMO pursuant to Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to deal with long term solutions for spent fuel high level nuclear waste. Low and intermediate waste is not included in NWMO's mandate. OPG owns 95% of NWMO. OPG has interchangeable employees with NWMO.
Commencing shortly after the year 2000 and shortly after the creation of NWMO by OPG
Town of Kincardine council dreams up DGR for clothes and rags while expressly prohibiting spent fuel nuclear waste. As a consequence of this Kincardine council brainstorm requires the inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle to be born. And off we go!
2002-2005
OPG signs hosting agreement following Memorandum of Understanding as far back as 2002 with Kincardine to build the proposed clothes and rags DGR.
2004-2005
OPG includes a schedule of 30 years of yearly outrageous and obscene payments totaling $35 Million wasted Taxpayer Dollars, between 2005 thru 2034, to Kincardine and 5 surrounding local municipalities solely to guarantee support of the proposed clothes and rags DGR by Kincardine and the 5 neighbouring municipalities in our Bruce County DGR Community [including Saugeen Shores the twin nuclear town with Kincardine].
2005 thru 2034
The payout by OPG to the 6 municipalities of these huge and obscene 30 yearly payments of Taxpayer dollars [totaling $35 Million] is conditional on ALL 6 municipalities using their "best efforts" to support the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. "Best efforts" is to be determined solely by OPG in OPG's discretion!
2005 thru 2034
The huge obscene Taxpayer dollar payouts over 30 years was included by OPG in its draconian and one-sided hosting agreement with Kincardine solely to guarantee the support for the OPG DGR for clothes and rags by all the neighbouring 6 municipalities included in the OPG DGR Community that must ultimately be a compelling willing Community for the OPG DGR to succeed -and not impact payments since no DGR existed or was being built throughout this time to the present day.
2005 thru 2034
The huge obscene Taxpayer dollar payouts over 30 years were included by OPG to silence inevitable challenges by the 5 neighbouring municipalities whereby the 5 municipalities should have been allowed to bid on being considered as an alternate DGR site to Kincardine. OPG
9/24/2016 Page 13 of22 1G! intentionally refused to allow any other municipality to be considered for the DGR project even though required! 21 municipalities are being considered as sites for the DGR for spent fuel. The same 21 municipalities should have been considered as sites for the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. But since there is no need for a clothes and rags DGR and all levels of nuclear waste can be stored in 1 DGR there is no need to duplicate investigations of 21 sites to be considered for a DGR. The 30 years of payments was a way to eliminate that controversy and allow the Kincardine site to continue without challenge and illusory support from local municipal councils based on the payments received and not based upon any referendum by Citizens and Taxpayers that is required to determine a compelling willing Community and which OPG knew would not be favourable.
2005 thru 2034
Most of all, the obscene 30 years of payments allowed OPG, simultaneously with OPG's 95% owned NWMO clone, to continue with and guarantee the inept and incompetent 2-Track 2- DGR Taxpayer boondoggle to proceed without challenge.
2005 thru 2012
OPG conducts Open Houses in our DGR Community, and sends mailings to all Citizens and Taxpayers in our DGR Community, and uses media advertising throughout our DGR Community in an attempt to sell the OPG DGR for clothes and rags to our Community because spent fuel is prohibited. OPG emphasizes that the OPG DGR for clothes and rags is entirely separate and independent from a 2nd DGR for spent fuel, and the 2 processes can never mix or complement one another in any way whatsoever! Thus, the undisputed 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles is perfected!
2005 thru 2012
Bruce County Council conducts secret, closed, unlawful DGR meetings with OPG, NWMO [95% owned by OPG], and CNSC, our nuclear watchdog for all Citizens and Taxpayers. These illegal DGR meetings, without Citizens and Taxpayers knowing they even existed, provided a forum for our elected and unelected government officials to secretly figure out how to spring the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle on an unsuspecting and na·lve Citizenry and Taxpayerry without jeopardizing the elected government officials chances at re-election. These illegal secret and closed DGR meetings were a training ground for government officials on how to make certain that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle remained on its 2 Tracks. If asked, government officials were expertly trained to respond that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle required the 2 DGRs to be on 2 Tracks, both independent and both separate, and neither could ever share information of any kind. By so training our local leaders, our DGR Community was shamefully and wrongfully informed that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle was cast in stone and could not be combined in any fashion whatsoever. And shamefully our government leaders and non-leaders used the mysterious "nuclear" aura to sell it, when in reality it was Kincardine council's inept and incompetent idea that created 2-Track 2-DGR in the first place. Unfortunately, the shameful 2-Track 2-DGR has thus far been very successful at the expense of obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars that have so far been squandered and continue to be squandered as long as this fraud continues.
9/24/2016 Page 14 of22
2011-2015
The Joint Review Panel [JRP] follows a mandate authored by our government that expressly and unwaveringly limits its review of the clothes and rags OPG DGR Application to the 80% clothes and rags and 20% intermediate level waste destined for the OPG DGR. The JRP mandate expressly excludes any consideration related to a DGR for spent fuel high level nuclear waste. Thus, JRP recommending approval of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags is guaranteed.
2011-2012
Leaving nothing to chance, our government officials made sure the JRP would not waver from its mandate of not considering the spent fuel DGR in any way, the Minister of the Environment and the CNSC watchdog head, Michael Binder, hand-picked the 3 members of the Panel. The problem with the selection process is that it automatically created an actual bias, an appearance of bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias immediately on the part of the 3 members picked for the JRP. First, CNSC was a key witness, if not THE key witness in the JRP proceedings. The Record confirms that the CNSC failed miserably in its role as watchdog on behalf of all Citizens and Taxpayers. The Record confirms that CNSC acted as advocate in favour of the OPG DGR Application, foreshadowed years before in one of the infamous secret, closed, illegal DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council with OPG, NWMO [95% owned by OPG, an OPG clone with interchangeable employees], and CNSC. At one of those illegal meetings, Michael Binder, President and CEO of CNSC, was heard to say to the local mayors in attendance at the illegal Bruce County Council meeting that "he hoped to see them next at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the OPG DGR"! The process guaranteed success for the OPG DGR clothes and rags to be approved by government even though it is beyond dispute that there is no need and no urgency for a clothes and rags OPG DGR- both requirements for our government to find in the OPG DGR review mandate.
2012
21 municipalities throw hat into the ring to be considered by NWMO [created by OPG, 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees, a clone] as a possible site for a DGR for spent fuel. None of these 21 municipalities were given a required opportunity to bid and be considered as a site for the clothes and rags OPG DGR that has always been improperly limited exclusively to Kincardine. 2-Track 2-DGR requires separate and independent process with no questions asked.
2013-2015
Community Consultation Liaison Committee related to a separate DGR for spent fuel was appointed and convened. Grave 2-Track 2-DGR questions caused NWMO to close down its shop in Saugeen Shores and escape town before having to answer the impossible 2-Track 2- DGR questions. Unsafe geology was the formal reason. But that reason automatically disqualifies Kincardine a few kilometres away from having safe geology forever to host the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. No government official will dare to answer that.
2011-2016 [to present]
9/24/2016 Page 15 of22 763 The Minister of the Environment partially picked and approved the 3 members of the JRP reviewing the OPG DGR Application. The Minister of the Environment is now responsible for reviewing the work product and Report recommending approval of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, when the Minister of the Environment partially picked and approved the 3 members of the JRP! The Minister of the Environment is therefore being asked to review the work product of people the Minister of the Environment approved to do the work. The actual bias, an appearance of bias, or a reasonable apprehension of bias is off the charts! There is no required independence, no required impartiality, and no required un-bias related to the review of the JRP DGR Report and the decision-maker the Minister of the Environment. Again, government has rigged the system to guarantee the success of the unnecessary OPG DGR for clothes and rags.
August 2016
"Pass the Buck" Minister of the Environment McKenna, responding to only 1 of my 40-plus emails, "Passes the Buck" to her colleague the Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr to answer Citizen and Taxpayer questions concerning the undisputed 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle because the spent fuel DGR is not part of her mandate portfolio as Minister of the Environment. "Pass the Buck" assures guaranteed success of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, with an illusory and false appearance that government is actually looking into it.
September 2016
"Pass the Buck" Prime Minister Trudeau, responding to only 1 of my 40-plus emails, "Passes the Buck" to his Minister of the Environment McKenna to answer Citizen and Taxpayer questions concerning the undisputed 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle because Minister McKenna is the one responsible in his cabinet to answer questions related to the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle. Except there is no government policy related to 2-Track 2-DGR. 2-Track 2-DGR is invented and has become a process by Kincardine council's crazy idea to site an unnecessary clothes and rags DGR, in concert with OPG. And most importantly, Minister McKenna already had "Passed the Buck" to her comrade Minister Carr because she is of the opinion that she is not responsible for 2-Track 2-DGR and cannot answer any questions related to a spent fuel DGR! Either the Prime Minister does not understand what oversight Minister McKenna has related to the DGR, or Minister McKenna does not know what her jurisdiction is. Either way it is very concerning for concerned Citizens and Taxpayers. And even if there is a jurisdictional dispute, ignore it and fix the problem by eliminating the irresponsible 2-Track 2-DGR process and replace it with a 1-Track 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste -low clothes and rags, intermediate, and spent fuel high levels. "Pass the Buck" assures guaranteed success of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, with an illusory and false appearance that government is actually looking into it.
Present Day September 16, 2016
While Prime Minister Trudeau "Passed the Buck" to his Minister of the Environment McKenna, we are fortunate to report that the Prime Minister does not have the normal luxury of
9/24/2016 Page 16 of22 7~Y participating in this popular political sport engaged in by all government officials of "Passing the Buck" because of the even more popular sporting event engaged in and limited to government heads of state known as "The Buck Stops Here." In this case "The Buck Stops Here" [T]rump's [no pun intended] "Pass the Buck." How then can Citizens and Taxpayers require Prime Minister Trudeau to answer to his mandate and terminate the wrongful and inexplicably fiscally wasteful 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle short of Judicial intervention?
Present Day September 16, 2016
In the meantime, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr has not responded. We are awaiting Minister Carr's "Pass the Buck" moment!
2000 thru 2016 [present]
OPG President and CEO, Jim Lyash has never responded to these grave Citizen and Taxpayer concerns. Neither has NWMO [95% owned by OPG with interchangeable employees, a clone] President and CEO, Ken Nash, neither has Michael Binder, President and CEO of CNSC, neither has Premier Wynne!
2000 thru 2016 [present]
Government knows if it does not respond government can continue the irresponsible and wasteful 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle and there is absolutely nothing Citizens and Taxpayers can do short of costly and difficult Judicial intervention.
2000 thru 2016 [present]
Government at all levels has masterfully followed 2-Track 2-DGR so as to guarantee the success of the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags at the unnecessary absolute waste of squandered Taxpayer dollars.
After 2016 and into the future
Having successfully pulled off this 2-Track 2-DGR scam on the Citizens and Taxpayers, allowing the OPG DGR for clothes and rags to be built, the government will then simply replace the useless clothes and rags that do not require a DGR and replace them with spent fuel without building a 2nd DGR- a classic case of a modern day Trojan Horse- and completing the ultimate Citizen and Taxpayer scam by our government.
32. The following facts are undisputed and establish how our government leaders at all levels have perpetrated the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle that will ultimately lead to the building of a clothes and rags DGR Trojan Horse that will be replaced by spent fuel.
33. Our elected and unelected government leaders have been the architects of this 2- Track 2-DGR and have done all they could throughout the years to guarantee that the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle would be ultimately successful. The following undisputed facts prove it.
9/24/2016 Page 17 of22 10t{' 34. Prime Minister Trudeau recently on September 8, 2016, finally responded to 1 of my 40-plus emails addressed directly to him related to the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle. Unfortunately, without answering any of the grave questions concerning Citizens and Taxpayers, the Prime Minister merely informed us that questions about the 2-Track 2- DGR are the responsibility of Minister of the Environment McKenna, and referred all of us to Minister McKenna for answers.
35. The problem with Prime Minister Trudeau's referral is that Minister McKenna has yet to answer any of the questions concerning Citizens and Taxpayers in the same emails sent to the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister was well aware of Minister McKenna's failure to respond to the questions as proved by his referral email and the other 40-plus emails that have resulted in resounding silence only.
36. In any event, the Prime Minister's referral to his Environment Minister McKenna is a classic example of the legendary government work-ethic affectionately known as "Pass the Buck"! In other words the Prime Minister wants to take no responsibility and does not want to have his name associated in any way with the undisputed 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all Taxpayer boondoggles!
37. But wait! Even prior to Prime Minister Trudeau's referral to his hand-picked Minister of the Environment McKenna, Minister McKenna had already practiced her own "Pass the Buck," this time to her colleague in the Cabinet the Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr. Minister McKenna, in classic 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle fashion, informed me that she was not responsible for answering my questions and concerns related to a high level spent fuel DGR because it was a 2-Track 2-DGR system and process and Minister Carr answers questions related and isolated solely to the spent fuel half of the 2-Track process. 2-Track 2-DGR by definition assumes and requires 2 separate and independent processes [Tracks if you will], 1- Track for a DGR-1 related solely to low (overwhelmingly clothes and rags) and intermediate nuclear waste, with a 2nd totally independent and separate DGR-2 for high level spent fuel nuclear waste- and let us not forget that OPG owns and is responsible for storing all levels of nuclear waste- low, intermediate, and high levels - that has been safely stored in one facility above ground at Bruce Power for the past 50 years. In other words it is impossible for any government official to answer any questions related to 2-Track 2-DGR. [By the way, Minister Carr has yet to answer any question, and we are awaiting his 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle "Pass the Buck" moment.]
38. Obviously, our government "leaders" have mastered the "Pass the Buck" expertise in the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle. As a result, the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle procedure guarantees that Minister McKenna and our government will ultimately approve the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags despite the unanimous agreement by everyone, including nuclear experts, that there is no need to build a DGR-1 for clothes and rags separate from a 2nd DGR-2 for spent fuel. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a nuclear genius to figure that out. Furthermore, it is unanimously undisputed that there is no need and no urgency to build the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags while spent fuel will remain stored on the surface for the next 100 years, at least a century,
9/24/2016 Page 18 of22 7G~ and maybe forever because the spent fuel may never find a compelling willing separate DGR home. In addition, there is no need and no urgency to build the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags when low and intermediate nuclear waste in Quebec, New Brunswick, Douglas Pointe at the Bruce Power site, Chalk River, and Port Hope remains stored on the surface. And also there is no need and no urgency to build the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags when a major expansion at least doubling the size for decommissioned nuclear waste is predicted by 2030. We are not making this up!
39. By "Passing the Buck" to Minister Carr, Minister McKenna has pre-judged and pre guaranteed her approval of the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags. As a result, Minister McKenna's obvious express showing of bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias favouring approval of the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags requires recusal of Minister McKenna in the DGR process. Minister McKenna encourages me to continue participating in the DGR process. I ask: To what end? when Minister McKenna has already summarily dismissed my questions and concerns related to the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that is of grave concern to all Citizens and Taxpayers?
40. In the following paragraphs below, we will now return to getting back to how government leaders and officials conspired to make sure the questions and concerns related to the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle are never allowed to see the light of day and derail the illegitimate OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags that is best characterized as a fraud on Taxpayer spending.
41. The 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud is not premised on any governmental policy, legislation, regulation, or rule. The 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle was invented solely by Kincardine council over 15 years ago. At that time at the turn of the millennium, Kincardine had lost huge impact payments related to hosting a nuclear plant. In an effort to reestablish these obscene wasteful payments, Kincardine council manipulated a way to again garner wasteful Taxpayer payments by dreaming up a scheme to host an inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible DGR for clothes and rags while prohibiting spent fuel. Inexplicably, the idea for a DGR for clothes and rags was invented, initiated, and created by Kincardine council. It was not invented by any nuclear expert. In fact it is undisputed that clothes and rags do not need any special handling and do not need any special protection, they were worn and used by nuclear workers, can be incinerated, and do not need to be buried in a DGR and can continue to be stored safely on the surface in the forever future having been safely stored on the surface for the past 50 years. Even more inexplicably, and beyond the definition of inept and incompetent, in 2005, OPG, who owns all levels of nuclear waste, entered into the DGR clothes and rags hosting agreement with Kincardine, arguably the worst and most incomprehensibly useless and wasteful government contract anywhere ever on the Planet. OPG entered into this nonsensical hosting agreement with Kincardine to store OPG's clothes and rags in a DGR-1, while at the same time OPG had absolutely no idea what to do with OPG's spent fuel beyond storing the spent fuel above ground, a safe practice that OPG had maintained for the past 50 years. Shockingly, OPG blindly entered into this hosting agreement limited to clothes and rags and 20% intermediate, while expressly excluding spent fuel for absolutely no reason, fully aware that the
9/24/2016 Page 19 of22 federal government required OPG to find a permanent solution for spent fuel. The/G 7 irresponsible behaviour on the part of our government officials related to pursuing a useless and unnecessary DGR for billions of Taxpayer dollars while spent fuel is languishing in the wind without a permanent home is unparalleled anywhere on the planet even by government standards!
42. In 2005, OPG having now entered into the incompetent hosting agreement with Kincardine to site a DGR for clothes and rags while spent fuel languishes in limbo on top of the surface, OPG now had to hide its inexplicable incompetence from Citizens and Taxpayers whose money was being unnecessarily squandered. How to do that? And that is how the infamous 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle process was born. If anyone should ask about spent fuel tell them spent fuel is prohibited in the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags, and, furthermore, the spent fuel will be a part of a separate and independent DGR process run by OPG's clone NWMO and will be completely independent of the OPG DGR and their separate paths will never cross! In that way, OPG could avoid ever having to confront and answer the obvious waste and boondoggle of building 2 DGRs when only 1 DGR is necessary to store all levels of nuclear waste. And OPG thought they could get away with that thinking that Citizens and Taxpayers are simply too stupid to see the obvious travesty and unnecessary waste to our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars. And even more insulting, under the Nuclear Waste Act OPG created NWMO [and OPG owns 95% of NWMO with interchangeable employees between OPG and NWMO, an OPG clone] to complete the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud that could never survive Citizen and Taxpayer scrutiny.
43. How then did OPG attempt to make sure the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle fraud was not exposed to Citizens and Taxpayers? Simple. From 2007 through 2012, our Bruce County Council conducted secret unlawful closed DGR meetings held exclusively with OPG, NWMO, and CNSC our so-called watchdog for Citizens and Taxpayers. Because they were illegal and closed to the Public without notice of any kind Citizens and Taxpayers were not able to attend and participate in the DGR process. During these secret, illegal, and closed DGR meetings, our government elected and unelected leaders and officials were able to conspire and make up a foolproof plan that would hide the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle process that could not possibly survive Citizen and Taxpayer scrutiny. This conduct is inexcusable, shameful, and despicable on all levels. Minutes were not even kept, but fortunately there is an explicit note from the illegal meetings, wherein Michael Binder, President and CEO of CNSC, our head watchdog, exhorted to Bruce County Council that he hoped to see the mayors of the Community at the "ribbon-cutting for the OPG DGR"- and this was stated way back in 2009, years before Public Hearings and years before completion of the OPG DGR safety-case that had to survive CNSC's watchdog scrutiny! Our head watchdog is more of an advocate for the OPG DGR than OPG! Shameful and despicable!
44. I attended the Open Houses throughout the years conducted by OPG in our DGR Community. Every time I was concerned about the status of the spent fuel and a DGR. Every time I was advised by OPG that spent fuel was prohibited in OPG's proposed DGR for clothes and rags, and spent fuel was a separate and independent process - end of story. OPG mailed flyers and updates to me and Citizens and Taxpayers of our DGR
9/24/2016 Page 20 of22 7'g Community, and published them in the local media, also emphasizing the separate and independent status of spent fuel - and emphasizing that spent fuel was prohibited in the OPG DGR for clothes and rags proposed in our DGR Community. And I was also comforted by the fact that no other Community had bid on the OPG DGR so it was impossible for spent fuel to ever find a DGR home let alone the required compelling willing Community. Thus, OPG was successful at avoiding any questions related to 2- Track 2-DGR process that would have been immediately exposed as a fraud by every Citizen and Taxpayer. OPG was also successful in lulling our Community into a feeling of false confidence and a false security that spent fuel was never coming to a DGR in our DGR Community.
45. Then it happened. In 2012, and just before the JRP Public Hearings related to the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags, we find out that 21 Towns have thrown their hats in the ring to be considered as an alternate site for a DGR for spent fuel. All Towns in Canada must have the same opportunity to be considered for either of the 2 DGRs. Yet none of these towns were interested in bidding for the clothes and rags DGR? Why? We now find out there was no tender or bidding process to site the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. As a result we now know astonishingly that the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags was limited only to the Kincardine council proposal long ago some 15 years. Government has to tender a simple road repair transaction, but government does not have to tender or seek contenders for the OPG DGR clothes and rags proposal? Nonsense! Something is terribly wrong! The process is rigged. But it fits the 2-Track 2- DGR scheme cooked up by OPG and government! Had OPG tendered the clothes and rags DGR like it was required to do, the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle would have been exposed immediately and replaced even faster by a 1-Track 1-DGR process. Shameful and despicable behaviour on the part of our government! And had OPG tendered the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, OPG never would have been able to sell it. The forever prohibition of spent fuel at the Kincardine OPG DGR was the only way OPG could sell the OPG DGR to Citizens and Taxpayers. But now in 2012, 5 towns in our DGR Community alone were now being considered as a site for a spent fuel DGR even though our Community forever prohibits spent fuel in a DGR in our Community. For the past 15 years, our government has defrauded our DGR Community by assuring all Citizens and Taxpayers that spent fuel was not going to ever be stored in a DGR in our DGR Community. That is the only way our government could try to sell our Community with this nonsense. The OPG DGR is nothing more than a Trojan Horse, wherein once it is built, the clothes and rags will be replaced by spent fuel because clothes and rags do not need to be stored in a Taj Mahol DGR costing billions of Taxpayer dollars! The biggest fraud on the Planet. And the Bruce County Council secret illegal closed DGR meetings conspired to plan out and strategize without Citizen and Taxpayer scrutiny how to unveil the inexplicable 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud in a way that would not jeopardize re-election of local government officials. Shameful in a Free and Democratic Society that was Constitutionally preserved in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms initiated and inspired by Prime Minister Trudeau's Father and which the Prime Minister has the privilege and honour of now protecting, and which he pledged to do during his recent victorious campaign! We now are asking the Prime Minister to make good on his pledge as it relates to the most serious process to ever confront our Environment forever!
9/24/2016 Page 21 of22 161 46. All of a sudden Saugeen Shores Citizens and Taxpayers were asking too many questions related to the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle. All of a sudden the plug was pulled by NWMO, silencing this ever-increasing volume of inquiry exposing the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud. Surprise! Saugeen Shores geology was unsafe for a DGR and NWMO left town without disclosing any supporting documentation proving the unsafe geology and requested by Citizens and Taxpayers. And Kincardine's geology for a DGR is safe over geologic time of forever, even though immediately next door and bordering Saugeen Shores? Absolute nonsense!
47. And now how does the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud avoid certain media and Citizen and Taxpayer scrutiny and exposure with the JRP Public Hearings imminent, and after OPG's successful concealment for almost a decade of wasteful Taxpayer spending and illusory investigation that was unnecessary because the OPG DGR for clothes and rags has been a rigged and done deal from the birth of the 2-Track 2-DGR? The answer: The mandate of the JRP is strictly and unwaveringly limited to reviewing the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags, and the JRP is strictly forbidden to consider anything related to the spent fuel DGR. Not surprising, our incompetent government at all levels failed to recognize that the JRP's first and foremost fact required prior to being allowed to recommend approval of the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags is necessity and urgency. In other words, since it is undisputed by everyone that all levels of nuclear waste can be stored in 1 DGR, and 2 DGRs are unnecessary, and clothes and rags do not need a DGR, and there is no urgency since spent fuel remains on the surface for the next 100 years at least and may never find a compelling willing DGR home, the most important evidence for the JRP and all Citizens and Taxpayers is related to the spent fuel DGR that must be completed prior to clothes and rags. Yet the mandate for the JRP to follow prohibits any evidence related to spent fuel and a DGR. Thus, the clothes and rags DGR cannot possibly lose being approved by the government because of the rigged and fraudulent process solely created by government elected and unelected leaders and officials.
48. Likewise, Minister of the Environment McKenna [handpicked and approved the members of the JRP whose work she is now called on to review- establishing actual bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias requiring her recusal] is also mandated to review only the JRP report and recommendations and cannot review anything related to spent fuel and a DGR even after now Minister McKenna knows that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle is an absolute fraud, and even though Minister McKenna and our government at all levels know that the 2-Track 2-DGR process must be replaced with a 1-Track 1-DGR process. If 2 DGRs were necessary, all government officials would have explained that to us. Their silence throughout this process confirms 2 DGRs are not necessary, and all levels of nuclear waste can be stored in 1 DGR. We would have heard otherwise if that were not so. Furthermore, if 2 DGRs are necessary, there would have been no reason to prohibit spent fuel in the OPG DGR Hosting Agreement with Kincardine. In addition, if clothes and rags and intermediate level nuclear waste cannot be stored in 1 DGR with spent fuel, that would confirm that the Great Lakes are in grave danger and we all have been in grave danger for the past 50 years considering that clothes and rags and intermediate and high level spent fuel have
9/24/2016 Page 22 of22 77o been residing together in one storage facility above ground at Bruce Power in Kincardine, the proposed site for the OPG DGR for clothes and rags.
49. Thus, the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud is complete and comes full circle. And there is nothing Citizens and Taxpayers can do about it short of Judicial intervention. The process is rigged and Minister McKenna will approve the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags. The government has advised us that it is impossible for OPG and NWMO to combine their efforts related to 1-Track 1-DGR because it is a 2- Track 2-DGR government policy no matter how absurd and ridiculous and wasteful it is. And these people work for Citizens and Taxpayers. Shameful and despicable!
50. And the safety-model WIPP DGR in Carlsbad, New Mexico, catastrophically failed from unexplained radiation leaks over 2 and 1h years ago, on Valentine's Day 2014, just 15 years of a guaranteed forever safe warranty, and WIPP is closed and sealed, maybe forever. And OPG relied heavily upon WIPP in OPG's DGR safety-case. Yet no explanation from any of our government "leaders" and officials. Yikes!
51. In the meantime, I am awaiting Minister Carr's "Pass the Buck" designate. And Minister McKenna has yet to respond to OPG's inept and totally meaningless 2 hypothetical alternate site investigations promised by OPG in just 1 month, in October 2016, contrary to Minister McKenna's clear Order for OPG to conduct actual DGR site studies that should have been done originally some 15 years ago. How is this remotely possible?
52. Unfortunately, this is a true story. Our government "leaders" and officials now find themselves unable to save face and simply admit that they should not have pursued the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle for the past 15 years. As a result the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags is guaranteed to be approved with resultant unnecessary billions of Taxpayer dollars squandered for no reason. Just think what those billions of Taxpayer dollars could do if they were transferred to our starving health, education, and Legal Aid budgets where they would actually benefit all Citizens and Taxpayers?
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores
9/24/2016 Page 1 of 1 171 John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
9/25/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann 77L
From: "John Mann"
October 10, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
New NWMO President Laurie Swami must finally terminate the irresponsible 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle in favour of a fiscally responsible 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste.
1. Congratulations to Laurie Swami who has just been elevated to President and CEO of NWMO from her position with cloning parent OPG as Senior Vice-President of Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Management, replacing Ken Nash who retired on September 30, 2016. Ms. Swami starts her new role as President and CEO of NWMO on November 14, 2016.
10/14/2016 Page 2 of3 77-J 2. This promotion is a stark reminder that OPG and NWMO are one. OPG created NWMO, OPG owns 95% of NWMO, and OPG and N~MO have interchangeable employees. Ms. Swami joins clone NWMO after a 30 year career with OPG who gave birth to and owns NWMO.
3. The incestuous elevation of leaders from OPG to NWMO has a long history dating back to NWMO's inception after OPG created it. For example, Ms. Swami's immediate predecessor Ken Nash enjoyed a 10 year leadership role at NWMO after serving as an executive with OPG for years prior thereto. Incredibly the two identical companies could not combine as one and pool their massive resources into one process to find a responsible and fiscally reasonable solution for all levels of nuclear waste, 1 DGR being but one option in a fiscally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste, wherever located, and at whatever level, and wherever formed. Instead, and inexplicably, OPG and NWMO conspired in guaranteeing that OPG and NWMO would forever remain separate and independent from each other in each and every respect, in what we now know as the inept, unconscionable, and incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle of all boondoggles, a complete and total squandering of billions and billions of precious and finite Taxpayer dollars that could be easily transferred and deposited into our starving Health, Education, and Legal Aid budgets that could actually benefit all Citizens and Taxpayers that OPG and NWMO have the honour and privilege to work for.
4. The rigged and fraudulent and purely wasteful 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle has survived up to this point only because of the shameful and despicable arrogant misleading marketing to Citizens and Taxpayers that OPG and NWMO are separate and independent entities, OPG handling the low and intermediate level DGR while NWMO handles the high level spent fuel DGR- and we have been told that the two can never meet! Utter nonsense! Shameful, despicable, and deplorable! After being called on the absurdity to ever be separate and independent in this venture, and even more absurd to continue to be separate and independent, Citizens and Taxpayers are left only with silence from both OPG and NWMO and all of our government leaders, while continuing full speed ahead with the incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle that can never be justified.
5. Fortunately, the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle will now certainly be terminated by our new NWMO President and CEO Swami. President Swami was the spectacular leader of OPG at the Joint Review Panel [JRP] Public Hearings, magnificently prepared on a daily basis responding to the questions and inquiries from the JRP. Now that President Swami is the leader of OPG's clone NWMO, President Swami will now finally be able to use her extraordinary expertise related to OPG's low and intermediate level DGR and combine that with her new found role as NWMO's leader of the high level spent fuel DGR. As a result President Swami will be able to explain to all Citizens and Taxpayers in her first scheduled news conference and [free and independent] PRESS RELEASE that OPG and NWMO will finally and responsibly strike the word "prohibited" after the words "high level spent fuel" in the Hosting Agreement OPG signed with Kincardine over a decade ago. President Swami is finally in a position to scrap the irredeemable 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle for this fiscally responsible 1- DGR process for all nuclear waste. I was very impressed with President Swami's knowledge and expertise related to the DGR at the JRP Public Hearings. I am certain she understands better than anyone on the Planet that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle must give way to a fiscally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste. We all look forward to President Swami doing the right thing to proceed with the 1-DGR process for all Citizens and Taxpayers where we
10114/2016 Page 3 of3 -rtY can all finally meaningfully participate in a responsible and fiscally reasonable solution for all nuclear waste before one more dollar is unnecessarily squandered. More importantly, President Swami is in the unique position to finally be open and transparent and speak to all Citizens and Taxpayers regarding this grave [no pun intended] process that affects everyone on this Planet- something that her predecessor and all leaders included in the addresses above have been shamefully unable to do. [I must say that I have no reason to be overly optimistic in light of the silence from our so-called leaders at every level of government throughout this process that precludes any meaningful Citizen and Taxpayer participation.- Yet hope springs eternal- and Democracy and Due Process can never be defeated.]
6. This all leads to the following immediate unanimous conclusion:
The OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags must be dismissed. A new 1-Track 1-DGR fiscally responsible process must commence. And an independent RCMP investigation or Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened related to the unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle that has inexplicably been allowed to continue for more than a decade and counting!
Happy Thanksgiving,
John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant re DGR Saugeen Shores
10/14/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
10115/2016 Page 1 of 4
John Mann 77£
From: "John Mann"
October 14, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
1. NWMO has earned the well-deserved reputation with Citizens and Taxpayers as the Nuclear Waste Mismanagement Organization related to the inexplicable unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR fraud on the Citizens and Taxpayers- all created by the NWMO Mother-Ship OPG.
2. The intentional and reprehensible arrogant silence by all of you so-called "leaders" to the grave [no pun intended] 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle questions and concerns posed by the Citizens and Taxpayers that you all have the honour and privilege to "serve as Public Servants" is shameful,
10/15/2016 Page 2 of 4 7 77 despicable, and deplorable. [Time and space prohibits me from presenting how we really feel about your abysmal job performance related to this inexplicable unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR fraud on the Citizens and Taxpayers.]
3. The only thing that all of you so-called "leaders" do well is that you all have perfected and mastered the favourite governmental bureaucracy pastime known affectionately [despicably] as "Pass-the-Buck" when confronted with an embarrassing and humiliating question that exposes the inexplicable unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR fraud. "Pass-the-Buck" to the next so-called "leader" in the line addressed above is an important and necessary component for our government to pull off a successful 2-Track 2- DGR fraud on its Citizens and Taxpayers. The problem is, you so-called "leaders" let somebody see you do it in the form ofthe Joint Review Panel Public Hearings. As a result, "Pass-the-Buck", the unfortunate Cornerstone to the Foundation of inept and incompetent government policy, has been elevated to emergency cover-up mode, thus guaranteeing that no government official will ever respond to any grave question and concern posed by the Citizens and Taxpayers- thus allowing the inexplicable unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR fraud on the Citizens and Taxpayers to continue full speed unabated, ensuring that embattled SNC-Lavalin's obscene fortune is guaranteed while rewarding criminal behaviour of "Paying-to-Play" while Citizens and Taxpayers are ripped off. It is nothing more than obstruct justice in the highest degree, violating Citizen and Taxpayer fundamental Free Speech, Free Assembly, Free Press, Due Process, and all basic Democratic and inherent rights enjoyed by all, and the Charter Section 7 rights of life, liberty, and security.
4. Unfortunately I am here to report that the "Pass-the-Buck" policy is still working to perfection. Long, long ago, on August 18, 2016, Minister McKenna advised me that she had no jurisdiction and was not paid to answer my questions related to the 2-Track 2-DGR fraud, but she assured me that her co-"Pass the-Buck" -colleague Minister Jim Carr of Natural Resources fame would answer our grave questions and concerns. True to form, and just as I predicted when I saw this next round of "Pass-the-Buck/' Minister Carr has intentionally ignored the "Pass-the-Buck" referral- reprehensible arrogant silence allowing the inexplicable and unnecessary 2-Track 2-DGR fraud to continue full speed unabated as planned to save the fortune for embattled SNC-Lavalin, the despicable lobbyist of all lobbyists. It turns out ironically that the "silent government" has crushed the rights of the "silent majority." And the "silent majority" has the right to be silent, unlike the government elected and unelected bureaucrats.
5. And as though that was not enough! We now have the letter of September 7, 2016! This letter is inexplicably sent from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency [CEAA] to OPG to clarify Minister of the Environment McKenna's February Order demanding (among other things) a full investigation of actual alternate DGR sites that should have been done right off the bat over a decade ago, and the cumulative effects of having 2 DGRs. The first question is: why is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency [CEAA] responding to OPG on behalf of Minister McKenna when it is Minister McKenna's own Order that needs clarification. I am unaware of any Judge or quasi-Judge that can delegate to someone else any clarification of the Judge's own Order. There is no jurisdiction or precedent for doing this. Clarification of any judicial order must be done by the judge herself or by another judicial or quasi-judicial entity cloaked with appellate review authority. For unelected bureaucrats to intervene as done here is inappropriate if not unlawful- and forever taints the fairness of the system and particularly the review process of the JRP Report. And the CEAA is the same agency that was promulgating conditions for OPG's DGR to be included for approval by Minister McKenna even prior to the Joint Review Panel having issued its final Report for review by Minister McKenna.
10/15/2016 Page 3 of 4 7 7JY Those conditions became part of the JRP Report, so the CEAA wrote the conditions for the JRP and are now seeking approval by Minister McKenna for those conditions while simultaneously working directly with Minister McKenna in her review of the entire process! The bias, appearance of bias, and reasonable apprehension of bias requires all of you to recuse from the process. There is no independent, impartial, and neutral tribunal reviewing. The incestuous relationship by every entity involved guarantees successful approval of the OPG DGR Application. Reprehensible in every way, shameful in every way, despicable in every way, and simply deplorable. And the September 7, 2016, letter says it all when it says "The review process will be open and transparent ...."When I see that I immediately ask myself "what are they hiding now!" All of you so-called leaders have earned this absolute lack of trust in your fraud process that you continue to perpetuate. The disrespect you show to all Citizens and Taxpayers with your reprehensible arrogant intentional silence and keeping Citizens and Taxpayers out of meaningful participation is reprehensible, shameful, despicable, and deplorable. Furthermore, to not require full investigation of actual alternative DGR sites {at least the 21 vying for the spent fuel DGR site) confirms that the September CEAA letter is a sham upon OPG's sham 2 hypothetical sham reports that it knew was not proper, thus the clarification request. This communication casts an illusion that everybody is performing their due diligence in the fraud process. In reality the suggested sham course of action by OPG set forth in its letter of April 15, 2016, coupled with the wink-wink September 7, 2016, letter by CEAA to do a "little bit more [that is also meaningless]" will inevitably lead to a sham and meaningless OPG report by December, 2016, that will be automatically rubber-stamped by CEAA, I mean Minister McKenna, that will guarantee and green light this 2-Track 2-DGR fraud to its inevitable successful conclusion -leading to the government and SNC-Lavalin rigged predetermined approval of the OPG DGR Application.
6. In addition, we Citizens and Taxpayers can easily answer the "cumulative effects analysis" required of OPG by Minister McKenna's Order. Instead of building 2 DGRs pursuant to the 2-Track 2-DGR fraud, HOW ABOUT THROWING ALL LEVELS OF NUCLEAR WASTE INTO 1 DGR -IF NECESSARY AT ALL!!!- That would automatically and immediately eliminate the gravely dangerous cumulative effects concerns created by building 2 unnecessary DGRs when only 1 DGR, if any, is necessary. While at the same time saving Billions and Billions of Taxpayer dollars that could actually be spent on something useful like Health, Education, and Legal Aid. Now that is a novel idea! And the approval rating of all of you so called "leaders" would actually skyrocket and assure you of protecting your most valued commodity reelection.
7. And I almost forgot- What in the heck took so long for this sham "clarification"? OPG will be done with its sham report in a few days, as noted in its April15, 2016, proposal to Minister McKenna. Why did it take 5 months for there to be a response for the requested "clarification," and, more importantly, why didn't the Minister McKenna, the person that actually issued the Order, clarify her own Order. Presumably Citizens and Taxpayers would expect Minister McKenna is reviewing all this DGR Record and not the CEAA. Instead, it is clear that CEAA is dictating the entire review process. Citizens and Taxpayers simply cannot trust this process. Something is terribly wrong. And survival of basic tenets of Democracy hang in the balance.
8. The disrespect and the arrogant intentional silence shown by all our so-called "leaders" requires all of you to step down, to be followed by a Public and Judicial Inquiry so that something like this never happens again to Citizens and Taxpayers.
10/15/2016 Page 4 of 4
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen and DGR Registered Participant
10/15/2016 Page 1 of 1 7 fYo John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
10115/2016 Page 1 of2 7RI John Mann
From: "John Mann"
November 1, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
OPG says Kincardine is the best site for a DGR because the clothes and rags are on-site, ironically confirming that a separate DGR for spent fuel is impossible because of the dangers and costs related to transporting spent fuel off-site!
1. The following link is OPG's most recent [fall 2016] presentation wherein OPG confirms that the
11/1/2016 Page 2 of2 7cFL Kincardine OPG DGR site for clothes and rags is the safest and best location because the nuclear waste is already stored on-site.
2. More importantly, and inexplicably, OPG also confirms that a separate DGR for OPG's spent fuel must automatically fail because of the dangers and costs involved in transporting the spent fuel to a DGR off-site!
3. And, as though that is not enough from this short link below, we find that OPG contemptuously ignores Minister McKenna's Order and does not even bother to investigate alternate DGR sites as required.
4. And all of our shameful, despicable, and reprehensible failed unspeakable DGR leadership allows this unspeakable catastrophe better known as the infamous 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud to continue unabated! All leading to one inescapable conclusion- Deplorable!
5. Here is the OPG link- Enjoy! The link is the definition of an inept and incompetent DGR process. In other words, common sense dictates that our so-called "leaders" must stop the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud immediately!!! http://www.kincardine.net/public docs/events/2016-10-28%20-%20DGR%20Update%20Fall% 202016.pdf
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Saugeen Shores Citizen and DGR Registered Participant
11/1/2016 Page 1 of 1 713 John Mann
From:
Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible.
Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query.
Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to ec.ministre-minister [email protected]
Best,
Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible.
En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande.
Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il concerne des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress?e? la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre [email protected]
Cordialement,
Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre
11/1/2016 Page 1 of 4
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
November 12, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forwardL President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
OPG fails to perform the alternate DGR site studies required by Minister McKenna's Order [that should have been done initially over 15 years ago].
1. On October 20, 2016, OPG sent to DGR Stakeholders a formal written {{Invitation to Participate in a Stakeholder Session about the Deep Geological Repository/' regarding OPG's draft response to the Minister of the Environment McKenna's request for additional studies on the proposed DGR that she is presently reviewing.
11112/2016 Page 2 of 4
2. I am a Stakeholder.
3. I did not get an invitation.
4. Just by chance I became aware ofthe Stakeholder Session to be held at OPG's office in Toronto on November 11, 2016. I called OPG and requested to attend. I was advised the meeting was for organizations only and not for individual stakeholder Citizens and Taxpayers. OPG has been on the receiving end of all of my emails. OPG knows I am interested, OPG refuses to answer my emails, and OPG made sure that I was not invited. OPG cannot answer my emails without having to concede that its 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud must be terminated for a fiscally and environmentally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. OPG ultimately relented and allowed me to participate in the meeting because "spaces" apparently became available, but only after some organization stakeholder RSVP's could not attend- as confirmed by an OPG email sent to me on November 7, 2016.
5. The only question is why weren't ALL stakeholders invited by OPG. And, more importantly, why wasn't the meeting webcast so that all stakeholders wherever they may be could attend? And, even more important than that, why wasn't the meeting preserved through video tape? And, as though that was not enough, why wasn't the meeting with stakeholders convened immediately when Minister McKenna's Order was issued so that we stakeholders could tell OPG how to proceed and particularly with conducting actual alternate site studies rather than the meaningless hypothetical studies that merely confirmed OPG's one and only DGR site of Kincardine.
6. The meeting confirmed my earlier email thread that OPG did not do any actual studies of alternate DGR sites required by Minister McKenna's Order!
7. OPG confirmed that its studies were hypothetical and absolutely meaningless!
8. OPG confirmed its "confirmation bias" through reports that assured its Kincardine DGR site would be approved. What a surprise. After all to find otherwise would be an admission by OPG that it had wasted our Taxpayer dollars and Citizen time for the past 15 years on a completely useless venture. As a result, it is impossible to find that anything OPG does or says related to its OPG's DGR for clothes and rags to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy. After all, the OPG DGR is on track to become what will be forever known as the biggest government boondoggle of all government boondoggles.
9. I will only mention the highlights of which there were very few and hard to find.
10. First, OPG says it would take years to do proper alternate DGR site studies-and "necessity" and "urgency" [yes I said "urgency"] to build the OPG DGR for clothes and rags requires useless but speedy hypothetical alternate DGR site studies! "And "necessity" and "urgency" are required for Minister McKenna to approve the OPG DGR Application.
11. Second, the fact that OPG will be seeking to DOUBLE the size of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags in about 15 years from now for decommissioning waste from Pickering and Darlington is a reason presented for the "necessity" and "urgency" to get the clothes and rags DGR built as quickly as possible
11/12/2016 Page 3 of 4
now!
12. Third, OPG argues that because spent fuel nuclear waste will remain on the surface for at least the next 100 years [and maybe forever if none of the remaining 9 municipalities left in the DGR for spent fuel sweepstakes make the cut and become a "compelling willing host" for the spent fuel DGRL there is therefore not only "necessity" to build a DGR for clothes and rags, there is "urgency" as well!
13. Fourth, OPG could not answer any questions about the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud for the simple reason that Minister McKenna did not ask OPG about it! Therefore, OPG refused to comment on the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud, other than to confirm the fraud that it was 2 separate processes that could never meet without dire consequences [yet giving no other explanation other than they were separate processes and there was absolutely nothing that could be done about itL thus assuring and guaranteeing the success of the 2-Track 2-DGR fraud.
14. Fifth, OPG confirmed that the transportation costs and risks were prohibitive related to having to transport the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste off-site to an alternate DGR location. Thus, OPG confirmed that NWMO's search for an off-site spent fuel DGR location must ultimately fail. The primary reason behind OPG confirming that the Kincardine site is the preferred DGR location is because the nuclear waste is on site and avoids the obscene costs and risks related to transporting the nuclear waste to an alternate DGR off-site. Yet NWMO is seeking a DGR that will require transportation of spent fuel off-site! These 2 processes cannot possibly co-exist.
15. More importantly, OPG is guaranteeing that its OPG DGR is a Trojan Horse. OPG and NWMO will never be able to sell a DGR located anywhere other than on-site at Kincardine because of its main selling point relied upon by the Joint Review Panel, i.e., there is no need to transport the nuclear waste off-site. OPG and its clone NWMO can't say how important it is that clothes and rags are already on site and do not need any transportation, and later say that it is important that spent fuel will be stored off-site where it will have to be transported. As a result, the government will ultimately place the spent fuel where the clothes and rags were supposed to go. The perfect fraud- our government sells the clothes and rags DGR so that later it can sell the spent fuel DGR because there is the cost savings that the DGR is already built. There is no way on earth that the government will ever build 2 of these DGRs for wasteful Taxpayer dollars. The Trojan Horse is guaranteed success.
16. OPG confirmed there were no cumulative effects related to having 2 DGRs in the same vicinity. These studies were peer reviewed by OPG! That is like having yourself review your own work. In any event there are no cumulative effects when you have only 1 DGR for all nuclear waste- while eliminating double costs, double environmental risks, and double security with commensurate double costs. Apparently, OPG's so-called experts found no stigma to a Community that houses 2 DGRs. Apparently it is a real tourist attraction. Give me a break!
17. We find out that CEAA will conduct public hearings. CEAA has already committed to disrespect everything I have presented and is actually biased in every way against everything I present. The matter should be sent back to the Joint Review Panel for further Public Hearings, but we were advised that that is impossible. Due Process is destroyed in every imaginable way in this entire inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible reprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud.
11/12/2016 Page 4 of 4
18. This entire 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud is nothing more than a rubber-stamp approving OPG's DGR for clothes and rags. Minister McKenna must find "necessity" and "urgency" before she can approve the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags. There is absolutely no "necessity" and no "urgency" to build the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, while spent fuel remains on the surface for at least the next 100 years (and maybe forever), and while decommissioning waste will double the size of the proposed OPG DGR in the next 20 years! Yet Minister McKenna will do nothing about it! Our other so-called leaders will do nothing about it! After all, if our government can get it built, the Trojan Horse will allow the spent fuel to replace the harmless clothes and rags.
19. OPG has failed to perform the required alternate DGR site studies required by Minister McKenna's Order [that should have been done initially over 15 years ago].
20. NWMO is performing 21 alternate DGR site studies for its DGR for spent fuel. OPG has performed 0 alternate DGR site studies- guaranteeing that the Great Lakes [the World's drinking source] will be exposed forever to the dangerous forever highly radioactive nuclear waste that will end up eventually destroying the Great Lakes. We cannot bet on the "unlikely" conclusion by experts that do not have a clue by definition- and paid by the Taxpayers they are supposed to protect. Distribute the billions and billions saved to our starving Health, Education, and Legal Aid budgets.
21. Stop the madness! Stop the fraud! Convene a Public and Judicial Inquiry and cross-examine related to SNC-Lavalin first!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Saugeen Shores Citizen and DGR Registered Participant
11/12/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)"
Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin.
Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected].
*********
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected].
11112/2016 Page 1 of2 7?; John Mann
From: "John Mann"
November 4, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada:
Hi Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr:
1. "Pass the Buck" has come full circle with Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr's letter attached, thus assuring the success of the 2-Track 2-DG R Taxpayer boondoggle fraud.
2. Long, long, long ago, OPG invented the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud.
11/13/2016 Page 2 of2 ] 4. OPG's answer was to create NWMO, own NWMO, and have interchangeable employees, all to create an illusion that the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud must be kept separate and independent every step of the way- while at the same time assuring success of the fraud. 5. As a result, OPG and its offspring NWMO have become masters of illusion. Just ask OPG about the spent fuel DGR and see how fast OPG will refer you to NWMO. Better yet, ask NWMO about the clothes and rags DGR and you will be referred back to OPG faster than lightning. In other words, it is impossible to get any answers related to the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud, and its success is thus guaranteed. 6. So having hit impenetrable brick walls seeking answers from OPG and NWMO, it might seem logical to seek answers from our Prime Minister. 7. Alas, Prime Minister Trudeau has been trained in "Pass the Buck" government techniques, and with expert finesse usually attributed to a veteran Prime Minister, he immediately "Passes his Buck" to his Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna, who according to our leader has jurisdiction to answer our Questions. 8. Not so fast John! The rookie Minister McKenna is more than up to the challenge and immediately "Passes her own Buck" to her colleague Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr. 9. In turn, Minister Carr, with reprehensible disrespect sends me the form letter attached to this email, and "Passes his Buck" back to OPG- saying that it is not his problem and OPG can do anything it wants and our watchdog CNSC [aka head cheerleader for OPG] will make sure everything is hunky-dory. 9. Dare I ask OPG again about 2-Track? 10. To quote our honourable Minister Carr signing off in his attached letter to me: "Again, thank you for writing." No thank you Minister Carr. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and DGR Registered Participant 11113/2016 Minister Ministre of Natural Resources des Ressources naturelles OCT Z0 2016 Ottawa. Canada K1A OE4 Mr. John Mann Dear Mr. Mann: Thank you for your correspondence sharing your views on proposals related to the development of deep geologic repositories in Canada for nuclear fuel and low- and intermediate level waste. You have raised similar concerns with my colleague, the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and she has forwarded to me a copy of her August 18, 2016, response which noted that matters related to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) fall within my mandate. The Government of Canada's 1996 Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste states that in accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, waste owners are responsible for the funding, organization, and operation of the facilities required for their waste, including long-term waste management facilities. In keeping with this policy framework, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, which came into force in 2002, required Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power, and Hydro-Quebec to establish the NWMO to propose to the Government approaches for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada. In 2005, the NWMO recommended the Adaptive Phased Management approach, which involves the containment and isolation of nuclear fuel waste in a deep geologic repository located in an informed and willing community as its preferred solution. In 2007, the Government selected this approach as Canada's plan for the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. Canada - 2- The Government has not imposed any specific requirements stipulating which approach waste owners must take to meet their obligations under the policy framework; waste owners are responsible for proposing and implementing projects to manage their waste. It is therefore up to owners to determine the approaches and projects that best satisfy their long-term waste management needs. However, these proposals are subject to federal legislation, in particular, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Should these proposals advance; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will regulate the construction and operation of the facilities to protect health, safety, security and the environment. Again, thank you for writing. Yours sincerely, The Honourable Jim Carr, P.C., M.P. c.c.: The Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Page 1 of 1 John Mann 113 From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 11/13/2016 Page 1 of2 John Mann From: "John Mann" November 21, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada: 1. Minister McKenna cannot find the required "necessity" and "urgency" necessary to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags because spent fuel will remain on the surface for at least the next 100 years and forever if no "compelling willing Community" for a spent fuel DGR is found! Most Respectfully, John Mann 11/21/2016 Page 2 of2 Saugeen Shores 7/s~ Citizen and DGR Registered Participant 11/21/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann 7ft From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 11/21/2016 Page 1 of3 John Mann 711 From: "John Mann" November 26, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami [and predecessors Ken Nash and Wayne Robbins- please forward], President and CEO of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario, Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada: 1. Go Blue! 2. Minister McKenna just got back from Morocco where she had to travel to sign the climate-change accord. Apparently, Minister McKenna and her entourage of 200 Canadians had to travel to Morocco on the Taxpayer dime to sign! Why there was this necessity and urgency to travel to Morocco when Minister McKenna could have easily signed the document at her office remains a mystery. Perhaps it was taking the fuel guzzling jumbo jet to sign a document that frowns on such travel that inspired 11/26/2016 Page 2 of3 7CffY Minister McKenna. The hypocrisy of it all is not lost on the Citizens and Taxpayers that Minister McKenna has the honour and privilege to responsibly represent. 3. This hypocrisy foreshadows Minister McKenna's guaranteed approval of the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud despite the undisputed evidence and Record that establishes no necessity whatsoever to bury clothes and rags and no urgency whatsoever to bury clothes and rags while spent fuel remains on the surface, Douglas Point low and intermediate nuclear waste remains on the surface, decommissioning nuclear waste remains on the surface, and Quebec's and New Brunswick's low and intermediate nuclear waste remains on the surface. 4. SNC-Lavalin. 5. Lobbyists run the show at the expense of the interests of Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment! All in the name and preservation of political power! Shameful! 6. The question that Minister McKenna must answer is the following: "If there is necessity and urgency to bury clothes and rags next to the Great Lakes to protect Citizens and Taxpayers from dangerous radiation, why have the Citizens and Taxpayers been exposed to the clothes and rags on the surface for the past 50 years and how has this unnecessary exposure adversely affected the health, safety, and well-being of all Citizens and Taxpayers and our Environment?" 7. And then Minister McKenna is obligated to answer this follow-up: "What dangerous radiation exposure will now be shifted to the Great Lakes drinking water by its proximity to the nuclear waste burial ground?" 8. More importantly, if clothes and rags are necessary and urgent to be buried underground, why is there not more necessity and more urgency to bury spent fuel in order to protect the health and safety of Everyone and the Environment? And most importantly, why did OPG and NWMO [OPG's clone] not find a solution for the spent fuel prior to clothes and rags? This more than anything requires the Public and Judicial Inquiry that will inevitably be convened. It is the highest of ineptness and incompetence, particularly endangering Everyone and the Environment unnecessarily. 9. And Minister McKenna has to now answer to the timing of her guaranteed approval of the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. It is no coincidence that the OPG meaningless response to Minister McKenna's Order to investigate alternative DGR sites that takes 10 years to accomplish will be released in December. We have now had a preview by OPG of its meaningless and contemptuous response to Minister McKenna's Order that could have been produced in one hour from its previous meaningless propaganda that could not pass any meaningful cross examination inquiry. 10. Instead of releasing it meaningless report immediately, OPG summarily determined to release it during the Christmas Season when it would gain the least exposure. Furthermore, the Christmas release date coincides coincidentally at a time when Minister McKenna would not have to answer to the hypocrisy of approving the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud on the one hand destroying our Environment, while signing saving the planet through climate-change on the other. 11/26/2016 Page 3 of3 7/J 11. In addition, Premier Trudeau has already concluded his visit to Washington without having to answer to the United States' concerns about the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud endangering the World's Great Lakes. 12. Coincidence? Give me a break! 13. In the meantime, we have just received information from NWMO that it cannot document and account for its March 13, 2013 Toronto Star $100,000,000 expense "talking to 18,000 Canadians to get their views on storing nuclear waste" [averaging out to a criminally obscene Taxpayer cost of $5,500 per individual talked to!]! An investigation into this is required immediately! A certified audit must be done on this unlimited bank account funded by Citizen and Taxpayer dollars. All the while our health, education, and legal aid budgets suffer and starve! Shameful! 14. It all boils down to this: Minister McKenna do not approve the OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. Figure out what to do with spent fuel and come back with a solution for all nuclear waste. And immediately Minister McKenna must stop being a puppet to CEAA bureaucrats that dictate this entire OPG DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud without any accountability or responsibility, while our elected so-called "leaders" have become nothing more than a pathetic mouthpiece for lobbyists through a morass of bureaucracy! Go Blue, Saugeen Shores Citizen and DGR Registered Participant 11/26/2016 Page 1 of 1 cP-o o John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 11/26/2016 Page 1 of8 John Mann From: "John Mann" December 5, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami, CEO and President of NWMO, Michael Binder, CEO and President of CNSC, Bonnie Lysyk, Minister Jim Carr, Michael Ferguson, and Wayne Robbins: The following is a Blackburn News article by Janice MacKay, published on November 28, 2016. I have added after each line of the article my version of what OPG really means: i.e. the only reason OPG supports 2 DGRs is because they have unnecessarily wasted and squandered obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars for the past 15 years for absolutely no reason other than OPG inexplicably allowed Kincardine council to prohibit spent fuel in the OPG DGR for clothes and rags-and OPG cannot turn back now! 12/5/2016 Page 2 of8 ?etL Ontario Power Generation Supports Two Nuclear Waste Repositories [In other words, OPG supports 2 DGRs because there is no other reason to explain and justify OPG's unnecessarily squandering obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars for the past 15 years on OPG' s 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud, when everyone agrees only 1-DGR is necessary for all nuclear waste!] BY JANICE MACKAY NOVEMBER 28, 2016 2:54PM Ontario Power Generation (OPG) believes the most efficient and cost effective solution for nuclear waste means two Deep Geologic Repositories (DGR), possibly 20 km apart in Bruce County. [In other words, since OPG has for the past 15 years unnecessarily squandered obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars on the incompetent 2-Track 2-DGR process, OPG is now telling Citizens and Taxpayers that OPG might as well finish off the squandering and unnecessarily squander additional Taxpayer dollars in the Billions and Billions despite being immediately able to cut the squandering in half by following a fiscally and Environmentally responsible 1- DGR process for all nuclear waste! OPG apparently is the only entity in the World that "believes the most efficient and cost effective solution means 2-DGRs, possibly 20 km apart in Bruce County"- rather than building just 1 DGR for all nuclear waste in 1 environmental and 1 secure location! Really? In other words, if Kincardine council had not expressly "prohibited" spent fuel in the clothes and rags DGR, OPG would still pursue building 2 DGRs 20 km apart! OPG continues to insult and disrespect Citizens and Taxpayers with this utter nonsense! Citizens and Taxpayers require the disclosure of the studies performed by OPG that confirms that building 2 DGRs within 20 km is more efficient and more cost effective than 1 DGR at Kincardine for all nuclear waste, just as it has been stored in one above ground facility in Kincardine for the past 50 years! It is guaranteed that no one in the World could provide such a study. Utter nonsense!] 12/5/2016 Page 3 of8 9o'] In December, OPG will release a response to the environment minister's order to study other options before burying low and intermediate nuclear waste in Kincardine. [In other words, the OPG response is a sham! (see prior emails)] OPG's Fred Kuntz says it is important to bury the low and intermediate waste quickly and not punt our responsibilities to future generations, despite the fact that a second repository for spent high level nuclear fuel is years away. [In other words, OPG is telling Citizens and Taxpayers that they have to bury the clothes and rags "quickly" because spent fuel nuclear waste will remain on the surface for at least the next 100 years (and maybe forever if no "compelling willing Community" is ever found for a spent fuel DGR), and the low and intermediate nuclear waste from Douglas Point will remain on the surface, and the low and intermediate nuclear waste in Quebec and New Brunswick will remain on the surface, and the decommissioning nuclear waste will remain on the surface, and the nuclear waste in the United States will remain on the surface, and the clothes and rags need no special protection and need no special handling and need no DGR, and the clothes and rags have been safely stored on the surface for the past 50 years- but in the year 2017, ISIS might come here and grab the clothes and rags and throw them at Citizens, and nuclear workers actually wore and used the clothes and rags throughout their careers- yet to now protect all Citizens and the Environment we have to urgently bury the clothes and rags a km under ground by the Great Lakes! Yikes! And OPG is also guaranteeing that we are "punting" our responsibilities to future generations about spent fuel and these other problems, with commensurate obscene additional expenses and Environmental and security concerns. While OPG says that a DGR-2 for spent fuel is years away, what if no "compelling willing Community" is ever found? Spent fuel may never go underground. And what about finding a solution to recycle? OPG says "Let's not even talk about it- just trust us, OPG knows what is best for Citizens and Taxpayers." Shocking! And why wasn't a solution found for spent fuel before needlessly seeking the useless and meaningless DGR for clothes and rags! Citizens and Taxpayers require OPG to answer these simple questions! Citizens and Taxpayers must not be disrespected and ignored by OPG in this mindless and unjustified comments.] When it comes to low level waste, like the ash of incinerated clothing, and mops, Kuntz says, "If you're going to have a DGR, why not bury it. Some people have said, 12/5/2016 Page 4 of8 f?&y 'That's overkill, you don't need to, just leave it on the surface.' In keeping with OPG's safety consciousness, and always going for the lowest possible risk, and doing the most responsible thing for the environment, the proposal is to bury it [low level nuclear waste] along with the intermediate waste, which is higher radioactivity." [In other words, if OPG was really "safety conscious" OPG would have spent the last 15 years finding a solution for spent fuel instead of marketing the Trojan Horse clothes and rags DGR that is meaningless and unnecessary. In other words, if Kincardine council had not prohibited spent fuel this entire debacle, boondoggle, and fraud would never have gotten off the ground. OPG made one mistake, they let Citizens and Taxpayers expose this fraud of frauds. The question of all questions is why did Kincardine council "prohibit" spent fuel in its clothes and rags DGR? After all, the spent fuel had been safely resting in Kincardine for 40 years! Even more inexplicable is why did OPG allow itself to buy into the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud invented by Kincardine council who was just seeking money that had been lost when the nuclear plant was privatized. OPG is apparently telling Citizens and Taxpayers that we would not want to taint clothes and rags with spent fuel in one DGR! Of course, the clothes and rags and intermediate have been stored safely together in one above ground facility in Kincardine for the past 50 years. Just put the above ground nuclear waste facility for all levels of nuclear waste on a freight elevator and send it to the underground DGR. OPG's answer is to just say it "supports 2-DGRs," not that 1 DGR is not possible! If it was not possible to have 2 DGRs, Citizens and Taxpayers would have heard from nuclear experts and geologists long ago. More importantly, there would be no need for Kincardine council to "prohibit" spent fuel in the Hosting Agreement for the DGR with OPG. Even more important than that is the fact that OPG and CNSC confirmed for all Citizens and Taxpayers at the JRP Public Hearings that if Kincardine council struck the "prohibited" from the Hosting Agreement they would bring a new application to add spent fuel to the clothes and rags DGR!!! If it was not possible Citizens and Taxpayers would have heard about it long ago. Thus, confirming that because OPG has inexplicably and erroneously squandered our money for the past 15 years they will continue to mindlessly squander more of our money in this failed process.] Kuntz adds it doesn't make sense to put the intermediate waste in a DGR along with the spent nuclear fuel because too much money has already been invested in the two separate processes to create two repositories, and the nuclear waste also comes in 12/5/2016 Page 5 of8 cPDs-- different shapes requiring different handling. [In other words, for the past 15 years OPG has unnecessarily squandered obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars on an inept, incompetent, and meaningless DGR for clothes and rags- so why stop squandering our money now when OPG has unlimited Taxpayer funds to squander that could be easily transferred to our starving Health, Education, and Legal Aid budgets!!! And in other words, if Kincardine council had not inserted the word "prohibited" before "spent fuel" in the OPG DGR Hosting Agreement, apparently, according to OPG here, the different shapes would still require 2 DGRs. Give me a break!] He adds it makes the most sense to bury all of Ontario's low and intermediate nuclear waste at Bruce Power because the waste is already stored there, so there would be less risk and cost, than trucking it elsewhere. [In other words, OPG is telling Citizens and Taxpayers that it is more risk and cost for trucking spent fuel elsewhere! In other words, OPG's justification for its clothes and rags DGR is why OPG's DGR for spent fuel will never be allowed! And do not be confused by the so called distinction between OPG and its clone NWMO. OPG created NWMO, OPG owns all of the nuclear waste in Ontario, OPG owns 95% of NWMO, and OPG and NWMO have interchangeable employees -yet inexplicably OPG and NWMO must remain totally separate and not combine any resources or studies in this well planned and premeditated 2-Track 2- DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud- i.e. OPG handles clothes and rags DGR process and NWMO handles spent fuel and the 2 cannot meet! Give me a break!] Kuntz adds it is less risky if the used nuclear fuel is buried elsewhere in a separate DGR at another site, instead of combining the waste in one Deep Geologic Repository [In other words, OPG is telling Citizens and Taxpayers that it is less risky to have 2 DGRs that must be built and maintained with perfection and must be secured and exposes 2 different environments forever! Give me a break!] "The closest any two DGR's would be at the most would be 20kms. And so, that way, there's no overlapping or cumulative environmental effect. All of the environmental effects are being mitigated anyway, whether it's storm water run-off or all the things that you do to mitigate your environmental effects," he says. 12/5/2016 Page 6 of8 Y'CJ( [In other words, over geologic time there will be no overlapping or cumulative environmental effects! Give me a break! And, in further other words, requiring transporting to one of the two will have huge risks to persons and the Environment!] And he says putting all of the waste at once site could create too much traffic and a backlog of waste waiting to be buried. [In other words, the risk of transportation to 2 DGRs will be less than the risk of transportation to 1 DGR and the traffic jams were not even noted to the JRP and have been a well kept secret from Citizens and Taxpayers so that they would not be alarmed. A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to obtain the facts of this shocking and alarming amount of nuclear waste that will be transported among our households and roads and Environment! Yikes! Citizens and Taxpayers need immediate studies and investigation related to this extraordinary traffic congestion caused by 2 DGRs that is not possible with the present above ground storage that has safely been conducted for the past 50 years. Again, no urgency, no necessity.] Kuntz also says the rock system in Kincardine is the best place to bore a DGR to stash the waste. [In other words, the rock system for spent fuel will be second rate! Help!!!] [Also, OPG has to explain to Citizens and Taxpayers why the Kincardine rock system is the best for a DGR when a few kilometres away next door in Saugeen Shores (Kincardine's Twin nuclear town), it has been determined conclusively that the Saugeen Shores rock system is not safe for a DGR - over geologic time forever!!! How is this possible? OPG can't answer any of these questions set forth here and above!] "Continents have moved, mountains have formed, glaciers have come and gone nine times in the last million years alone," he says. "That rock has been totally undisturbed. It has no contact with the surface, no contact with the biosphere, no contact with the lake, the air we breathe, the water we drink, it's so far down and it's so tight, it might as well be on the moon." [In other words, the Great Lakes were just formed in the last 10,000 years, the geology of Saugeen Shores is not safe for a DGR a few kilometres away from the Kincardine site, and by 12/5/2016 Page 7 of8 JXO? drilling and gutting out the DGR in this so-called impermeable rock formation, that rock formation will have been irreparably compromised in its integrity and will be forever a constant expanding leak and source of contamination forever. Once there is a hole in a container, the hole can never be forever secured again -like a leaky roof. Every man-,made thing fails. Every natural thing changes constantly. Also, why are Citizens and Taxpayers advised that the spent fuel will be placed in copper containers that will never wear out for all time. Absurd! But more importantly if the rock is impenetrable forever, why does the spent fuel need to be enclosed in any container! Utter nonsense! And just look at the WIPP catastrophe wherein a guaranteed safe DGR that OPG uses as its safety-model disastrously failed within 15 years of the guaranteed forever!!! It may never open again, and it is going on 3 years now since the catastrophic radioactive leak destroyed that Community. Yikes! and Help!] However, Kuntz doesn't think it's a good idea to bury the spent fuel in the same site because there is already an ongoing process to find a separate location to bury the high level waste. He says they would have to start from scratch, and waste resources, if they combined the two sites. [In other words, OPG screwed up and has been following a meaningless and unnecessary 2- DGR process for over 15 years now when it should have been following a 1 DGR process - particularly as it relates to spent fuel and throw the other nuclear waste in the same container. Instead of cutting its losses, OPG is telling Citizens and Taxpayers that it will continue to unnecessarily squander our Taxpayer dollars in the Billions and Billions! Yikes! and Help! And why isn't everything that has been done on the clothes and rags DGR applicable to the spent fuel DGR for 1 DGR? Utter nonsense! Utter nonsense! and Utter nonsense! And why else did Bruce County Council conduct [at least] 7 years [2007-2012] of illegal, secret, closed, DGR meetings so that Citizens and Taxpayers would not find out about and stop the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud that would have been ended immediately had these unlawful meetings been open? And why else did OPG have to pay the Bruce County municipalities with 30 years of payments to garner support for this unnecessary boondoggle of all boondoggles? OPG must answer Citizens and Taxpayers! What is SNC-Lavalin's role, and what, where, when, why, who, and how??? Citizens and Taxpayers look forward to the required Public and Judicial Inquiry and Investigation regarding this entire 2-DGR misguided process.] 12/5/2016 Page 8 of8 ~or If the environment minister approves the plan, 200,000 cubic metres of waste would be buried 680 metres below ground at Bruce Power, and then the DGR would be decommissioned, and sealed off [In other words, this is not true because according to the JRP hearings, in and around 2030 OPG will be seeking to double the size of the OPG clothes and rags DGR for storage of decommissioning waste! Absurd! Where is the urgency? Where is the necessity? as it relates to the clothes and rags DGR? Yikes! and Help!] [Therefore, OPG has confirmed for all Citizens and Taxpayers that the 2-DGR process must be immediately terminated in favour of the fiscally and Environmentally responsible 1-DGR process! OPG also confirms here that it will not do the right thing and that OPG will continue to squander the unlimited Taxpayer funds that have been set aside without any accountability. All you elected and unelected bureaucrats and so-called "leaders" are now responsible for continuing this Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud of all boondoggle frauds- that eventually will be the subject of a required Public and Judicial Inquiry and Investigation.] Most Respectfully, John Mann Saugeen Shores Citizen and Registered Participant 12/5/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to [email protected] Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellernent ? chaque dernande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter rnon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre dernande. V euillez noter que votre message sera transrnis au rninist?re de l'Environnement et du Changernent clirnatique s'il conceme des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la rninistre de l'Environnernent et du Changernent clirnatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directernent toute correspondance future adress?e? la rninistre de l'Environnernent et du Changernent climatique ? ec.rninistre [email protected] Cordialernent, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 12/5/2016 Page 1 of 1 cY;o John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a!'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12/5/2016 Page 1 of7 ?(( John Mann From: "John Mann" December 12, 2016 Hi Mr. Hardy, Minister McKenna, Minister Carr, Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Wynne, Mr. Lyash, and Ms. Swami: OPG's failure to answer substantive questions and concerns expressed by Citizens and Taxpayers requires termination ofthe OPG DGR for clothes and rags! OPG conducted a DGR information session for a select chosen few on November 11, 2016. I was not initially invited, I by chance became aware of it, and was eventually told I could attend because a seat was available. OPG has asked us to edit OPG's own notes [attached hereto] that it took of this session 12/12/2016 Page 2 of7 ,?/(_ [see email set forth below this email]. I by chance attended the session and I had indicated that over the years of my participation in the DGR process Citizens and Taxpayers were subjected to reprehensible disrespect displayed by OPG by its intentionally ignoring Citizen and Taxpayer irrefutable demands to terminate the Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud known as 2-Track 2-DGR, replace it with the fiscally and Environmentally responsible 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. Unfortunately, the session proved to be more of the same. Now we are asked to edit the notes that do not reflect the disrespectful way OPG treats Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment. Edit the OPG notes- To what end? To no end. Our critical comments fell on deaf ears to be transferred to a sheet of paper that no one will ever review and consider in any meaningfully way. The disrespect shown by OPG to the Citizens and Taxpayers is reprehensible! OPG has the privilege and honour to work for the very Citizens and Taxpayers OPG has chosen to ignore, while at the same time OPG has been provided with careers and pensions in exchange for protecting and serving Citizens and Taxpayers and our Environment for OPG's work! OPG's utter disrespect it has shown throughout the DGR process is shameful! The only reason for the session was so OPG could inform Minister McKenna that OPG has consulted with "stakeholders." Shameful! CEAA and CNSC will, in turn, give Minister McKenna the green light from "stakeholders." One thing is certain, there will be no meaningful Public review of the sham investigation by OPG to Minister McKenna's Order- and Minister McKenna will merely rubber stamp the green light given by CEAA unelected and unaccountable government bureaucrats. Fortunately we have Janice MacKay and Blackburn News shedding light on this unnecessary DGR process that will eventually become national and international news. Why, in this day of instant technology, is OPG asking us to edit its own "notes" of our November 11, 2016, DGR session? One would think that in this day and age this meeting would be preserved and recorded on video-tape for distribution over the internet to everyone, especially such an important meeting like this that is limited to invitation only and that cannot be attended by any other concerned Citizen and Taxpayer- and particularly on a weekday and at a time when most Citizens are involved and recognizing our Veterans on Remembrance Day. To not have this meeting video-taped for all to see, and for all to read by transcript, is irresponsible and impossible to justify. Throughout the November 11, 2016, OPG session I voiced my disdain for the shameful 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud perpetrated on Citizens and Taxpayers. I reiterate that many ofthe OPG staff in attendance are my friends. My disdain is not directed in any way to the wonderful OPG Staff who I have had the good fortune to come to know and consider as friends. My disdain is directed at the DGR process that in my view has destroyed due process, destroyed democracy, and destroyed any and all trust in our government related to the DGR. The Staff merely presents the OPG company line and cannot waiver from it, thus making any meaningful dialogue impossible. The thing that was missing at the meeting were the so-called "leaders" of OPG who are actually accountable and responsible to the Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment. As a result, Taxpayers and Citizens took the time out on Remembrance Day [I drove more than 3 hours from Port Elgin missing the local Remembrance Day Ceremonies] to meet with Staff who had no authority to answer our grave concerns and questions. OPG must maintain its policy of disrespect to Citizens and Taxpayers by ignoring their indisputable common sense questions and concerns that require the termination of the irresponsible 2-DGR process that for no reason whatsoever separates the clothes and rags from the spent fuel. After all, had Kincardine done the responsible thing and not prohibited spent fuel in its clothes and rags DGR this entire process would now be nearing an end with 1-DGR for all nuclear waste. Unfortunately, and without any reason whatsoever, OPG by its irresponsible 12/12/2016 Page 3 of7 1. The OPG DGR is a done deal and there is nothing any Citizen or Taxpayer can do to be meaningfully included in the process! Citizen and Taxpayer irrefutable questions and concerns requiring termination ofthe clothes and rags DGR will forever remain ignored by OPG and the DGR will be bulldozed burying clothes and rags along with burying Democracy. 2. Minister McKenna Ordered OPG to study and investigate and report on actual alternate DGR sites as OPG was originally required to do more than a decade ago. Nonetheless, OPG contemptuously refuses to study and investigate actual alternate sites because it would take a minimum of 10 years to complete. Instead OPG "magically" has concluded that Kincardine is the best geology in Canada for a DGR, without any further study!!! Let anyone cross-examine on that and that conclusion will be destroyed within 1 minute. And what a coincidence to have the best geology at the site of the biggest nuclear power plant in the World. How lucky for OPG! And NWMO [created and owned by OPG] is now left looking for a second-rate site for spent fuel, while clothes and rags gets the Taj Mahal of DGRs. Citizens and Taxpayers have been told that the federal government wants to only deal with spent fuel and for OPG to keep their clothes and rags out so an not to taint the spent fuel! Did I mention disrespect- to one and the same Citizen and Taxpayer related to both the provincial OPG and the federal creation called NWMO. And OPG is merely mindlessly following the [squandering Taxpayer money making 2-DGR process dreamed up by Kincardine council. Then there are the questions and concerns related to SNC-Lavalin and campaign contributions and other issues. Public and Judicial Inquiry coming. 3. Despite this sham response to Minister McKenna's Order by OPG, Minister McKenna is guaranteed to find "necessity" and "urgency" required for her to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. And this is despite there being not one shred of evidence that it is "necessary" in 2017 to bury the clothes and rags 1 kilometre underground and by the Great Lakes, the same clothes and rags that nuclear workers actually wore and used while working in the nuclear industry! If there was "necessity" to bury the clothes and rags to protect Citizens and the Environment, one can only imagine what those same clothes and rags did to the health and safety of the unknowing nuclear workers who had to actually wear and use them. In addition to finding "necessity" to bury the clothes and rags, Minister McKenna is guaranteed to find "urgency" in the year 2017 to bury the clothes and rags otherwise Citizens and the Environment will be in extreme danger of being exposed to the clothes and rags ruining their health and safety! Utter nonsense! And this despite no urgency to tell the nuclear workers that maybe they should not have worn or used the clothes and rags! Utter nonsense! In addition, "Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags because it is 'necessary and urgent111 despite the fact that spent fuel will remain on the surface for at least the next 100 years [century] and maybe forever if no compelling willing Community is ever found or because it will finally be saved through recycling, and despite the fact that all other low and intermediate nuclear waste from Douglas Point will remain on the surface, and despite the fact that all of the low and intermediate nuclear waste from Quebec and New Brunswick will remain on the surface, and despite the fact that all of the 12/12/2016 Page 4 of7 ?!1 decommissioning waste will remain on the surface for the next 20 years at least/ and despite the fact that all of the United States nuclear waste will remain on the surface. Why would any reasonable person want to find a solution for all of the nuclear waste in 1 DGR rather than finding a solution for clothes and rags only that do not need any special handling/ do not need any special protection/ and definitely do not need any DGR? OPG chooses to ignore this question because OPG can get away with it and not endanger the success of its absurd OPG DGR for clothes and rags. Yet OPG continues to tell us that there is "necessity and urgency// to get those clothes and rags underground before ISIS grabs them and threatens to throw them at us! 4. And Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags despite the catastrophe at the OPG DGR safety-model at WIPP 1 New Mexico/ that disastrously leaked almost 3 years ago/ was sealed and continues to suffer other problems like a recent collapse of part ofthe physical structure- all disasters within 15 to 20 years of a guaranteed forever warranty of no disasters. OPG answers the obvious concerns posed by Citizens and the Environment related to the OPG DGR being safety-modeled after this catastrophe by merely saying OPG has a better safety-culture than WIPP!!! That really provides Citizens and Taxpayers and our Environment with a great deal of comfort! Particularly since OPG has its fallback position when its DGR ultimately fails- OPG over and over proudly states that each and every problem known and unknown to mankind is "not likell/ to occur in its DGR FOREVER! In other words every imaginable and unimaginable disaster is just as "likely// to occur over geologic time as it is "not likely// to occur. A person who can predict what will happen anywhere in the World in the next 5 minutes has yet to exist! OPG government bureaucrats and its so-called experts are no exception. Minister McKenna with her litigation experience knows that better than anyone. Yet Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR! And rather than have a referendum like any normal democracy/ Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR because a few members of Kincardine council thought it would be a good idea to gain obscene amounts of Taxpayer Dollars over 30 years/ and further illusory support came from 5 surrounding municipalities in our Bruce County Community that were paid off over 30 years just for using their "best efforts11 to support the OPG DGR. And then there is SNC-Lavalin. There may be an appearance of possible improper campaign contributions working their magic. 5. Minister McKenna apparently has the green light to approve the OPG DGR because Prime Minister TrudeaU 1S Washington trip was already successful without having to comment on the United States opposition to the OPG DGR. In addition/ Minister McKenna does not have to explain approving a nuclear waste dump next to the Great Lakes to the World1 S Climate Change people in Morocco where she boarded a jumbo fuel guzzling jet to go sign a climate change agreement that could have been accomplished by electronic signature from her Ottawa office without unnecessary obscene Taxpayer and Environmental expense. 6. Lefs put it this way/ no one at OPG and no one in a leadership role and no one anywhere on the planet would ever approve the OPG DGR if they had to pull out their own wallets and use their own money. Unfortunately/ Taxpayer money can be squandered without any consideration to obvious questions that require termination of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. And explain this to everybody -why can 1t OPG and NWMO [created and owned by OPG with interchangeable employees] get along and cooperate on this DGR process. After all the Citizen and Taxpayer are the same. Whether the unnecessary squandering of Taxpayer dollars is squandered in the name of the provincial government or squandered in the name of the federal government is of little solace to the one indivisible Citizen 12112/2016 Page 5 of7 r;r and Taxpayer! OPG, NWMO, CNSC, CEAA, Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister McKenna, and Premier Wynne certainly wouldn't want to do something that saves Taxpayer dollars! Stop squandering our Taxpayer dollars, and stop ruining more than one DGR Environment forever. All of you have irreparably destroyed any and all trust in the DGR process. Despite all of this, Minister McKenna is guaranteed to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. Which in turn will eliminate any opportunity of success by NWMO for a separate DGR for spent fuel because of the transportation costs and problems and best geology that made Minister McKenna approve the clothes and rags DGR. Thus, the Trojan Horse is guaranteed, and the spent fuel will go into the OPG DGR for clothes and rags because no DGR is required for clothes and rags. Reprehensible! 7. The OPG November 11, 2016, meeting confirmed that Citizens and Taxpayers cannot have meaningful consultation and meaningful participation in the DGR process. Incomprehensibly, the JRP has now been dissolved and there will be no meaningful Public Hearing where the sham and contemptuous response by OPG to Minister McKenna's Order to study and investigate required alternate DGR sites would be exposed to the World requiring termination of the OPG DGR clothes and rags Application. How is this possible in any Due Process and Democracy? As a result, trust in the process is destroyed and irreparable and the process must be terminated! 8. The November 11, 2016, OPG meeting provided absolutely no meaningful attempt by OPG to even consider undisputed and legitimate concerns and questions posed by Citizens and Taxpayers that OPG has the honour and privilege to work for! Throughout the meeting OPG merely stated that questions of substance were beyond its mandate to answer. If OPG is not responsible for answering these substantive questions requiring termination of the clothes and rags DGR process, then who is responsible? Sheer nonsense! And thus guaranteeing the success ofthis boondoggle fraud! 9. OPG always reverts to "pass the buck" when confronted with irrefutable points to avoid expressly fatally wounding the flawed OPG DGR process! 10. The November 11, 2016, session was set up for a limited number of people so that OPG can simply advise Minister McKenna that OPG has consulted with the "stakeholders." It was just by chance that I was able to attend- how can OPG explain that? What about the rest of our Citizens and Taxpayers that did not even know about this meeting, let alone be able to attend? Reprehensible in light of the 7 years of illegal, unlawful, secret, closed Bruce County Council DGR meetings between 2007 through 2012. 11. And the session was not even video-taped in this era of video-taping required so as not to have to edit an OPG biased and one-sided OPG summary supporting the guaranteed success of the DGR for clothes and rags- the next Trojan Horse [to be replaced by spent fuel]! The most glaring defect in the summary is the failure of OPG to identify the Citizen speaking and providing his or her questions and concerns. I can attest to being misquoted and quoted without full context and not quoted at all in the summary. One thing that is clear- it did not matter what any participant said, if it was contrary to OPG foregone conclusion it was not going to be given any consideration or at best summarily discarded without any support. And OPG can never justify not video-taping other than not wanting our comments to be on the Public Record. To have to try to remember and correct it now makes the entire exercise even more meaningless. Citizens and Taxpayers who take the time to participate in these sessions expect that their input will be completely and accurately recorded. OPG works for us. It is not the other way around. Citizens and Taxpayers are not simply a checkmark in an illusory checklist that 12/12/2016 Page 6 of7 P'(( suggests OPG has been diligent in its so-called [feigned] consultation with "stakeholders." What, where, when, who, why, and how is the summary going to be used, reviewed, considered, and meaningfully included in the DGR process? All of us in Canada and the World have a stake in what ultimately happens to all nuclear waste. It is our solemn obligation and duty to get it right. To be left out of being meaningfully included and allowed to meaningfully participate is contrary to every Charter Right and Freedom found in section 7 "life, liberty, security." Deplorable! Particularly on this Remembrance Day when we honour our brave soldiers who fought and died so that these freedoms would be protected and preserved! 12. The next OPG session must have Jeffrey Lyash in attendance to answer our grave questions and concerns to the World that are beyond dispute! I cannot say enough bad things about the DGR process. OPG's supposed campaign developed from its ethical code to "Ask Us" and "Learn More" and be "Open and Transparent" is defeated and rendered meaningless by years of "Not Answering Us" and "Not Open and Transparent." OPG refuses to meaningfully answer us in the DGR process. OPG refuses to meaningfully include us in the DGR process. OPG allowed itself to be included in illegal, unlawful, secret, closed DGR meetings set up by Bruce County Council for at least 7 years between 2007 through 2012, where this 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud would have been exposed and stopped in its tracks. OPG has never done anything to correct this reprehensible conduct. Now because of the unnecessary squandering of wasted obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars and the wasted obscene amount of time on this boondoggle of all boondoggles, OPG has backed itself into a corner with no way out except to guarantee that this obscene waste will continue unabated to the ultimate guaranteed success of this boondoggle until the certain Public and Judicial Inquiry finally unravels it. All of which can be summed up in 3 words: "Shameful, Despicable, and Deplorable." -- and (4th word) "Reprehensible." This deserved reputation for OPG and the DGR process is the price of disrespecting Citizens and Taxpayers and destroying the Charter Rights and Freedoms of all persons to be included in meaningful democracy in the gravest process to ever confront our Community! By its own conduct, OPG has irreparably caused trust in the process to be forever destroyed. I have asked over and over again for the process to meaningfully include Citizens and Taxpayers. OPG has ignored us completely. OPG cannot remedy this complete breakdown in trust. In light of this abysmal OPG DGR history, this email is guaranteed again to fall on deaf ears and to be ignored by OPG. OPG has earned our lack of trust with its well orchestrated and premeditated plan to disrespect and ignore any and all opposition to its beloved 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud no matter how irresponsible and no matter how much Taxpayer money is unnecessarily squandered. ***Particularly on this Remembrance Day when we honour our brave soldiers who fought and died so that these freedoms would be protected and preserved! Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 12112/2016 Page 7 of7 ?(7 From: Dave Hardy Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:41 PM To: Dave Hardy Subject: DRG Information Session Notes and PowerPoint Hello, The final draft of the session notes as well as the PowerPoint presentation are attached for your review and I'm looking forward to hearing whether they cover the breadth of the conversation. Please email all comments to Thank you, David R. Hardy R.P.P. Principal Cell: Follow us on twitter Follow our blog Visit us on Facebook 12/12/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a!'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12112/2016 Page 1 of3 J>r '1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system Received: (Client did not present a certificate) 12/12/2016 Page 2 of3 P;_o To: 12/12/2016 Page 3 of3 cP 2..; 12/12/2016 Page 1 of 1 P<_L_ John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister ofEnvironment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to [email protected] Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement ? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande. Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il conceme des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress?e? la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre [email protected] Cordialement, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 12112/2016 Page 1 of3 John Mann From: "John Mann" December 12, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Laurie Swami, Michael Binder, Bonnie Lysyk, Minister Carr, Michael Ferguson, MPP Lisa Thompson, MP Ben Lobb, and Wayne Robbins: Why have my emails to OPG representatives become "undeliverable" since the so-called OPG "Stakeholders' Meeting" held on November 11, 2016? OPG representatives appear to reject my em ails sent to them- see "Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender" Notice set forth below. I have now received 4 rejection Notices related to my last 4 em ails sent since November 21, 2016. Prior to that the OPG representatives had received my emails without a problem. I have checked with OPG to confirm the email addresses. Laurie Swami is now with OPG's 12112/2016 Page 2 of3 ?"GY clone NWMO and has a new email address. OPG inexplicably would not release the Jeffrey Lyash email address and the related email address to his own administrative staff. The other email addresses of Fred Kuntz, Jerry Keto, and Scott Berry were confirmed to be correct. And they were correct by the fact that emails prior to November 21, 2016, reached their destination without a problem. Having been "SPAMed" by the Joint Review Panel in the past, coupled with OPG's abysmal and inexplicable history of ignoring my em ails throughout this DGR process, should I now be concerned that OPG has adopted a similar procedure to avoid answering my questions and concerns on behalf of Citizens and Taxpayers all raised again but remaining unanswered at the OPG Stakeholders' Meeting held on November 11, 2016? Please advise me as to why this has occurred. Thank you. -----Original Message---- From: Mail Delivery System Sent: Monday, December 12,2016 10:40 AM To: This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system Most Respectfully, John Mann 12/12/2016 Page 3 of3 ~ 25- Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 12112/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12/12/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system 12/12/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCAN/RNCAN)" Your message To: Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCANIRNCAN) Subject: Why have my emails to OPG representatives become "undeliverable" since I attended the so-called OPG "Stakeholders' Meeting" held on November 11, 2016? Sent: 12 December 2016 12:00:04 (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on 12 December 2016 12:09:30 (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 12112/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Office of the Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCANIRNCAN)" Your message To: Office ofthe Minister I Bureau du Ministre (NRCANIRNCAN) Subject: Why have my emails to OPG representatives become "undeliverable" since I attended the so-called OPG "Stakeholders' Meeting" held on November 11, 2016? Sent: Monday, December 12,2016 12:00:04 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Monday, December 12, 2016 12:09:09 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 12/12/2016 Page 1 of6 John Mann From: "John Mann" December 12, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau: The Governor in Council out ofthe blue today extended the issuance of Minister McKenna's decision statement by 243 days without any other comment [see email set forth below this email announcing the ex parte delay]. In other words Minister McKenna's decision statement on the DGR for clothes and rags is extended to sometime in late August 2017, 8 months from now. The authority for the extension relies ostensibly on section 54(4) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012: "The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, extend the time limit extended under subsection (3)." The problem is that subsection (3) only permits a 3 month maximum extension by Minister McKenna, but only a 3 month extension to the mandatory deadline expressly set forth in subsection 54{2): "[Minister McKenna] the decision maker must issue the decision statement no later 12112/2016 Page 2 of6 ?'3( than 24 months after the day on which the environmental assessment of the designated project [DGR for clothes and rags] was referred to a review panel under section 38." Section 38(3) expressly mandates the 2 year limitation on all 3 ofthe following combined: 1. referral to the JRP, 2. report by the JRP referred to Minister McKenna, and 3. Minister McKenna's decision statement --must all be done within the 2 year limitation period. The 24 month statute of limitation on this process allows Minister McKenna to extend the deadline by 3 months to a maximum of 27 months. The Governor in Council can extend the 27 months on the recommendation of Minister McKenna. But Minister McKenna must recommend the extension within the 27 months. We are far beyond that deadline by years. The mandatory time lines have expired long, long, long ago, and no extension is authorized at this time. The integrity and trust in the process requires strict adherence to these mandatory time limits that now require termination of the proceedings. This is the time-line that confirms Minister McKenna is out of time and can no longer provide a decision statement- requiring termination of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags proceedings: 1. In late 2005, OPG began the regulatory process to receive a license to prepare site and construct the DGR for clothes and rags. 2. On June 29, 2007, the DGR project was referred to a Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 3. In January 2009, final guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Joint Review Panel (JRP) were issued. 4. On April14, 2011, the EIS was submitted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for the Joint Review Panel. 5. On February 3, 2012, the JRP announced the start of the public comment period, which remained open until May 24, 2013. 6. In June 2013, the JRP announced the public hearing for the DGR Project. The hearing was held over 33 days, in the fall of 2013 and fall of 2014. 7. On May 6, 2015, the JRP issued the Environmental Assessment (EA) Report recommending the approval of the DGR for clothes and rags to the federal government. 8. On June 3, 2015, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) announced it would undertake a 90 day public comment period. 9. As a result, the 120 day timeline for the EA decision statement by Minister McKenna was extended ex parte to December 2, 2015- without notice and without any input from Registered Participants, Citizens, and Taxpayers. 10. On November 27, 2015, Minister McKenna announced to delay a decision statement on the DGR for clothes and rags until March 1, 2016. Minister McKenna noted pressing issues on environment and climate change were before the government, and Minister McKenna determined additional time was required to ensure a thorough and comprehensive federal review. 12/12/2016 Page 3 of6 ? J 2.._ 11. On February 18, 2016, to buy more time, Minister McKenna requested that OPG conduct 3 further studies into the DGR for clothes and rags, before Minister McKenna would make a decision on the environmental assessment. Minister McKenna's Order included an Order that OPG study and investigate and report on alternate DGR sites that should have been conducted initially by OPG over 10 years ago, and that would require an additional10 years to perform. 12. April 5, 2016, OPG issued its proposed meaningless sham and contemptuous report to Minister McKenna. Instead of performing the studies requiring a minimum of 10 years, OPG refuses to follow Minister McKenna's Order and will not perform the required alternate DGR site studies and investigation and report comparing them to the proposed Kincardine DGR site that sits all alone! A meaningless sham report that took months to prepare is being finalized by OPG and proposed to be delivered according to OPG by the end of December 2016. Minister McKenna never responded to this sham response and Minister McKenna has bought the time she required to avoid having to answer to climate change and environmental activists as she and Prime Minister Trudeau toured the World championing the climate and environment while knowing they were going to approve nuclear waste buried on the shores of the Great Lakes forever endangering the Great Lakes drinking water supply for the World! 13. Today, we find out that Minister McKenna requires another 243 days to issue her statutorily time barred decision statement. And we are not even privy to Minister McKenna's reasons and recommendation to the Governor in Council pursuant to section 54(4) ofthe Canadian Environmental Assessment Act! Ex parte and without any required input from Registered Participants, Citizens, and Taxpayers. 14. And still no response from Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau about the fatal 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. Simply put, there is no necessity and no urgency to approve the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, when only 1 DGR for all levels of nuclear waste is required, and spent fuel and all other levels of nuclear waste are going to remain on the surface for the next 100 years at least, and perhaps forever if no compelling willing Community is found for spent fuel. See my other emails expanding on irrefutable reasons why the OPG DGR for clothes and rags must be terminated. 15. And Minister McKenna magically needs 243 days. Why not 242, or 244? How was this number arrived at? More importantly, 120 days was the first required deadline for the Minister in this process. It is now more than doubled even after an unnecessary OPG lengthy delay in issuing a sham report that will take 10 years to legitimately complete. The insulting disrespect all of you in the government in the DGR process have shown to Citizens and Taxpayers is reprehensible! 16. Furthermore, OPG has not even delivered its meaningless sham report in response to Minister McKenna's Order on alternate DGR site studies. Minister McKenna has no idea if OPG has satisfied her concerns. Minister McKenna knows it would take OPG at least 10 years to study alternate DGR sites! Yet Minister McKenna knows she will be able to give her decision statement in 243 days? 17. Minister McKenna apparently is not going to allow Public Hearings on the meaningless sham OPG Report that is scheduled to be released within the next 2 weeks. How is that possible? Absolute 12112/2016 Page 4 of6 violation of the Charter. 18. In other words, the OPG DGR for clothes and rags is a done deal, and there is nothing that Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment can do about it! Shameful! 19. Every step of this despicable OPG DGR clothes and rags process defies common sense and is reprehensible as it relates to the disrespect shown to Citizens and Taxpayers. 20. Finally, the statute time-bars continuing this OPG DGR process. 21. Citizens and Taxpayers expect meaningful responses and answers that have been posed to you here and in previous emails. 22. Convene a Public and Judicial Inquiry related to this entire process. 23. Terminate the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. 24. SNC-Lavalin. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores From: Deep Geologic Repository Project/ Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs[CEM\ACEE] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 1:45 PM Cc: Deep Geologic Repository Project/ Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs[CEM \ACEE] Subject: Deep Geologic Repository Project/Project de stockage de dechet radioactifs - Notice to Interested Parties/ Avis de Parties Interessees Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste le fran~ais suit Interested Parties December 12, 2016- The Governor in Council extended the time limit for the issuance of the decision statement by 243 days. For information on the DGR project, please visit the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry at website at www.ceaa acee.gc.ca, reference number 17520. 12/12/2016 DGR Project 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, On KlA OH3 12/12/2016 Page 6 of6 Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs afaible et moyenne activite dans des couches geologiques profondes Parties lnteressees 12 decembre 2016 - Le gouverneur en conseil a pro Ionge le delai accorde de 243 jours pour Ia publication d'une declaration de decision. Vous trouverez plus d'informations sur le site Web du Registre canadien d'evaluation environnementale au www.ceaa acee.gc.ca, numero de reference 17520. Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs 160 rue Elgin, 22nd etage Ottawa, On K1A OH3 12/12/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12112/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system at host I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system 12112/2016 Page 1 of 4 John Mann From: "John Mann" December 14, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Michael Binder, Laurie Swami, Minister Carr, Michael Ferguson, MPP Lisa Thompson, and MP Ben Lobb: OPG now says that spent fuel could never be buried in the same DGR with clothes and rags even though it has been safely stored together for the past 50 years at the Kincardine site! Why? 1. Yesterday, December 13, 2016, OPG told Citizens and Taxpayers that spent fuel cannot be buried in the same DGR site with low and intermediate level nuclear waste! [See article by Janice MacKay for Blackburn News] http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/12/13/federal-government-will-rule-kincardine-nuclear- 12114/2016 Page 2 of4 waste-burial-site-next-summer/ 2. That is not true! 3. For the past 50 years spent fuel has been safely stored together with low and intermediate level nuclear waste at the same waste management facility at Bruce Power. Check out Western Waste Management Facility's Update 2016 [attached to this email], wherein WWMF proudly highlights safely storing all levels of nuclear waste for the past 50 years at its Kincardine facility. 4. In other words, all you have to do is place all of the nuclear waste stored at the Kincardine WWMF [spent fuel, clothes and rags, and intermediate] on an elevator and place it in the proposed OPG DGR at Kincardine. Nothing to it! 5. Except Kincardine, on behalf of our DGR Community, has already made that impossible by expressly "prohibiting spent fuel" in the OPG DGR at Kincardine! The reason given for prohibiting spent fuel in the Kincardine DGR according to Kincardine Mayor Larry Kramer was that Kincardine had "done its bit." The "prohibition of spent fuel" was important to our Community and was expressly set forth in the Hosting Agreement signed by OPG and Kincardine. No need to put the express prohibition of spent fuel in the Hosting Agreement if it was impossible for the spent fuel to be stored with low and intermediate nuclear waste at the same DGR site. If Kincardine had not insisted upon expressly "prohibiting spent fuel" in the Hosting Agreement for the OPG DGR for clothes and rags, OPG would have made an application for 1-DGR for all levels of spent fuel and we would be at the end ofthe DGR process rather than in the quagmire that has been created by OPG called 2-Track 2-DGR. Furthermore, OPG, NWMO, and CNSC all agreed at the JRP Public Hearings that they would all gladly study and investigate an Application to include spent fuel in the OPG DGR for clothes and rags should Kincardine anytime in the future ever strike "prohibiting spent fuel" from the Hosting Agreement. [The guaranteed Trojan Horse.] If it was impossible to store spent fuel in the same DGR as clothes and rags as OPG told us all yesterday, that would have been the answer provided at the Public Hearings and that would be the end of the discussion. In addition, throughout this process I have been relentless on terminating the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud for a fiscally and Environmentally responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process to store all levels of nuclear waste, i.e. spent fuel, clothes and rags, and intermediate levels! If it was impossible to pursue a 1-DGR process because it is impossible to store spent fuel with clothes and rags and intermediate level nuclear waste, I would have heard about this years ago, along with supporting evidence! The insulting disrespect OPG has shown and displayed to Citizens and Taxpayers by broadcasting these press release conclusions that are just plain wrong and defy all common sense and that have absolutely no chance of being supported in any way by any evidentiary facts is unacceptable in every way in our Free and Democratic Society! 6. Let the Public and Judicial Inquiry into this debacle commence and expose this utter nonsense that has and will continue to only squander obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars, and ultimately endanger our Environment and the Great Lakes FOREVER! 7. And also look at OPG's reason given as to why spent fuel cannot be buried in the same DGR with clothes and rags and intermediate levels of nuclear waste: "There are different thermal conditions produced by the high level waste, and you need different 12/14/2016 Page 3 of 4 I? yo engineering approaches, and so those are two different DGRs. If you're going to cross a lake, you need a boat, if you're going to drive down the highway you need a car." ! ! ! 8. What does different thermal conditions and different engineering approaches have to do with anything related to requiring 2 DGRs for storage of nuclear waste? Just take a tour of the Western Waste Management at Bruce Power where all levels of nuclear waste [spent fuel, low, and intermediate] have been safely stored together for the past 50 years. I took the Public tour where OPG convinced me that only 1 DGR was required to store all of the nuclear waste. Clothes and rags are stored in plastic bags, incinerated, or compacted and put in steel containers. We saw these plastic bags with nuclear workers without any special protection handling them. The intermediate nuclear waste is in containers buried immediately underground. The spent fuel is in containers and we are encouraged to touch the container without any special protection or concerns. We were encouraged to take photos hugging the spent fuel containers. Yet, OPG would insult us with utter disrespect by telling us yesterday that the spent fuel cannot be stored in the same DGR as clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste that were worn and used by nuclear workers every day of their careers! And where does a boat and car analogy come into play. Is OPG suggesting that the clothes and rags may be tainted by the spent fuel? Oh no! We would not want to hurt the clothes and rags! If the spent fuel is in the same DGR with clothes and rags does the DGR blow up, or create a volcano, or something even worse? Utter nonsense! And this is what Citizens and Taxpayers are paying for? Yikes! 9. The diagrammed plans for the OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste show 2 different rooms -the low level waste room and the intermediate level waste room [see attachment to this email]. OPG now tells us that it is impossible to make a third room for spent fuel, even though that is how it is on the surface. Utter nonsense! In fact, the clothes and rags and intermediate levels of nuclear waste could all be stored in one room if you wanted to. Why? Because the Public and the nuclear workers can work and play in the same rooms without suffering any adverse effects. Over time OPG tells us the DGR will collapse. What does storage in different rooms do for the different levels of nuclear waste when that happens? Utter nonsense! 10. Which brings me to another point. OPG emphasizes that Kincardine geology is the best and has remained intact and unaltered for millions of years. And OPG confirmed at the Public Hearings that its DGR will eventually collapse. How is that possible if the geology never changes? What causes it to collapse? It is because the integrity of the geology has irreparably been compromised by this massive foreign intrusion called a DGR that ultimately will collapse and forever change the geology and the guesswork of experts that expressed 1/not likely" to cause significant problems. Yikes! 11. OPG's mantra of 11We owe it to future generations to bury this stuff quickly." Which begs the question, why didn't OPG care about us who were the 1/future generations" 50 years ago when the experts conveniently forgot to tell the generation of the 1960s that nuclear waste will forever haunt and endanger your 11future generations" in your Community. If it was urgent to get clothes and rags underground, OPG would have made sure to take care of its spent fuel first rather than defraud us with making sure that we were all protected from clothes and rags first. Utter nonsense! And if it is true that clothes and rags are urgently needed underground to protect us from the dangerous clothes and rags, OPG must be held responsible for endangering us with the spent fuel remaining on the surface. 4 words sum up OPG and its DGR process for clothes and rags- Shameful, Despicable, Deplorable, and Reprehensible! 12/14/2016 Page 4 of 4 p'fr 12. Minister McKenna must answer these grave [no pun intended] concerns of the Citizens and Taxpayers and our Environment that Minister McKenna has the honour and privilege of representing. 13. Terminate the OPG DGR for clothes and rags and stop the unnecessary squandering of Taxpayer dollars. 14. SNC-Lavalin. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 12/14/2016 lL/14fLUlf:i l:)lacl BY JANICE MACKAY DECEMBER 13, 2016 2:34PM The federal government will wait another eight months to make a decision regarding Ontario Power Generation's Deep Geologic Repository for nuclear waste in Kincardine. The governor in council email issued Monday says they extended the time limit for a decision by 243 more days. OPG's Fred Kuntz says they will soon deliver a report in response the the Environment Minister's order to study alternative sites to store low and medium level nuclear waste. "We could build a safe DGR in either a crystalline granite location which we think of as the Canadian Shield, or in a sedimentary location, which we think of as southwestern Ontario, but the environmental effects would be larger at alternate locations, and then there's the question of the additional trucking that would be required to move the waste from the current location to those sites," says Kuntz. Kuntz says residents will have to wait for their report to learn exactly what kind of geological studies they conducted at alternate sites. Opponents worry burying low and medium level nuclear waste on the shore of Lake Huron puts the worlds largest source of fresh water at risk of contamination. However, OPG's Fred Kuntz says the rock formation at Bruce Power is the best, adding trucking the waste to other sites comes with costs and risks. The OPG site wants to bury 200,000 cubic metres of low and medium level nuclear waste 680 metres below ground at Bruce Power while the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is still studying locations for a site to bury the spent nuclear fuel, including Central Huron, Huron Kinloss, and South Bruce. Kuntz says the waste can't be buried in the same site. "There are different thermal conditions produced by the high level waste, and you need different engineering approaches, and so those are two different DGRs," he says. "If you're 1L/14(6Jlb ljlacKburnNews.com- Government lo Kufe un Kmcard1ne Nuclear waste burial ~lte Next ~ummer going to cross a lake, you need a boat, if you're going to drive down the highway you need a car." Critics question the need to bury low level radioactive waste like incinerated clothes and mops, but Kuntz says it would be the safest practice. Kuntz says the government's announcement that the time limit for a decision be extended by to next summer was expected "The minister asked us additional questions in February, and we said we would reply by the end of the year, and we're on track to do that. And then, as we've always understood it, there's a process after that, where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will have a period of public comment, and then they'll provide a report an analysis to the federal minister," he says. He says Environment Minister Katherine McKenna will then make a decision. Our commitment to safe, responsible management The electricity generated by r1uclear power emits virtually no greenhouse-gas causing emissions. The by-product of electricity generated hom nuclear po·wer is nuclear waste, vvhich is managed in a contained and controlled rnanner. Every employee of OPG's Nuclear Waste rv1anagement Division recognizes and accepts the responsibility rfor the management of our waste in an environmentally, socially and financially-responsible manner. We are dedicated, uncompromising and absolute in our commitment to the safety of fei!ov\r ernployees. the public, the communities where we operate. and the environn1ent. Our commitment to safety an~ the environment OPG has been safely sroringi nuclear waste from rhe Bruce, Pickering and Darlington generating ~rations for almost 50 years and we are proud of our operating record and the progress we have made to wards long-term solutions for rhe future. Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) employees are well trained and regard safety for employees, the public and the environment as th~ir top priority. They have accomplished significant milestones in these areas, such as achieving long-standing records of no "Lost Time Accidents" and excellent environmental performanqe. Safe work planning, safe work practices and attention to derail. along with a safety-conscious work attitude, has led to this excellent safety performance. operacing procedures, OPG has ensured that radioactive waste Through employing highly qualified employees, careful planning, is managed safely and poses no significant risk co employees, the development of technology and equipment and che use of sound public or the environment. ONTARIOPiiifiiiR GENERATION Regulatory authority The nuclear industry :s one or r:' n1n:o:t ~:tr:c·t!/ ··"'!c~'·intec: ,,, CcH'>ad;,; The ovEc>raH reguk;tton :~-;f nueiectr re;:-)Ctr_;r Of!t:_""r~J·t!or·l ··tr~(~ r'\{Jt~ic~~:Jr i/vdL:tt.. ,-~i ..i,.·~na£-f't:ir~f;n;: tt't Cc1:nc:zda ts the respott ..:·.:tbtiit':/ C)f the C.brladiart Nc.tciei3r· .:73-i:itFt::tv C:r~--... ;:·!'lrTlis::_;:z)t.t !_::.:;r"\t::,t(:{ E\/}:~::-~1 ,:··1S~Jt?c·~ C)f tf'tf"-:: t11anagerner·1t. of itT\.N and interrYlE:1't-~~::Jte ie\JC:~ \i\.:';-~:::~i 1-_:~ ,:.~~-i!Ci ds~::,d i)t;c:i~-=-~:-:;:-· i l~At ;S r(;£:Ji.lii:trt~~(i t-;v thr.; CNSC. What IS nuclear vvaste? During the operation of nuclear ~:Jeneratinn st;'ltions. vvaste 1s produced rnuch like any other industry. Some of this waste beccwnes radioactive and rrwst bd handled using special procedures. OPG categorizes the radioactive \lvaste into low, intercnediate and used fueL Lovv level vvaste Intermediate level vvaste Low level waste consists of minimally radioactive materials that have Intermediate level waste consists primarily of used reactor core components become contaminated during routine cleanup and maintenance such as and resins and filters used to keep reactor water systems dean. Intermediate mop heads, cloths, paper towels, floor sweepings and protective clothing. level waste is more radioactive than low level waste and requires shielding These items make up about 95 percent of the total non-fuel waste volume. to protect workers during handling. Intermediate level waste, because of its radiological and physical proper ties, is not processed for volume reduction. It is stored mainly in steel lined concrete containers that have been set into the ground. About 250 m3 of intermediate level waste is stored annually and in total about 12,000 m3 (almost 5 Olympic swimming pools) is in storage as of 2016. Intermediate level waste makes up about five percent of the total volume of non-fuel waste produced from the nuclear generating stations. Low and intermediate level waste stored at the WWMF is continually monitored to ensure the integrity of the storage containers and can be Low level waste from the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear generating retrieved at some furure date stations is received at the Waste Volume Reduction Building at the WWMF for transfer to a long-term where it may be processed through either incineration or compaction to storage facility. The WWMF reduce its volume or to be stored as is. Following processing, the low will continue to add storage level waste is placed into above-ground concrete warehouse-like structures srrucrures as required (subject to called Low Level Storage Buildings. About 3,000 m3 of low level waste applicable regulatory approvals). is stored annually (just over the volume of an Olympic swimming pool). OPG is currently seeking Storage for refurbishment waste (fuel channel waste and steam generators) approval for a Deep Geologic from the Bruce reactors is also provided at the WWMF. The WWMF Repository for the long-term has about 88,000 m3 (3 5 Olympic swimming pools) of low level waste in storage of low and intermediate storage as of 2016. level waste at the Bruce site. 2 Used nuclear fuel tJsed nuclea:r fueL sorT1etit-r1.c·s c::·Jn {_·!{·~ \ ·d~;1r1 I,;; ~\JPi v·-,; ;:. ~·i rr:: f-;L·t:.. ><:: t: ~: <" !l ; ~ .... r·(l t.:c·t; rTlort::~ radioactive. is stored at thn nur:lf=:~r s t;"ltion sdc vvhcr>:' il '>Ni:,, qU'lPf'frtt:d it is At the Western Waste Management Facility location, only used fuel from the Bruce Power stations is stored at the interim used fuel dry storage facility. The facility consists of a processing building and srorage buildings. This facility went into operation in 2002 and is designed to provide storage space for abour 2,000 Dry Storage Containers (DSC). The overall Western Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility (WUFDSF) design includes four DSC storage buildings, each having the capacity to store about 500 containers. Two buildings were commissioned The helium gas provides a means ofleak detection for in 2002 and 2007, and rwo additional ones in the sealed container and creates an inert atmosphere 2013. Construction of future storage buildings for the srorage of used fuel. Before being placed into will be staged as additional space is required, storage buildings, the container undergoes rigorous with a new storage building built abour every testing to ensure that it is absolutely leak tight, and four to seven years. lastly, safeguard seals are applied by an inspector from Dry storage is a proven technology in use around the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). the world. In addition to the facility at WWMF, OPG also operates dry storage facilities at the Pickering and Darlington nuclear sites. Dry storage process The process of loading a dry srorage container with used nuclear fuel begins first by submerging a 60-tonne container into one of Bruce Power's water filled used fuel swrage bays. Once in the storage bay, four modules each containing 96 used fuel bundles are loaded into the container under wa- ter. The used fuel bundles have been Used nuclear fueHn.mdles are cooled stored in the water-filled bay for about '. . ' . . . " . 10 years, during which time they have : in:ti'll~;station~s used fuel b~yfora cooled and become less radioactive. .. period of at least 10 years before b.eing . The container, now hold transferred to dry storage. ing 384 used fuel bundles, is removed from the bay and drained, decontaminated and vacuum dried. A transfer clamp secures the lid to the container which is moved to the dry storage fucility with a large transport vehicle. Once received, the lid is welded to the container's base. After the inside of the container has been vacuum dried, it is filled with helium gas. The drain port is then seal-welded. 3 J>'i) The used fuel dry storage process Remote semi-autom~c welding of DSC flange (lid to base) Inspection of flange weld Final vacuum drying Helium backfill of DSC Manual weld of DSC Drain Plug Paint repair, safeguards seals applied by IAEA inspectors, DSC transferred to Inspection of drain plug welds Helium leak test of DSC DSC identification label attached storage building Indoor secure storage .. 0 Operations at the Waste Management Facility (WMF) Operations at the Nuclear Generating Station (NGSl used fuel storage bay area Recycled 0 J;j Supporting responsible use Transfer operations between NGS and WMF of fur est resource> 0 wwwJsc.ory Certno. SGHOC.004769 FSC c 1996 Forest Stewardship Counci 4 J>' YeP Radioactive material transportation A record of safety (.lPG has an exceptional r•::·r;cr·d In ti~f:' trDnsp,::;rL:.bc"' of rcH:iiOactive rnaterlals by road. In alrnost 40 years, there has never been a relE,;:':!se of radio<.:~ctive n1aterials during transportation. Our drivers are sorne of the best tn:.llned in their field. OPG ensures that thov have In a typical year OPG makes about 450 radioactive material shipments, covering over half a million kilomeues. Shipments (roughly 23 percent) involve the transportation of low and intermediate level waste to the WWMF. A smaller number (roughly 13 percent) involve transporting tritiated heavy water from Bruce and Pickering to the Darlington Tritium Removal Facility for processing and remaining shipments involve che transportation of empty packages to and from different nuclear stations. All of these shipments are logged into an OPG computerized database. This program logs informati(m about the rype of material being transported, point of origin, destination, ere. metres of water. Only afrer field testing and/or computer analysis has demonstrated the packages OP.G's·rad1oactive f1l.ateriai. traflsporta.: Built for safety can survive these tests will a licence to usc the tioll' progf,~tnis further supported. by: packaging be issued by the Canadian Nuclear Many different rypes of packaging are used Safety Commission . to transport radioactive materials. All of the . e Regula!' audits aridsafety,assessments transport packages are builc to requirements oftransportatlfm practices Radioactive materials transponation is also ·. . . . .· ... regulated by Transport Canada's Transportation specified by the Canadian Nuclear Safety • tui•ongoillg training program Commission. For example, the intermediate of Dangerous Goods Regulation. These level waste transportation packages used for • Routine jlack(lg~ in~pe(}tion ,(In~, regulations specifY the documentation and shipping spent resins and tritiated heavy m~intenance;and administrative requirements in order to ...... ·:·: .. :· . :· ;· water are built to Type B standards. According transport radioactive material on public roadways. to federal regulations all Type B packages 41> Atransportatloneme~iJ;e~~Yif;l~ponse The documentation must include specification muse be able ro withstand a nine-metre drop plan that is audited. bll1~ tfl~~m OPG has an obligation to plan for the eventu.?~! decommissioning of our nuclear facilities including the Bruce Pov..rer leased reactors, and the long-terrYi rnanagement of our nuclear ·1.:vastes. OPG n>akes annual cont~ibutions to special funds dedicated solely for this purpose. Our partnership with the Municipality of Kincardine to develop a Deep Communicating our commitment Geologic Repository for low and inrermediate level waste on rhe Bruce Although we are proud of our contributions to these initiatives, there is site was endorsed by the community in 2005 and is now in the regulatory nothing we value more than our relationship with the people of Ontario. approval process. Visit opg.com/dgr The safe stOrage of nuclear waste is done in a very transparent manner OPG has mad~ a significant contribution co the Nuclear Waste Management and OPG provides information in a variety of methods on nuclear waste Organization, which has recommended Adaptive Phased Management to management to the public. the Federal government for the long-term management of used nuclear For more information on our activities visit www.opg.com or email fuel in Canada, and endorsed in 2007. Visit nwmo.ca [email protected] 5 P.yJ OPG's Deep Geologic Repository Project for low and 111t r·n·~ 13 le\/ i \/\/GSt(.:: A long-term storage solution Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking regulatory approval for construction of a proposed Deep Geologic Repository (DGR). 1his DGR, for the long-term management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste will be constructed on lands adjacem to OPG's Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the Bruce nuclear site in the Municipality of Kincardine. For almost 50 years the WWMF has safely stored low and intermediate level waste from the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear sires on an interim basis. In 2002 the Municipality of Kincardine approached OPG to jointly review options for a long-term storage facility for low and inrermediate level radioactive waste at the Bruce site. An Independent Assessment Study identified three options deemed to be technically feasible and capable of safely storing the waste: the Deep Geologic Repository (DGR), Enhanced Processing, Treatment and Long-Term Storage and Covered Above-Ground Concrete Vault. In 2004 the Municipality of Kincardine by resolution endorsed moving forward with the DGR because of its higher safety margins. The proposed DGR would manage about 160,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate level \vaste in underground emplacement rooms (200,000 cubic metres emplaced volume). Only low and intermediate waste from OPG's Bruce, Pickering and Darlington generating stations will be accepted for storage in the DGR. Used fuel will not be stored in the DGR. Committed to safety The stability and predictability of che rock formations, along with their isolating capabilities, make an ideal setting where the waste can be safely stored while the radioactivity decays. LO\N level v-JHS"t.e roofn lnterrnediate level waste toorn The proposed DGR location, 680 metres (2,230 feet) underneath the Bruce site, will be constructed in low permeability limestone capped by The public he-aring gave participants, the Canadian Nuclear Safety 200 metres of low permeability shale. These rock formations, thought Commission (CNSC) and OPG the opportunity co provide comments on the to be in excess of 450 million years, have remained intact and without project. The JRP dosed the public registry on November 18, 2014 to prepare major faults or fractures through many geologic events. an EA report . In addition, rhe DGR is extremely isolated from all sources of groundwater, The JRP submitted its EA report to the fix!eral Minister of the Environment and the pore water at the level of the repository has a salt content more than May 2015 for a decision. The report outlined conclusions, rationale, eight rimes that of sea water indicating that it has been trapped at chis level recommendations and a summary of comments received from the public during in excess of one million years. The salt content is also an indication that the the course of cl1e public review. Aboriginal groups and the public provided pore water isn't mixing wich the groundwater above. comments to the Minister on mitigarion measures and follow-up programs in September 20 15. Verifying the site and approvals On Feb. 18, 2016 the Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Formal environmental assessment and licensing processes began in 2005 Change requested OPG conduct three further technical, environmen with the submission of the DGR Project Description. A detailed four-year tal and economic studies into its proposed DGR. Pending results of this geoscientific site program of studies began in 2006 to verifY the suitability report and the federal Minister's decision, the JRP may issue a site! of the DGR site. In 2007 the Minister of the Environment referred the prepararion/construction licence. Once the DGR is constructed, OPG will Environmental Assessment (EA) to a Joint Review Panel ORP). In 2010 apply for an operating licence which would be reviewed and heard by the the four year program of studies concluded and the Environmental Impact CNSC commission at a public hearing. Statement and supporting documents were submined to the JRP. Following a public comment period the JRP held cwo hearings. The detailed public OPG maintains that a deep geologic repository is the right answer for Ontario's hearings in 2013 and 2014lasted 33 days. low and intermediate level waste, and that the Bruce site is the right location. 6 For ~nure infcrrnat:on r.Jir-:aSl':' visit vvvvvv.opg.cur:1/dgr Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister ofEnvironment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to ec.ministre-minister [email protected] Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir comrnuniqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement ? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande. Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il concerne des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress?e? la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre- minister [email protected] Cordialement, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 12/14/2016 Page 1 of6 John Mann From: "John Mann" December 15, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Michael Binder, Bonnie Lysyk, Minister Carr, Michael Ferguson, Laurie Swami, Wayne Robbins, MPP Lisa Thompson, and MP Ben Lobb: In 2013 OPG and NWMO tell the Toronto Star that spent fuel can be buried in 1 DGR along with low and intermediate nuclear waste, while in 2016 OPG tells Blackburn News it can't!!! Oops! https:Uwww.thestar.com/business/2013/03/13/nuclear waste are two storage sites one too many.html http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/12/13/federal government-will-rule-kincard.ine-nuclear-waste-qurial-site-next-summe!.l_ 12/15/2016 Page 2 of6 c:P--~L 1. On March 13, 2013, OPG and NWMO confirmed for the Toronto Star that spent fuel could be buried in 1-DGR along with low and intermediate nuclear waste, directly contradicting OPG confirming for Blackburn News on December 13, 2016, that spent fuel can't be buried in the same DGR with low and intermediate nuclear waste. This false statement to Blackburn News requires OPG to immediately withdraw its application seeking approval for a meaningless clothes and rags DGR that only unnecessarily squanders obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars at the further expense of our Environment and Community! 2. The bottom line is that OPG should never have signed the Hosting Agreement with Kincardine for a DGR for clothes and rags when OPG's spent fuel languishes on the surface without any plan whatsoever, and maybe forever! Years before signing the deplorable Hosting Agreement, OPG knew that the federal government had mandated that OPG do something long term for OPG's spent nuclear fuel. Yet OPG created NWMO in 2002 and Ken Nash on behalf of OPG signed the Hosting Agreement in 2004 without any regard for the fate of spent fuel. And then Ken Nash of OPG became President of NWMO in 2006! Secret illegal closed DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council traversed 2007 through 2012, unbeknownst to all Citizens and Taxpayers! It is astonishing to also note that Ken Nash was not only a Vice-President of Nuclear Waste Management Division of OPG, but was also a founding Director of NWMO way back in 2002 and at the time he signed the despicable Hosting Agreement with Kincardine for a DGR for clothes and rags in 2004. And Citizens and Taxpayers are told that OPG has no idea what NWMO is doing and vice versa. Utter nonsense! It could not be more inept, incompetent, unconscionable, shameful, despicable, deplorable, reprehensible, and must have been intentional! Only time and space limits how Citizens and Taxpayers really feel about this travesty and miscarriage of justice! [ ... to be continued when time and review allows the relentless pursuit of dismantling this 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud.] The only explanation for OPG to even sign such an incompetent contract in the first place has to be as a despicable marketing tool because OPG could never sell a DGR that included spent fuel to our Community, and in addition Kincardine begged for and needed new government handouts because Kincardine had just recently lost its shameful government handout impact payments when Bruce Power began operations! Reprehensible! 3. On December 13, 2016, for the first time, OPG told all Citizens and Taxpayers that spent nuclear fuel can't be buried in the same DGR site with low and medium level nuclear waste! [reported by Janice MacKay at Blackburn News.] OPG said the reason it is impossible to bury spent fuel in the same DGR with low and intermediate nuclear waste is because "there are different thermal conditions produced by the high level waste, and you need different engineering approaches, and so those are two different DGRs. If you're going to cross a lake, you need a boat, if you're going to drive down the highway you need a car." [!!!???exclamations and question marks added by me.] 4. Inexplicably, this OPG press statement to Blackburn News directly contradicts OPG's and NWMO's press statement to the Toronto Star way back on March 13, 2013 [and linked below and set forth in full belowL wherein NWMO told the Toronto Star: "Low and intermediate waste storage hasn't been part of its mandate. To include a new type of waste would mean starting all over again to look for a community willing to host the project. A combined site would have to be bigger and that would rule out some areas." Noteworthy here is that there was no indication whatsoever that spent fuel could not be combined with low and intermediate nuclear waste in 1-DGR! In fact, OPG and NWMO confirmed that all levels of nuclear waste could be stored in 1-DGR! Therefore, in its press release to Blackburn 12/15/2016 P~e 3 of6 ~)..3 News on December 13, 2016, OPG is apparently trying to mislead Citizens and Taxpayers to believe that it is impossible to bury spent fuel in 1-DGR along with low and intermediate nuclear waste! Why? How is this remotely possible? And, having been caught, what is OPG going to do about it? 5. OPG is duty bound and obligated to the Citizens and Taxpayers that OPG has the honour and privilege to WORK FOR to correct OPG's false statement made to Janice MacKay on December 13, 2016. Throughout this entire DGR process and through hundreds of emails on the Public Record and at the Public Hearings it has always been undisputed and everyone agrees that 1-DGR can accommodate all levels of nuclear waste. OPG is now apparently trying to cover up and justify its disastrous and impossible to justify decision to commence and continue unabated the catastrophic and unnecessary and meaningless 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud when only 1-DGR is necessary to store all nuclear waste. This despicable attempt by OPG to cover up and justify its own catastrophe that OPG created along with the commensurate obscene unnecessary squandering of countless Taxpayer dollars in an attempt to get its OPG DGR for clothes and rags approved requires OPG to now immediately step forward and voluntarily withdraw its DGR Application so as to avoid the continued unnecessary squandering of our obscene amount of Taxpayer dollars. For example, as the Star article confirms, $100 Million of Taxpayer dollars have already been squandered long ago on merely talking to 18,000 Canadians, finding their views on storage of spent fuel! That is $5,555 per speaking! This is impossible to verify and justify! Citizens and Taxpayers demand and require a certified audit related to this unconscionable and impossible $100 million expenditure at Taxpayer expense! In any other venue $100 million to speak to 18,000 Canadians would be characterized as highway robbery! To use a quote made popular by OPG and refrained throughout the DGR process: It is "not likely" that this catastrophe called 2-Track 2-DGR was a mistake, meaning it "is likely" that it was intentionally premeditated to sell the DGR to our Community. There is no other reasonable explanation. Our starving Health, Education, and Legal Aid budgets might have been able to use those funds. They certainly can use the Taxpayer funds that are continued to be unnecessarily squandered daily caused now by the absolute inaction and unjustified delay by Minister McKenna in this inept, incompetent, and unconscionable DGR process. As a result, Minister McKenna must terminate the 2- Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud and do so immediately and not wait the mysterious and unjustified ex parte "243 day" adjourned time to do so. The Public and Judicial Inquiry must convene forthwith. SNC-Lavalin. https://www.thestar.com/business/2013/03/13/nuclear waste are two storage sites one too many.html The Toronto Star article dated March 13, 2013, "Nuclear Waste: Are two storage sites one too many?" is linked above and set forth in full below. Canada is on its way to building a pair of billion-dollar sites for storing nuclear waste. Saugeen Shores resident John Mann, who lives only a few kilometres from one proposed site at the Bruce nuclear station, thinks a single storage site could do the job. It's an issue likely to get an airing in the coming months as Canada heads down a two-track strategy for handling waste from its nuclear power plants. 12115/2016 Page 4 of6 P,-'f On one track: a proposal from Ontario Power Generation to develop an underground storage area next door to the Bruce nuclear plant for low- and intermediate-level waste from across Ontario. A 2008 estimate pegged the cost at about $1 billion to build and operate. Hearings on the proposal are due to be held this year. On a second track: a process led by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to find a community willing to accept the underground storage of high-level nuclear waste- which means used fuel rods from reactors across Canada. It will be a very expensive enterprise, costing $16 to $24 billion to build and operate. The two-track strategy is one Mann can't understand, given the expense. "No person in their right mind would build two," he told the Star. He has made the argument to a federal panel preparing to hold hearings later this year on the low and intermediate site at the Bruce. Mann wants the current process of picking a low and intermediate waste site halted and an overall plan for nuclear waste considered. "Intermediate" level waste, which includes radioactive metal fittings from reactor cores, remains dangerous for centuries and must be carefully shielded for centuries just like used fuel, he argues. Low-level waste, which makes up the biggest volume of material, includes items like clothing used by workers in radioactive areas. No special shielding is needed by workers handling it. The Saugeen Ojibway Nations, whose traditional territory includes the Bruce nuclear site, have also argued that low- and high-level waste are "inextricably intertwined." Legally, they insist, any review of a low-level waste proposal must consider the potential impact of having a high-level waste site nearby. Confusing the issue is the status of the town of Kincardine, whose boundary includes the Bruce nuclear site. Kincardine volunteered to host the low and intermediate waste site on condition that it would not get the high-level waste site. An application by Ontario Power Generation to develop the low and intermediate site is now 12/15/2016 Page 5 of 6 being considered by federal authorities. But many of Kincardine's neighbours are among the 21 communities in Canada that have expressed initial interest - though not a firm commitment- to take the high-level waste site. Kincardine could end up with the low and intermediate site, while a high level waste site is built a few kilometres away in a nearby municipality. Or the high-level site could end up thousands of kilometres away, in Saskatchewan or Northern Ontario. Enough, says Mann, who has written an open letter to Canada's foremost politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In his view, it's a mistake to proceed first with the site for low- and intermediate-level waste without having a firm plan for what to do with the used fuel. The proponents of the two different approaches insist it's not so simple. The high-level waste site process is years behind that for the low-level site. While the low and intermediate waste site has been selected and is undergoing scrutiny, 21 communities are still candidates for a high-level storage area. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been working for a decade on high-level waste storage, said spokesman Mike Krizanc. In that time, he says, it has spent about $100 million talking to Canadians, finding their views. "Our public engagement, our plan, was approved on the basis that it was for used nuclear fuel," he said. Low and intermediate waste storage hasn't been part of its mandate, Krizanc said. To include a new type of waste would mean starting all over again to look for a community willing to host the project. A combined site would have to be bigger and that would rule out some areas, he noted. Moreover, he said, it would delay the project for years. "Canadians are very clear that this generation has to take responsibility now for the used fuel that we've created," he said. 12/15/2016 Page 6 of 6 %r)h Ontario Power Generation is also committed to the two-track process, says chief executive Tom Mitchell. "Our total focus is to create that long-term solution for low and intermediate waste from our facilities," he said last week in answer to questions following release of the company's year-end results. Mann agues there's time to take a new look at the overall problem, even if it adds years to the process. The material is sitting safely on the surface today, he said, and there's no rush to entomb it. "In another 40 years, hopefully we've got a lot better knowledge on how to reprocess and do other things with this stuff instead of just burying it," he said. That sentiment may have received a boost from Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Bruce Power. Speaking at a community open house, Hawthorne also urged a go-slow approach, according to a report in the Kincardine News. Hawthorne said he had written to the NWMO telling them: "You've confused the whole community. We're looking at something that's 125 years from now. Go away for a decade." When asked by the Star, Bruce Power refused to release Hawthorne's letter. [end of Star article] Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant 12/15/2016 1L/1!'l/L:U11:i Nuclear waste: Are two storage s1tes one too many'' 1 loronto ~tar Thi~ copy is for your personal n Nuclear wasrte: Are two storage sites one too many? As two different processes lork at two different storage sites for high level and low level nuclr>ar waste. one man asks: Why not have just one site? Some community membe~s are concerned by plans for storing nuclear waste near the Bruce nuclear plant. (DICK LOEK f TORONTO STAR) I ORDER THIS PHoro By JOHN SPEARS Busines~ reporter Wed., March 13, 2013 I' Canada is on its way to builc~ing a pair of billion-dollar sites for storing nuclear waste. ' Saugeen Shores resident .Jo~n Mann, who liws only On one track: a proposal frojn Ontario Power Generation to develop an underground storage area next door to the Bruce nuclear plant for low- and inl'errnediatl·-level waste frofn across Ontario. A 2008 estimate pegged the:cost at about $1 billion to build and operate. Hearings on the proposal are due to be held this year. On a second track: a proces~ led by the Nuclear Waste Jvlanagement Organization to t1nd a community willing to accept the underground storage of high-level nuclear waste- \~hicb means used fuel rods from reactors across Canada. It will be a very expensive er\terprise, cos ling $16 to $24 billion to build and operate. The two-track strategy· is on¢ Mann can't understand, gi\'en the expense. "No person in their right mind would build two," he told the Star. He has made the argument to a federal panel preparing to hold hearings later this year on the lovv and intermediate site at the Bruce. Mann wants the current pro~ess of picking a low and intermediate waste site halted and an overall plan for nuclear waste considered. "Intermediate" level waste, ~bicb includes radioactive metal fittings from reactor cot·eo. remains dangerous for centuries and must be c.arcf-ul\y shielded for centuries just ukc> used fuel, he argues. Low-level waste, which makes up the biggest volume of material, includes items like clothing used by workers in radioactive areas. No special shielding is needed by workers handling it. 1Lf1oi<'U1o Nuclear waste: Are two storage sites one too many-11 Joronto 0tar The Saugeen Ojibway Nations, whose traditional territory includes the Bruce nuclear site, have also argued th~lt low- and high-level waste are ''inextlicably intertwined.·· Legallv. they insist, anv re\iew of a low-level waste proposal must consider the potential impact of ha,ing a high-levc>l waste site> nearby. Confusing the issue is the status of the town of Kincardine, whose boundan· induues tlw Bruce nuclear site. Kincardine volunteered to host the low and intermediate waste site on condition that it would not get the high-level waste site. An application by Ontmio Power Generation to develop the low and intermediate site is now being considered bv federal authorities. Hut many of Kincardine's neighbours are among the 21 communities 111 Canada that have expressed initial interest- though not a f\rm commitment to take the high-level waste site. Kincardine could end up \\ith the low and intermediate site. while a high-level waste site is built a few kilometres away- in a nearb~· municipality. Or the high-level site could emd up thousands of kilometres away, in Saskatchewan or Nm1hern Ontario. Enough, says rvlann. who has \\Titten an open letter to Canada's foremost politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. ln his view, it's a mistake to proceed first with the site for low- and intermediate-level waste without having a t\rm plan for what to do with the used fuel. The proponents of the two different approaches insist it's not so simple. The high-level waste site process is years behind that for the low-level site. While the low and intermediate waste site has been selected and is undergoing scrutiny, 21 communities are still candidates for a high-level storage area. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has been working for a decade on high-level waste storage, said spokesman !\·like Krizanc. In that time, he says, it has spent about $100 million talking to Canadians, tlnding their views. ··our public engagement, our plan, was approved on the basis that it was for used nucleat· fuel," he said. Low and intermediate waste storage hasn't been part of its mandate, Krizane said. To include a new type of waste would mean stmting all over again to look for a community willing to host the project. A combined site would have to be bigger and that would rule out some areas, he noted. Moreover, he said, it would delay the project for years. ··canadians nrc very clear that this generation has to take responsibility now for the used fuel that we've created,'' hr said. Ontario Power Generation is also committed to the two-track process, says chief executive Tom Mitchell. ·'Our total focus is to create that long-term solution for low and intermediate waste from our facilities," he said last week in answer to questions following release of the company's year-end results. Mann agues there's time to take a new look at the overall problem. even if it adds ~·ears to the process. The material is sitting safely on the surface touay, he said, and there's no rush to entomb it. "ln another 40 years, hopefully we've got a lot better knowledge on how to reprocess and do other things \\~th this stuff instead of just bul)ing it,'' he said. That sentiment may have received a boost from Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Bruce Power. Speaking at a community open house, Hawthorn!:' also urged a go-slow approach. according to a report in the Kincardim· !':e\\·s. Hawthorne said he had written to the l'ivV:'v!O telling them: "You've confused the whole community. We're looking at something that's 12::; years from now. Go away for a decade.'' \Vhen asked by the Star, Bruce Power refused to release ll;n-v1borne·s letter. Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapero Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Lirniteu and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star art1cles. please go to: www.Tol'OiltoStarReprints.com 1L/1b/L01f:i Nuclear waste: Are two storage sttes one too many' I[ loronto ~tar 1L/14fLU1o t>tackburnNews.com- Government to Kule On Kincardine Nuclear waste t>unat !::i1te Next !::iummer Government To Rule On Kincardine Nuclear Waste Burial Site Next Summer ft&o BY JANICE MACKAY DECEMBER 13, 2016 2:34PM The federal government will wait another eight months to make a decision regarding Ontario Power Generation's Deep Geologic Repository for nuclear waste in Kincardine. The governor in council email issued Monday says they extended the time limit for a decision by 243 more days. OPG's Fred Kuntz says they will soon deliver a report in response the the Environment Minister's order to study alternative sites to store low and medium level nuclear waste. "We could build a safe DGR in either a crystalline granite location which we think of as the Canadian Shield, or in a sedimentary location, which we think of as southwestern Ontario, but the environmental effects would be larger at alternate locations, and then there's the question of the additional trucking that would be required to move the waste from the current location to those sites," says Kuntz. Kuntz says residents will have to wait for their report to learn exactly what kind of geological studies they conducted at alternate sites. Opponents worry burying low and medium level nuclear waste on the shore of Lake Huron puts the worlds largest source of fresh water at risk of contamination. However, OPG's Fred Kuntz says the rock formation at Bruce Power is the best, adding trucking the waste to other sites comes with costs and risks. The OPG site wants to bury 200,000 cubic metres of low and medium level nuclear waste 680 metres below ground at Bruce Power while the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is still studying locations for a site to bury the spent nuclear fuel, including Central Huron, Huron Kinloss, and South Bruce. Kuntz says the waste can't be buried in the same site. "There are different thermal conditions produced by the high level waste, and you need different engineering approaches, and so those are two different DGRs," he says. "If you're 1L/14/LU1t:i t:llackburnNews.com- Government lo Kule Un Krncardrne Nuclear waste 1:3urral !:::irte Next !:::iummer cf""(. / going to cross a lake, you need a boat, if you're going to drive down the highway you need a car." Critics question the need to bury low level radioactive waste like incinerated clothes and mops, but Kuntz says it would be the safest practice. Kuntz says the government's announcement that the time limit for a decision be extended by to next summer was expected "The minister asked us additional questions in February, and we said we would reply by the end of the year, and we're on track to do that. And then, as we've always understood it, there's a process after that, where the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will have a period of public comment, and then they'll provide a report an analysis to the federal minister," he says. He says Environment Minister Katherine McKenna will then make a decision. Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12/14/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 12115/2016 Page 1 of 4 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system Received: 12115/2016 Page 2 of 4 ~hs-' "CEAA National Programs Div. conditions" "Bonnie Lysyk" "Minister Jim Carr" "Ministre I Minister \(EC\)" 12115/2016 Page 3 of 4 cPhh 12115/2016 I Page 4 of 4 Importance: High X-Mailer: 12/15/2016 Page 1 of3 John Mann From: "John Mann" New Year's Day 2017 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Michael Binder, Bonnie Lysyk, Minister Carr, Michael Ferguson, Laurie Swami, Wayne Robbins, MPP Lisa Thompson, and MP Ben Lobb: 1. Happy New Year! 2. OPG did not file its Report to Minister McKenna in December 2016 as required! [A review ofthe DGR Registry today confirms this.] This fundamental failure by OPG requires Minister McKenna to dismiss the OPG DGR for clothes and rags Application. 3. OPG forewarned us at the beginning of 2016 that it would not need to investigate alternate DGR 2/27/2017 Page 2 of3 ~t9' sites even though Ordered to do so by the decision maker, Minister McKenna. Upon receipt of Minister McKenna's Order OPG immediately advised Minister McKenna that its Kincardine site was the best site in Canada, despite never even studying one other site! This was nothing more than a sham conclusion to support OPG's "confirmation bias" for the Kincardine site that it has squandered over a decade of Taxpayer funds on. It is Insulting to each and every Citizen and Taxpayer. And despite the contempt OPG has shown for the Minister's required Order, OPG still could not even file its foreshadowed sham report in the required time. The sham report could have been completed and submitted to the Minister during the lunch hour on the day OPG received the Minister's Order. 4. In anticipation of the OPG sham Report, and before even knowing that OPG would not even file the sham Report within the required time of December 2016, Minister McKenna summarily and ex parte adjourned her decision on the OPG DGR for clothes and rags for another mysterious "243" days, providing no reasons, providing no explanation, and providing no respect for the DGR process and the Citizens and Taxpayers who want to MEANINGFULLY participate while obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars are unnecessarily squandered. Citizens and Taxpayers were provided with no opportunity whatsoever to participate in the adjournment process. 5. Aside from the OPG DGR process now being time-barred by the incomprehensible delay, the "urgency" required for approval of the OPG DGR clothes and rags application has been forever lost because of the time-barred delay amounting to at least 4 years. Yet Minister McKenna recklessly continues the sham process that has proven with certainty that OPG's proposed DGR for clothes and rags is the biggest government boondoggle and fraud since the Pyramids of Egypt some 5,000 years ago. While the Pyramids eventually became a Wonder of the World and tourist attraction, the OPG DGR for clothes and rags is destined to destroy the Great Lakes that supports drinking water and tourism for the World. 6. And, most importantly, Canada is celebrating its 150th Birthday this year. All Citizens and Taxpayers will be invited to the "ribbon-cutting" ceremony opening the OPG DGR for clothes and rags foretold by Mike Binder, President and CEO of CNSC watchdog turned OPG DGR cheerleader, many, many years ago in a 2009 unlawful closed secret DGR meeting hosted by Bruce County Council. 7. The big "ribbon-cutting" ceremony for the OPG DGR for clothes and rags will most certainly include SNC-Lavalin as a guest. It is unlikely, however, that this OPG DGR clothes and rags celebration will be included in the 150th Birthday celebrations held on Parliament Hill. 8. Stop the madness! The OPG DGR for clothes and rags is an embarrassment to Canada and it is highway robbery of our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars. It is reprehensible for our government to show Citizens and Taxpayers such disrespect. Shameful! 9. Yet in 243 days [less a few] Minister McKenna will rubber-stamp her approval of the "urgent need" to bury clothes and rags in a gold-plated Taj Mahal DGR costing billions of Taxpayer dollars- while spent nuclear fuel remains in a simple warehouse on the surface. Utter nonsense! 10. Unfortunately, the squandered Taxpayer money will be gone forever, but the certain Public and Judicial Inquiry will ultimately determine who of our Public servants are responsible and expose them for denying our Health, Education, and legal Aid budgets of obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars 2/27/2017 Page 3 of3 tl7D buried in a useless and meaningless DGR for clothes and rags while spent nuclear fuel remains on the surface. Utter nonsense! Happy New Year! John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant 2/27/2017 Page 1 of 4 p 7/ John Mann From: "John Mann" January 4, 2017 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Michael Binder, Bonnie Lysyk, Minister Carr, Michael Ferguson, Laurie Swami, Wayne Robbins, MPP Lisa Thompson, and MP Ben Lobb: OPG implicitly confirms in its report to Minister McKenna that a DGR for spent nuclear fuel is impossible, and therefore there is no necessity and no urgency to bury clothes and rags because spent nuclear fuel will always remain on the surface! 1. On January 3, 2017, Citizens and Taxpayers and Registered Participants were finally notified about OPG having filed, ex parte, way back on December 28, 2016, its meaningless report in response to 2/27/2017 Page 2 of 4 ??<--. Minister McKenna's February 2016 Order. OPG and CEAA refused to notify Citizens and Taxpayers and Registered Participants because they did not want anyone to know about it during the holidays wherein Citizens and Taxpayers and Registered Participants have more time to spend reviewing this horrific and inexplicable DGR Taxpayer boondoggle fraud. Instead, OPG and CEAA release the miscarriage of justice document on January 3, 2017, when Citizens and Taxpayers and Registered Participants are back to work and busy with everyday life that thankfully does not include this failed process. 2. OPG's report is meaningless as to Minister McKenna's Order to study "ACTUAL" alternate DGR sites [plural] because OPG refused to follow Minister McKenna's Order and provides no study whatsoever related to any "actual" alternate DGR sites. To do it right would take at a minimum 10 years- placing it behind OPG's NWMO DGR site process in progress presently for spent nuclear fuel. 3. Ironically, however, OPG's meaningless report has successfully eliminated any possibility for there to be a DGR for spent nuclear fuel for the following reasons: a. OPG has concluded that the DGR for clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste is best and safest at OPG's proposed DGR site at Kincardine, the home of the Bruce Power nuclear facility, because the nuclear waste is already stored on-site, thereby avoiding prohibitive and obscene transportation costs and risks to the Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment. OPG concludes for the Minister that OPG's proposed DGR at Kincardine is the safest and best place to store nuclear waste. b. Therefore, OPG has implicitly informed everybody that a DGR for spent nuclear fuel is not possible for the same 2 reasons OPG is supporting its proposed DGR at Kincardine, that is, OPG's NWMO is considering 21 "actual" alternate locations for spent nuclear fuel, but OPG by its report to the Minister implicitly says NWMO's pursuit of alternate DGR sites for the much more radioactively dangerous spent nuclear fuel is pure folly and cannot prevail. OPG's NWMO, the clone of OPG, created by OPG, and owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees and officials, and OPG owns all of the nuclear waste, can never advise Citizens and Taxpayers, and government officials, and a future JRP that it is best and safest to have an off-site DGR for spent nuclear fuel, with commensurate and far greater prohibitive and obscene transportation costs and risks to the Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment, and that an off-site DGR is the best and safest DGR site. c. Fast forward to sometime in the distant future, and to OPG's NWMO's submissions to a new JRP reviewing the OPG's NWMO DGR Application for spent nuclear fuel. At that time, OPG's NWMO will be making the argument that its proposed DGR for spent nuclear fuel is the safest and best because: 1. The extremely dangerously radioactive spent nuclear fuel will have to be transported off-site at prohibitive costs and risks to Citizens and Taxpayers and the Environment, and 2. An off-site DGR for spent nuclear fuel is far safer and better than the on-site DGR at Kincardine for clothes and rags. OPG can't have it both ways. d. This is why the 2 Track 2 DGR process should have been combined from the start as a 1 DGR process. By OPG allowing Kincardine council to create the 2-Track 2-DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud, OPG has painted itself into a corner and is made to look absolutely foolish here wherein both DGR processes are now impossible to complete. 2/27/2017 Page 3 of 4 J'" 7 _:? 4. Citizens and Taxpayers can thank Kincardine council for eliminating the possibility of ever having a DGR for spent nuclear fuel. Kincardine council inexplicably prohibited spent nuclear fuel to ever be buried in a DGR in our Bruce County Community. At the same time, our federal government was looking for a way to store spent nuclear fuel permanently. The federal government has never expressed any interest whatsoever in long term storage of clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste. Yet the JRP has inexplicably concluded after the meaningless Public Hearings that there is "urgency" in burying the clothes and rags that nuclear workers actually wore and used throughout their careers without harm and without any protection, while the federal government never even included it in its "long term" plans, let alone to be buried "urgently" and prior to burying "spent nuclear fuel"!!! Our government officials on all levels could not be more condescending and insulting to Citizens and Taxpayers and our Environment! How stupid does our government think Citizens and Taxpayers are, the same Citizens and Taxpayers that these arrogant and condescending government officials have the honour and privilege of serving? BEWARE THE "TROJAN HORSE" wherein the clothes and rags will be replaced with the spent nuclear fuel in the dead of the night by our government officials that we cannot trust in this process that guarantees destruction of Due Process and Democracy and any meaningful participation of any kind on the part of Citizens and Taxpayers. 5. My prior emails have already predicted and summarized the meaningless and contemptuous response by OPG to Minister McKenna. The OPG response could have been produced over a lunch hour. No further "actual" studies were conducted. OPG guaranteed that its DGR Kincardine site was the best way back in April by informing Minister McKenna that it was going to do a "confirmation bias" report [condemned by Justice Goudge in his Inquiry on Forensic Pathology in 2009] that would establish that its Kincardine DGR site was the best and safest. The only mystery in the conclusion reached by OPG is why did it take OPG a year to "confirm" its predetermined "bias" that the Kincardine site was the best anywhere in Canada without ever studying even one other "actual" alternate site? The thing that is not a mystery is that Citizens and Taxpayers are on the hook for prohibitive costs related to paying all of the huge number of people and consultants to put together documentation that would confirm OPG's chosen location as the safest and the best. No other location had a chance. And why was it so important to make sure OPG's report "confirmed" its predetermined "bias." Because OPG officials did not want to have egg on their face and have the impossible [and unpleasant] task of explaining why OPG and everyone else involved in this process wasted 15 years on this nonsensical OPG DGR for clothes and rags Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. After all, study of "actual" alternate sites was required when this process began 15 years ago. OPG made the inexplicable decision to forego the required studies [that NWMO is now seeking for its spent nuclear fuel DGR boondoggle that has now become forever doomed by the OPG report filed with Minister McKenna]! 6. And since OPG has determined that no other site is safe for its DGR for clothes and rags, there certainly can be no other DGR site that is safe for the alarming spent nuclear fuel! BEWARE THE "TROJAN HORSE"!!! Thankfully, Kincardine council has answered that, and OPG and CNSC has confirmed that no spent nuclear fuel will ever go in a DGR in our Bruce County Community. 7. And why is CEAA reviewing the OPG report? Why isn't Minister McKenna reviewing the OPG report? After all, Minister McKenna [presumably] determined that she wanted OPG to provide to her studies of "ACTUAL" alternate DGR sites. Minister McKenna inexplicably did not provide any reasons. And even more alarming is Minister McKenna's ex parte adjournment of her decision for a mysterious "243" days, and the adjournment done prior to even seeing the OPG report and prior to OPG having filed the 2/27/2017 Page 4 of 4 ~7Y report. And now we find out that we will be able to provide "additional input" to the CEAA. I have been emailing the CEAA since the Minister became involved, and the CEAA ignores me. Again, no meaningful input is or will be available in this DGR process. And whatever happened to Public Hearings, Due Process, and Democracy? And OPG did not respond at all to Minister McKenna's Order for studies of "ACTUAL" alternate sites! I guess that no longer matters to the Minister. Utter nonsense and a denial of all Due Process and Democracy. And this process has now been time-barred for up to 5 years by the required Statute of Limitations. Which begs the other question of if there is "urgency" to get these clothes and rags buried, why was there no urgency back in 2000 when this was first raised! Utter nonsense! 8. Unfortunately, the squandered Taxpayer money will be gone forever, but the certain Public and Judicial Inquiry will ultimately determine who of our Public servants are responsible and expose them for denying our Health, Education, and Legal Aid Budgets of obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars buried in a useless and meaningless DGR for clothes and rags while spent nuclear fuel remains on the surface. Utter nonsense! 9. Finally, all of you government people at every level can now terminate the DGR clothes closet. And the wonderful New Year's News is that OPG now implicitly confirms that you can now terminate OPG's NWMO search for a DGR for the reasons stated by OPG supporting its now doomed DGR for clothes and rags. We look forward to an end to this inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud. 10. Thank you OPG for finally making the strong argument that will put a thankful end to this process for both clothes and rags and spent nuclear fuel! Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 2/27/2017 Page 1 of 5 John Mann From: "John Mann" January 14, 2017 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Michael Binder, MPP Lisa Thompson, and MP Ben Lobb: OPG's "Fake News" provided to Minister McKenna, and to the World through the Media, fails to report on the massive opposition to the OPG DGR for clothes and rags! OPG is spreading Fake News. OPG's Fake News is spread to Minister McKenna and the World through OPG's contemptuous, useless, and meaningless December Report recently filed in January, and also quoted to the World through the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star and local media. The Fake News is set forth below: 2/27/2017 Page 2 of 5 .fo76 1. OPG says: "Research shows that there is little interest among the general public regarding the DGR project at the Bruce Nuclear site." 2. OPG intentionally refuses to mention the fact that 186 Towns and Cities [representing 22,000,000 Citizens] on both sides of the border passed Resolutions on behalf of their Citizens condemning the OPG DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com/resolutions.ph..Q 3. OPG intentionally refuses to mention the fact that the National Association of Counties of the United States [representing 3,069 counties (representing 255,000,000 Citizens) throughout the United States] passed a Resolution opposing the OPG DGR in the Great Lakes Basin [providing drinking water for 40,000,000 people]! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 4. OPG intentionally refuses to mention the fact that the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus/ representing lawmakers from 8 Great Lake States, Ontario, and Quebec] passed a Resolution opposing the OPG DGR in the Great Lakes Basin! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 5. OPG intentionally refuses to mention the fact that the United Tribes of Michigan passed a Resolution opposing the OPG DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 6. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that a Petition condemning the OPG DGR has some 90,000 signatures by Citizens opposed to OPG's DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 7. OPG intentionally refuses to mention all ofthe massive opposition from elected and unelected government officials in Canada and the United States who oppose and condemn the OPG DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 8. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that there are numerous Citizen groups [local and beyond] that vehemently oppose and condemn OPG 1 s DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 9. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that there are presently 2 Judicial Reviews of the OPG DGR, seeking to have the OPG DGR terminated! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 10. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that there are huge numbers of Citizens [local and beyond] that have voiced their strong opposition and condemnation of the OPG DGR, orally and in writing throughout the years! Who in the World would consider this to be "little interest"? 11. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that the only support it has received from the local Town councils in Bruce County was bought by OPG paying obscene amounts of millions of squandered Taxpayer Dollars and set forth in the OPG DGR hosting agreement with Kincardine that can be viewed on-line! This support from Town councils was bought by OPG without any input or vote by Citizens of the Towns! Who in the World would consider this to be of "little interest" to the general Public? 12. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that OPG has virtually no evidence of any other support for it 2/27/2017 Page 3 of 5 P77 OPG DGR other than a flawed phone poll of some people in Kincardine! In other words OPG is correct that there is {/little interest" in supporting the OPG DGR!- but, inexplicably and inexcusably, OPG fails to advise Minister McKenna and the World about the {/massive interest" in opposing the OPG DGR! 13. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that there is no need to build its DGR for clothes and rags because spent nuclear fuel will never be able to find a DGR home thanks to OPG's requirement that nuclear waste should not be transported off-site! Who in the World would build an on-site DGR for clothes and rags when spent nuclear fuel can never be stored in a DGR because it would have to be transported off-site? Who in the World would consider this to be of {/little interest" to the general Public? 14. OPG refuses to investigate and build 1 DGR for all nuclear waste rather than unnecessarily building 2 DGRs at double the cost and problems, all because Kincardine's council did not want spent nuclear fuel in its DGR! Who in the World would consider this to be of {/little interest" to the general Public? 15. OPG intentionally refuses to mention that its 2 Track 2 DGR Taxpayer and Environmental boondoggle fraud must be terminated to avoid further Citizen, Taxpayer, and Environmental irreparable harm and irreparable obscene cost! Who in the World would consider this to be of "little interest" to the general Public? 16. OPG intentionally refuses to mention any opposition whatsoever to OPG's DGR! OPG sends opposition it receives to its SPAM file as shown by OPG recently blocking all of my emails opposing the DGR. OPG intentionally refuses to video tape our Citizen's [but limited to a only few invited Citizen groups, while excluding virtually all Citizens] useless and meaningless stakeholder's meeting on Veteran's Day, 2016, that established complete and total opposition and condemnation of the OPG DGR. OPG made certain that there would be no recorded Record of that meeting because OPG knew it would be a complete disaster. Instead, OPG intentionally refuses to send even a summary to CEAA and intentionally refuses to fairly report the absolute opposition and condemnation by Citizens of the local DGR Community to the OPG DGR. Reprehensibly, OPG does use the catastrophic stakeholder meeting on Veteran's Day as an example of their Community Consultation! Utter nonsense! And why is the OPG DGR stakeholder meeting on December 2, 2016, with NRCAN, CNSC, NWMO, Fisheries and Oceans, Health Canada, CEAA, and Environment and Climate change, posted with CEAA?- Because it was a love-in! 17. The factors set forth above are just the tip of the iceberg related to the incomprehensible, inept, and incompetent OPG DGR that OPG's failure to respond and reputation has deservedly earned throughout this 15 year boondoggle fraud process. OPG's shameful response to any opposition is to simply ignore it! And our elected representatives and the media do nothing about it! 18. True to form of shutting out any and all opposition, OPG continues to say in it Report to the Minister, as well as to mainstream Media throughout Ontario and the World: {/OPG's plan for the safe, long term management of L&ILW is supported by a majority of Ontarians, and at the same time, is not an area of concern among the general population." This is simply Fake News! What Ontarian would be against "the safe, long term management of L&ILW"? That doesn't mean, however, that there is support for this absolute boondoggle that defies common sense and is nothing more than an inept process guaranteed to squander Taxpayer money for no legitimate reason whatsoever! It is insulting 2/27/2017 Page 4 of 5 ~7JY and condescending to every Citizen and Taxpayer OPG has the obligation and duty to safeguard. What is a concern to the general population is the safe, long term management of spent nuclear fuel and not clothes and rags. What makes OPG so reprehensible in this process is OPG's ongoing squandering of Taxpayer Dollars for over a decade now to investigate and plan and sell the OPG project for clothes and rags to Citizens and Taxpayers that is absolutely unnecessary, mindless, and defies all common sense- all the while OPG was irresponsibly neglecting finding a long term solution for its spent nuclear fuel, the real culprit in this ugly and shameful story. And why did OPG, a Crown corporation, choose to irresponsibly neglect its obligation and duty to Citizens and Taxpayers and not seek out a solution for long term management of its spent nuclear fuel? Because OPG had to lull and payoff our Community into supporting a useless and meaningless DGR for harmless clothes and rags, while at the same time creating a process and so-called "expert" Reports that would guarantee spent nuclear fuel will never find a DGR home! Unbelievable! 19. In light of this absurd history, OPG now continues to support it useless and obscenely costly DGR for clothes and rags by now Reporting to Minister McKenna: "Research shows there is little interest among the general public regarding the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site. [OPG's social media] analysis showed that Ontarians are not looking for information on nuclear waste disposal in large volumes. This topic is not a popular one, nor is it generating large volumes of curiosity." What a shocking revelation! Social media doesn't find nuclear waste disposal to be a popular topic! It is the first topic that comes up in every conversation I have, and all my friends and family make it number one on their conversation topic selection! Give me a break! Who writes this stuff? And Citizens and Taxpayers are relying on this kind of incompetence to guarantee a successful DGR for the next million years while protecting the Great Lakes? 20. And finally in the Report, OPG Fake News advises Minister McKenna "Currently [January 2017L interest in DGR in Ontario has flat-lined." Just look at the massive opposition and condemnation set forth throughout this email above. And none of this vehement opposition and condemnation of the DGR was even remotely raised by OPG to Minister McKenna in OPG's December Report filed in January 2017! How is this possible? And isn't this kind of Fake News and misrepresentation of "extreme interest" to the general Public? 21. And most importantly of all, OPG has virtually no meaningful evidence whatsoever showing any support for its useless DGR. 22. And all of our elected officials do nothing about this travesty! Shameful! 23. Stop wasting our money and terminate this useless, costly, and dangerous OPG DGR for clothes and rags! 24. And don't get me started on OPG's Fake News GPS coordinates set forth in its Report to the Minister that considers an alternate DGR site in Minnesota as noted by the Toronto Star!!! https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/01/10/opg-identifies-most-of-ontario-as-alternate-location to-bu ry-n uclea r-waste-jen n ifer-~~U~ htn:!J. Most Respectfully, 2/27/2017 Page 5 of 5 c? 11 John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 2/27/2017 Page 1 of 1 cYJ><; John Mann From: "John Mann" This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna" This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 1/14/2017 2:09PM 1/14/2017 Page 1 of 1 Psv; John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 1114/2017 Page 1 of2 ~J+' 2--- John Mann From: "John Mann" February 13, 2017 Hi Mayor and Council: This is my Delegation for the next council meeting on February 27, 2017, because there was no timely notice provided to Citizens of the motion to support the DGR prior to tonight's council meeting. The motion should have been presented first to the Committee of the Whole prior to sending it directly for a vote by council after deferring it one year ago. Democracy requires it because it is so contentious and Citizens must have an opportunity to voice their concerns. 1. On February 29, 2016, Saugeen Shores council deferred the Motion to support the low and intermediate nuclear waste DGR because it had doubts about it being placed in Kincardine on the shores of our Lake Huron. 2. Saugeen Shores council wanted to see if there was a better place to put the DGR and deferred the motion in hope that OPG would discover better DGR sites through its study of alternate sites. 3. If Saugeen Shores council was sure Kincardine was the best site for the DGR there would have been no reason to defer the motion. 4. Before Saugeen Shores council raises their hands [without debate] to support the Kincardine DGR, shouldn't Saugeen Shores council be certain Kincardine is the best site? 5. OPG failed to study any alternate sites as required by Minister McKenna's Order, and, therefore, should be held in contempt. 6. The reason given by OPG that it did not study alternate DGR sites as ordered is because it would take another decade. 2/27/2017 Page 2 of2 fiv?.S 7. The JRP expressly found that the DGR must be dug urgently even though spent fuel will remain above ground- probably forever. 8. When we are confronted with a DGR project scheduled to last for eternity, it is not unreasonable to take the necessary additional 10 years to make sure it is done right and done at the best site. Saugeen Shores council certainly must agree with that. 10. OPG has unequivocally reported to Minister McKenna that it is too dangerous and cost prohibitive to transport low and intermediate nuclear waste to an alternate site DGR. So Saugeen Shores council has to ask themselves this question: "Are we representing our Citizens properly if we support the low and intermediate DGR in Kindardine, when we now know that spent fuel can never be placed in a DGR because it has to be dangerously transported off-site at prohibitive costs?" 11. And how can Saugeen Shores council pass a resolution that it "believes that the majority of its citizens support the findings of the JRP" when that directly contradicts the evidence presented at the Joint Review Panel and found in the transcript of the proceedings? 12. As elected Public servants Saugeen Shores council is obligated and duty bound to represent the interests of everyone in Saugeen Shores. As such, Saugeen Shores has no idea if the majority supports this useless and dangerous and costly DGR for clothes and rags, while spent fuel will never find a DGR home. What council"believes" is irrelevant. What they know is that a vast number of people have spoken against it in Saugeen Shores. To support the DGR "unequivocally" is just plain wrong and misleading. A project of this magnitude requires a Referendum. Democracy requires it. Yet, Saugeen Shores council refuses to conduct a meaningful Referendum. 13. In any event, the motion will pass without Democracy in attendance, and without evidentiary support whatsoever. 14. And all done without proper notice to Citizens to prepare and oppose it and to provide Delegations. Most Respectfully, John Mann Saugeen Shores 2/27/2017 Page 1 of 1 ~sry John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to [email protected] Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre *** Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement ? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande. Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il concerne des questions qui ont trait au r?le de Ia ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress? e ? Ia ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre [email protected] Cordialement, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 2114/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to [email protected]. 2/14/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system 1/14/2017 Page 1 of2 John Mann From: "John Mann" February 28, 2017 Hi Minister McKenna, Deep Geologic Repository Project Manager [CEAA], and Prime Minister Trudeau: OPG's DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste must be dismissed because high level spent fuel will remain on the surface- thus there is no necessity and no urgency that is required for approval of the DGR. 1. OPG has confirmed that its proposed DGR site in Kincardine for low and intermediate nuclear waste is the best site because it is too dangerous and too costly to transport the waste off-site. [80% 2/28/2017 Page 2 of2 consisting of clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers]. 2. Ironically, OPG has also confirmed that spent fuel [high level radioactive nuclear waste] will never find a DGR home because spent fuel is prohibited in the proposed DGR in Kincardine, and it is too dangerous and too costly to transport the spent fuel to a DGR off-site. 3. Therefore, there is no necessity and no urgency for you to allow a DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste because the high level spent fuel will remain on the surface. 4. Inexplicably, this process has been backwards from the very beginning, and highlighted now after 15 years of Taxpayer waste pursuing a useless clothes and rags DGR. The question Citizens and Taxpayers have for you Minister McKenna is "Why in the World would OPG seek a DGR solution for clothes and rags prior to finding a solution for spent fuel?" 5. The nonsensical 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle process must be dismissed, and we all must finally find a solution for spent fuel before digging any hole in Kincardine. After all, this is a forever process. Stepping back and taking another 10 years of forever is not too much to ask. It is certainly not too much to ask by Citizens and Taxpayers who have to foot the bill and live with the forever consequences. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d'avoir ecrit a !'honorable Catherine McKenna, ministre de I'Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias, veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the media, please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to ec.media.ec@canada. ca. 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to ec.ministre-minister. ec@canada. ca Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement ? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande. Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il concerne des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress?e? la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre- minister.ec@canada. ca Cordialement, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. Ifyou do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "John Mann" This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna" This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 2/28/2017 10:44 AM 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Conditions (CEAA/ACEE)" Your message To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Jeffrey Lyash; Premier Wynne; Ken Nash; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Bonnie Lysyk; Minister Jim Carr; Michael Ferguson; Ministre I Minister (EC); Laurie Swami; Laurie Swami; Wayne Robbins; MPP Lisa Thompson; MP Ben Lobb; Deep Geologic Repository Project/ Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs[CEAA\ACEE] Cc: Aimee Puthon; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace; Dave Myette; David Akin; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Don Matheson; Eugene Bourgeois; Frances Learment; fsteve finch; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch; John Rich; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected]; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Chapman,Steve [CEAA]; Kurt Saunders; Saunders,Kurt [CEAA); Janice MacKay; Chris Adams; Lorrie Goldstein; Fred Kuntz; Jennifer Wells; John Mann Subject: OPG's DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste must be dismissed because high level spent fuel will remain on the surface -- thus there is no necessity and no urgency that is required for approval of the DGR. Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:38:08 -0500 was read on Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:47:05 -05000 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "John Mann" February 28, 2017 Hi Minister McKenna, Deep Geologic Repository Project Manager [CEAA], and Prime Minister Trudeau: OPG's DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste must be dismissed because high level spent fuel will remain on the surface- thus there is no necessity and no urgency that is required for approval of the DGR. 1. OPG has confirmed that its proposed DGR site in Kincardine for low and intermediate nuclear waste is the best site because it is too dangerous and too costly to transport the waste off-site. [80% consisting of clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers]. 2. Ironically, OPG has also confirmed that spent fuel [high level radioactive nuclear waste] will never find a DGR home because spent fuel is prohibited in the proposed DGR in Kincardine, and it is too dangerous and too costly to transport the spent fuel to a DGR off-site. 3. Therefore, there is no necessity and no urgency for you to allow a DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste because the high level spent fuel will remain on the surface. 4. Inexplicably, this process has been backwards from the very beginning, and highlighted now after 15 years of Taxpayer waste pursuing a useless clothes and rags DGR. The question Citizens and Taxpayers have for you Minister McKenna is "Why in the World would OPG seek a DGR solution for clothes and rags prior to finding a solution for spent fuel?" 5. The nonsensical 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle process must be dismissed, and we all must finally find a solution for spent fuel before digging any hole in Kincardine. After all, this is a forever process. Stepping back and taking another 10 years of forever is not too much to ask. It is certainly not too much to ask by Citizens and Taxpayers who have to foot the bill and live with the forever consequences. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered Participant Saugeen Shores 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Thank you for contacting my office. This automated response is to assure you that your message has been received by my office and will be reviewed as soon as possible. Due to the high volume of correspondence received, I am not able to respond personally to every inquiry. Please do not hesitate to contact my office at the coordinates below should you have any questions regarding the status of your query. Please note that your message will be forwarded to the Department of Environment and Climate Change if it concerns topics pertaining to the Minister of Environment and Climate Changes' role. For all future correspondence addressed to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I ask that you please write directly to ec.ministre-minister. [email protected] Best, Catherine McKenna, Member of Parliament, Ottawa Centre * * * Je vous remercie d'avoir communiqu? avec mon bureau. La pr?sente r?ponse automatique vous est envoy?e pour vous informer que votre message a ?t? re?u et qu'il sera examin? le plus rapidement possible. En raison du volume ?lev? de correspondance re?ue, je ne peux r?pondre personnellement? chaque demande. N'h?sitez pas? contacter mon bureau aux coordonn?es ci-dessous pour vous renseigner sur le statut de votre demande. Veuillez noter que votre message sera transmis au minist?re de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique s'il concerne des questions qui ont trait au r?le de la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique. Nous vous prions d'envoyer directement toute correspondance future adress?e? la ministre de l'Environnement et du Changement climatique ? ec.ministre [email protected] Cordialement, Catherine McKenna, d?put?e, Ottawa Centre 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Ministre I Minister (EC)" Merci d1 avoir ecrit a l1 honorable Catherine McKenna} ministre de I1 Environnement et du Changement climatique. En raison djune augmentation importante du volume de Ia correspondance adressee a Ia ministre1 veuillez prendre note qu 1 il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Soyez assures que votre message sera examine avec soin. Pour toute demande des medias} veuillez appeler au 819-938-3338 ou encore transferer votre demande au [email protected]. ********* Thank you for writing to the Honourable Catherine McKenna} Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister} please note that there may be a delay processing your eniail. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed. For requests from the medial please dial 819-938-3338 or forward your request to ec.media.ec@canada. ca. 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Conditions (CEAA/ ACEE)" Your message To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Ministre I Minister (EC); Deep Geologic Repository Project/ Projet de stockage de dechets radioactifs[CEAA\ACEE]; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC Cc: John Mann; Santa Claus Subject: Fw: OPG's DGR Application for low and intermediate nuclear waste must be dismissed because high level spent fuel will remain on the surface -- thus there is no necessity and no urgency that is required for approval of the DGR. Sent: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:43:45 -0500 was read on Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:47:05-05000 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "John Mann" This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna" This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 2/28/2017 10:46 AM 2/28/2017 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Mail Delivery System" < This is the mail system at I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster. If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The mail system 2/28/2017 John R. Mann III Citizen Saugeen Township Port Elgin Saugeen Shores Beach Bum World Headquarters Port Elgin Beach Deep Geologic Repository Project Project Manager and Minister of the Environment of Canada McKenna c/o National Programs Division Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency [CEAA] 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa, ON KIA OH3 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Submissions by John Mann, Citizen, Registered Participant, to Minister of the Environment of Canada McKenna related to Review of Joint Review Panel's DGR Report Dear Minister McKenna and Deep Geologic Repository Project Manager: The irresponsible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle must be replaced by the responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process. As a result, the OPG DGR Application must be dismissed. Page 1 (o; I am enclosing hard copies of Volume XXIX and Volume XXX of John Mann's DGR Record for the Minister's meaningful review, meaningful consideration, and meaningful inclusion in her decisions related to the Joint Review Panel's DGR Report. The contents found in these Volumes have previously been sent to the Minister by email. Please add these two volumes to the other 28 volumes previously made part of the OPG DGR Record sent to you by my cover letter dated May 20, 2016. I am also enclosing a Computer Memory-Stick for downloading all Volumes I through XXX of John Mann's DGR Record onto the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website for the DGR Project for the Minister of the Environment of Canada and everyone to meaningfully review and meaningfully consider. My Volumes I through XXV were previously posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry at Number 2865 on August 28, 2015. My new Volumes XXVI through XXX have to now be added to the Registry (Volumes XXVI through XXVIII may have been posted already]. I will send future submissions to the Minister by email for the Minister's meaningful review, meaningful consideration, and meaningful inclusion in her decisions related to the Joint Review Panel's DGR Report. The address above for Minister McKenna was provided to me by Heather Smith, Vice-President, Operations, CEAA. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me. Please provide a read receipt for the enclosed materials. Thank you. I appreciate it. The irresponsible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle must be replaced by the responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process. As a result, the OPG DGR Application must be dismissed. ly, Page 2