Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d’examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes
PMD 13-P1.130
File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2013-08-13 Edocs: 4185365
Oral intervention from Intervention orale par
Save Our Saugeen Shores Inc. Save Our Saugeen Shores Inc.
In the Matter of À l’égard de
Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc.
Proposed Environmental Impact Statement Étude proposée pour l’énoncé des incidences for OPG’s Deep Geological Repository environnementales pour l’Installation de (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et Level Waste moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes
Joint Review Panel Commission d’examen conjoint
September 16 to October 12, 2013 16 septembre au 12 octobre 2013
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
SAVE OUR SAUGEEN SHORES, INC. (SOS)
In the Matter of
Ontario Power Generation Inc.
Proposed Environmental Impact Statement For OPG’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste (L&ILW)
Kincardine, Ontario
To the
Joint Review Panel
September / October, 2013
Presented by
Jill Taylor, President, Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc.
1
Table of Contents
1. Why Are We Speaking Out? 2. Who Is Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS?) 3. OPG Environmental Impact Statement: A Plan with an Unacceptable Level of Risk 3.1 The Environmental Impact Statement Says: likely no significant risks 3.2 Conflicting Information 3.3 Understatement of Risk 4. Scientific, Social and Economic Concerns 4.1Why a DGR? 4.2 Cumulative Effects of One Aspect of Risk on Another in Time and Space 4.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment Table 10.4-1 and Analysis 4.4 Non-radiological Malfunctions and Accidents 4.5 A Science the Explains the Past But Cannot Predict the Future: Concerns about Geology and Safety 4.6 About $1-Billion 4.7 Residual and Adverse Effects of the DGR 4.8 What Beneficial Effects? 5. A Flawed Process of Consultation and Communication 5.1 Ethical Questions 5.2 Conflicts of Interest 5.3 One Community Choosing for All 5.4 Accepting Hosting Agreement Payouts: Infinite Obligation 5.5 Employment and Long-term Benefits Offered 5.6 The Fox in Charge of the Hen House 6. Misrepresentation of Information 6.1 What’s in a Name? 6.2 How is Radioactive Waste Classified? 6.3 How Less Than Candid Disclosure in Education Materials 6.4 Use of On-Side ‘Experts’ 7. Community Input 7.1 EIS and OPG Requirements 7.2 The Timeline 7.3 Public Attitude Analysis 2003, Intelliplus Ltd.: 7.4 Open Houses June 2003 7.5 Open Houses June 2007-10 7.6 Public Attitude Research (PAR) 2009 and the Socio-economic TSD
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
8. Lack of Informed Consent and Failure of Democracy 8.1 Poll to Test Willingness Left to Kincardine 8.2 The Telephone Poll of February 2005: not a Referendum or Vote 8.3 The Question that was Asked 8.4 Poll Results 8.5 Peer Review of Poll Results 9. Purchase of Support in Saugeen Shores and Adjacent Municipalities 9.1 Striking Deals 9.2 Was There an Official Agreement? 9.3 Presentations by OPG to Saugeen Shores Council, 2004 9.4 Was There an Official Agreement? 9.5 The Offer 10. How Well Informed Were People? 11. Continued Support by the Mayor of Saugeen Shores in 2012 11.1 Letter of Support June 26, 2012 11.2 SOS Deputation to Council June 25, 2012 11.3 Other Letters of Support as Unrepresentative
CONCLUSION
ENDNOTES
APPENDICES
3 1.0 WHY ARE WE SPEAKING OUT?
My name is Jill Taylor, and I represent Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS).
We, the members of SOS, are here to object strenuously to the construction of a deep geological repository (DGR) at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste.
Through our own research and through reading of material prepared by or on behalf of Ontario Power Generation (OPG), we have apprised ourselves of the proposal before the Joint Review Panel for the Deep Geological Repository (in this report, DGR 1) for low and intermediate level waste (L&ILW).
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc., is a grass-roots organization established in February, 2012, after residents of Saugeen Shores learned of their municipality’s plan to enter into the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) process to find a site for all of Canada’s current and future used nuclear fuel. Since that time, the Town of Saugeen Shores has advanced to Stage 3 of the site-selection process for a DGR for the high level waste (HLW) — which we will refer to in this report as DGR 2 — along with 21 other towns, 6 of which are located in Bruce County.
Shortly after we organized, in spite of alleged widely publicized communication and polling, many residents of Saugeen Shores learned for the first time of OPG’s plan to site DGR 1 (L&ILW) next to the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). The WWMF, located on the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station near Tiverton, Ont., is less than one kilometre from the shore of Lake Huron on which we reside, and only 12 kilometres from the boundary of our town.
Our town is so close to the proposed DGR 1, that the Guidelines for the Preparation of OPG’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), under 5.1 Setting, even require the EIS to concisely describe the proximity of the DGR not only to Kincardine, but to the Town of Saugeen Shores.
SOS believes siting a DGR for L&ILW in Kincardine is a dangerous and deeply flawed project. The burial plan for the waste raises on-going safety, health, environmental and socio-economic concerns. In addition, in our opinion, the educational and political process has also been fraught with conflicts of interest, misrepresentation and non- disclosure, as well as lack of democratic due process in the DGR planning.
The disposal of ILW, some of which has the potential radioactive hazards of nuclear fuel waste and for comparable periods of time1, requires the same standards of technical safety, ethical awareness and social responsiveness as in planning for high-level radioactive waste disposal. Our research indicates that some of the L&ILW to be stored in the DGR is as highly radioactive and long-lasting as the isotopes from the irradiated
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) nuclear fuel that has been discussed as being disposed of in the DGR 2.
We are here to address the JRP from a neighbouring town because the municipal boundary of the Town of Kincardine does not constitute a physical barrier that could protect our town and Lake Huron itself from the risk of a negative impact. Because we are on the shore of the same body of water, because we share groundwater and air, because we share roads, local food and drinking water, we are integrally connected. Because the DGR construction may cause a threat to our safety and security, and negatively affect the value of our properties, and for a multitude of other reasons, we are here today.
Up until now, we have been excluded from the process of community consultation. Despite public statements made by our mayors since 2004, and by OPG, there is no demonstrated willingness or support of the DGR 1 by Saugeen Shores residents. We were not, as promised to OPG by then-mayor Mark Kraemer, contacted by our municipality at any time to inform us about the DGR 1. Nor were we contacted by the municipality to inform us of Council’s support for the DGR 1 in Kincardine.
None of our core membership has ever been polled, contacted or formally consulted during the process conducted by consultants assigned to reach out to municipalities adjacent to the Town of Kincardine. There is NO indication that 40% of the residents of Saugeen Shores endorsed the long term management plans proposed by OPG in the form of a DGR as is asserted by the EIS Volume 1. It is a major oversight that the municipality of Saugeen Shores did not seek to clearly and comprehensively inform all citizens of this very important plan for storage of radioactive waste. Further, to maintain that we were in support of the plan is simply untrue. If community consent is considered a pillar of the acceptability of the project for its proposed setting, consent has not been achieved.
Everything that we cherish and wish to extend as a legacy to our children has to do with the protection of our Great Lakes heritage and environment. We have been taught since childhood, and continue to believe and to work toward a goal that all Ontarians are expected to embrace, to be good stewards of Lake Huron, the land and its setting. We expect no less of industry, our leaders and our neighbours.
2.0 WHO IS SAVE OUR SAUGEEN SHORES, INC. (SOS)?
The mission of SOS is to provide public education and raise awareness about the health, environmental, and socio-economic risks of radioactive waste and prevent its deep burial in Saugeen Shores, its neighbouring regions and the Great Lakes Basin.
We took on this task after observing that our municipal council, rather than providing a range of educational materials about this issue, chose to display almost uniformly pro- DGR 2 information on its website and in NWMO-sponsored kiosks at the municipal
5 offices.
SOS maintains there should not be DGRs for any nuclear waste anywhere in the Great Lakes Basin, due to the potential for radioactive contamination of this precious resource — the drinking water of 40 million people — and the potential for other adverse environmental, social, health and economic impacts from a DGR.
International experts agree that radioactive waste is best stored far from people, animals and water sources. Ignoring this broadly held and logical conclusion, the plan to construct the DGR in our region, the home of many picturesque small towns, an area reliant on agriculture and a vacation destination for tourists, defies responsible planning principles.
SOS represents a group of people of diverse backgrounds and cultures, varying age and economic situations, and genders. The people expressing concern to us about the DGR 1 issue represent those in a cross-section of occupations and areas of expertise who have lived permanently or seasonally in Saugeen Shores and its surroundings for one or more generations – architects, electricians, physicians, journalists, nurses, university professors, nuclear workers, farmers, municipal councillors, engineers, retirees, construction workers, financial advisers, janitors, plumbers, realtors, teachers, lawyers, students, sales clerks and hoteliers. Many have children and extended families who hope to stay on in Saugeen Shores and Bruce County for decades or generations, and who are determined to hold the Great Lakes, and the vision of a clean, livable Saugeen Shores as a fundamental of their lives, and have participated in the drafting of Official Plan sections that apply in law to the sound planning and development of the land and its culture. Our representation includes people from Kincardine and the adjacent communities as well as people on possible transportation routes to those communities, and people dependent upon the Great Lakes for their drinking water or their livelihoods. We are a large, diverse and rapidly growing group.
We are not uniformed, or anti-nuclear. Most of the people that we represent accept that nuclear power is currently a necessary means of generating electricity, until greener, cleaner technologies have proven themselves technically reliable and economically feasible. SOS shares the legitimate concern that a sound solution to the problem of radioactive nuclear fuel waste is required.
We wish to assure the panel that there is no confusion on our part about the differences between LLW, ILW or HLW, or the intention as currently stated by OPG and NWMO to propose two different DGRs for L&ILW, and HLW, in separate municipalities.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) 3.0 OPG ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: A PLAN WITH AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK
3.1 The Environmental Impact Statement says: likely no significant risk
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has claimed that, ‘the site preparation and construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of the DGR Project are not likely to have any significant adverse effect on the environment’2. (
SOS believes that the proposal for the DGR at the WWMF presents significant and likely risks to human health, the environment and culture that extend not only through our lifetimes, but through an immeasurable number of generations and through hundreds of thousands of years. That risk extends not only to the area of the WWMF site, but to the adjacent rural and town areas, to the region, to the Great Lakes Basin. The periods of risk include the stages of planning, design, construction, implementation, decommissioning and post-decommissioning. The end of risk may be, although not defined by the EIS, at the point when the below-grade radioactive nuclear waste is no longer radioactive, as then its potential to harm the environment or humans will be at its end.
3.2 Conflicting Information
The documents presented in the EIS and its Appendices contain conflicting information with regard to the proposed design of the facility (including its size above and below ground, and the provision of shaft-vs-ramp method of accessing the rock vaults), the duration of and method of construction, the provision of environmental protection during construction, the plans for duration of operation and the process and responsibility for decommissioning plans, to name a few.
It appears that there was an inaccurate transfer of research findings, proposals for the design of the DGR, estimates of employment and projected costs and income from the professional authors to the stakeholders: review of minutes of meetings, deputations, public polls, newsletters and media reports present a web of information that has created not clarity, but a fog around the proposal. This lack of clarity has been amplified by the dogmatic manner in which OPG and the municipal councils have conveyed information that requires careful consideration and consultation with parties from all sides of the issue. Cumulative risk analysis in Chapter 10 of the EIS also indicates widely over-estimated claims of benefit to the region from a socio-economic standpoint.
3.3 Understatement of Risk
We believe that the EIS underestimates the individual risks associated with the DGR, and does not evaluate the cumulative risks in an adequate manner.
7 The risk assessment is the major responsibility and task of the EIS and was completed in March, 2011; there are still outstanding questions on risk that have not been evaluated, clearly answered, or are stated as “unknown” in the EIS. Yet, decisions have been made by the OPG, by town councils and by the public through polling regarding the choice of the DGR as the preferred method of waste disposal. How can this be? Why were people making major planning decisions between 2002 and 2010, when the EIS was only issued in 2011?
This issue of timing may account for the fact that there seems to have been very little information, or very superficial information available to the public about the risk of the DGR construction, or handling and disposal of radioactive waste. In fact, it appears that no scientific assessment of risk was available in any form until the release of the EIS in 2011, and that it is still incomplete.
It is obvious to us that our leaders have made decisions to support the DGR without an understanding of its risks. Is it not their responsibility ethically and by their job description to relay in a timely and accurate fashion the risk to the public associated with their decisions?
When our leaders, professionals and the industry underestimate risk, do not inform us of risk, take short cuts, or put money before responsibility, they lose our trust. That is, our trust in them to make good decisions on our behalf, that protect our safety.
We live in Bruce County. Some of us have friends who were sickened during the Walkerton water tragedy. We remember the lessons of Walkerton and the reasons that we must be vigilant.
4.0 SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS
4.1 Why a DGR?
The Great Lakes provide fresh water for 40 million people. Ninety-nine percent of the water in the Great Lakes is non-renewable. Why site a DGR in proximity to one of the largest contiguous fresh water reservoir in the world upon which tens of millions of Canadians and Americans depend for their drinking water and livelihoods?3
The consultants who prepared the EIS were not asked if the DGR was a good thing, or if its location was suitable. They were asked to discuss and mitigate, then come up with a ‘how-to’ answer. That is the methodology of mitigation.
The Schedule of Milestones in the Regulatory Process4 and the Section 3, Context, describes in summary the process and requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 2002), the hiring of an independent consultant to conduct the
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Independent Assessment Report (IAS, 2004), that concluded there were three viable options for storage of the L&ILW. It is made to appear that the decision for the choice of the DGR above the other two options rested with the residents of Kincardine and the surrounding municipalities. As will be described here, and by others who will make submissions to the JRP, there was not a clear understanding on the part of all residents in Kincardine, and a sampling of residents from other municipalities, of the fact that this repository was for radioactive waste, there was an indefinite opinion on the suitability of the site, its geology, and its proximity to Lake Huron, some internationally renowned scientists and experts were opposed to the DGR as a method of disposal, and other options could be suitable.
The process and results of the poll were skewed in favour of the DGR, and the Town of Kincardine then immediately voted in favour of the DGR to meet the shot-gun clause of “community support” that had been established by OPG.
We can conclude that the decision was initiated by a government/industry alliance eager to fast-track the DGR facility on the most convenient, yet still untested site. The poll was ‘set up’ to avoid serious options analysis by experts in combination with a referendum, and the council vote was a rubber stamp by a group of men who appear to have been largely concerned with monetary benefit to their municipality.
Clearly, the effort and potential risk and cost associated with this facility is in no way commensurate with the percentage of radioactive fuel that is going to be disposed of (not stored) in this manner. We must ask: Has the proposal been altered since 2002 to keep current? Have the past 13 years of research and development in the nuclear industry around the world not offered any refinements to the DGR proposal? Why are we still pursuing methods of disposal that have been discussed for over 30 years at such risk and cost? Is it not incumbent on the nuclear industry in particular, like others, to continually reassess its methods and procedures to be as up-to-date as possible?
We know that there are nuclear professionals who categorically say, ‘don’t bury nuclear waste.’ Where is their opinion referenced in the Options Analysis of 2004, or later, were they asked for a second opinion?
Do the engineers and leaders of today not believe that there will be research and development in the field of disposal of low and intermediate level waste that will eliminate the need for this DGR before the planned start date of its construction?
For a proposal that purports to understand risk and management of radioactive nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years (Marie Wilson of the NWMO is quoted as saying it
9 will be radioactive for 250,000 years, the EIS in parts says ‘millions’), it is not believable or logical that such predictive methodology could not extend to a better solution than the DGR for this purpose. A better solution is one that would be able to more fully eliminate the uncertainty of factors relating to geologic structure, to the potential for air and water contamination, to the potential for failure, and reduce the period of monitoring and management of the waste.
4.2 Cumulative Effects of One Aspect of Risk on Another in Time and Space
The EIS has attempted to quantify holistically the accumulated risk to the locale but not to the Great Lakes Basin of the effects that overlap in time and space. The aggregate of these two kinds of risks to the environment and all species has not been calculated. In the analysis of cumulative effect is the assumption that construction will last only 6 years (EIS: 10.5.2). This is incorrect! Construction will be continuous for the duration of the operation of the project (to 2050 at least) as new rock vaults are brought on-line for the disposal of waste from the Bruce, and from other sites in Ontario. Therefore, the cumulative effect should be re-examined based on the continuous construction, and duration of decommissioning. The EIS has made a fundamental error in risk- assessment methodology.
Existing health and environment risks have not been taken into account: And given that we already have an unacceptable tritium load at the location of Bruce nuclear site and its environs, should the underground storage option not be evaluated based on the combined effect of existing and possible new below-grade soil and water radiological hazards?
4.3 Cumulative Effects Assessment Table 10.4-1 and Analysis
There are so many areas of concern in this section. We learn, for example, in Items 1 and 2 that the facilities will be operated until 2050 and beyond and that decommissioning will take another 40 years; that after 2050 all of the nuclear reactors will be decommissioned in Ontario and that that decommissioning waste will come to the WWMF site; that the predicted and modeled size of the DGR will increase two times because of that decommissioning waste. We also learn that the cumulative effect of the proposed DGR 2 has not been modeled, even though the report discusses the movement of the spent fuel out of the WWMF! We will only speak to this one, most pressing omission.
The DGR 2 was not included in Table 10:
We do not believe that the EIS documents adequately take into account possible cumulative effects of nuclear reactors and deeply buried storage of nuclear waste at the same location, not to mention the even greater cumulative risk of siting a nuclear power plant, an L&ILW DGR and an HLW DGR in the same county.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
Given that the DGR 2 for all of Canada’s spent nuclear fuel is being planned with an eye on 6 of the adjacent communities to the WWMF it is unbelievable and unacceptable that the assessment of cumulative effect does not consider this as a potential cumulative factor in assessing risk. What would the combined effect be on the environment during construction of two such DGRs in one county? What would the impact be on the cultural and social fabric and nature of the county? What would the impact be on the combined risk of contamination of ground water; on the combined risk of any of the factors evaluated in the EIS? The polled residents and Council of Kincardine seemed to say, ‘OK’ to L&ILW, presumably not knowing that the ILW includes waste as hazardous as the HLW; are they going to be ‘OK’ with the fact the EIS had not evaluated the possibility of the DGR 2 being on their doorstep once they had been ‘promised’ the lesser of the two evils?
Or, is this DGR 1 actually a project that will be judged to be precedent-setting, and ‘pave the way’ for DGR 2 in an adjacent municipality? If this was to be proposed, through the approval of DGR 1 and advancement of DGR 2 within this region, it would be the most diabolical and unacceptable form of planning that could be imagined.
4.4 Non Radiological Malfunctions and Accidents (EIS: Section 8.3)
There are radiological and non-radiological incidents that may negatively affect species and environment as a result of the construction, operation, and decommissioning and monitoring of the proposed DGR. We will leave the discussion of radiological risk to others.
There is a Table 8.3.1-1 that speaks to the screening of conventional accidents on the environment. The categories include: Fire, explosion, electrical accidents, spills of fuel, chemicals, lubricants or oils and vehicle accidents. In 8.3.1.2 it is indicated that only a fire or spill could potentially have off-site effects, but that fire was judged to have no effect, so was not considered.
We have chosen to discuss only one of the risks that are evaluated in Section 8.0 in order to draw the panel’s attention to the frequently dismissive, casual and almost child- like discussion of risk. We will draw your attention to the risk of explosion/detonation.
We would like to posit that an explosion/detonation at the DGR, during construction, or during emplacement of radioactive nuclear waste at the DGR site, could have an effect on species and the environment, including effects that could potentially affect the adjacent Bruce nuclear reactors A and B. The EIS does not consider this as a screened risk. This is what is discussed in relation to explosion/detonation during the site preparation and construction stage (emplacement not considered; gas explosions underground not considered).
11 “An on-site explosion may occur during the site preparation and construction phase. Effects would likely be restricted to the Bruce nuclear site. However, this scenario is advanced for further consideration.”
8.3.2.2 Explosion
“In the event of an explosion, there would be a localized release of emissions that may interact with air quality and noise. However, these emissions would be similar to those predicted as a part of normal blasting during construction. Emissions associated with the support and response equipment are similar to those identified for the existing operations at the WWMF, and are therefore not expected to result in measurable increases to air or noise emissions. No off-site effects are anticipated on air quality.
There are no likely interactions with hydrology, surface water, soil or groundwater quality. An explosion would not likely directly affect aquatic and terrestrial biota unless they were in the immediate vicinity of the accident, although some nearby individuals could be startled by the sudden loud noise associated with an explosion. The DGR project site will be fenced and the site cleared very early in the project schedule, therefore it is unlikely that there will be animals in the immediate area. In addition, an explosion associated with blasting is likely to be located below ground surface, away from the receiving environment.
An explosion on the Bruce nuclear site may have an effect on people’s feelings of well- being and sense of safety and security. However, an explosion associated with the DGR project would be limited to the DGR project site, and will not result in the release of radioactivity. Therefore, an explosion would not likely result in measurable change in people’s feelings.
Therefore, no adverse effects on the environment are likely as a result of an explosion. Effects on workers are considered in Section 8.3.2.4.”
Other categories of malfunction and accident are similarly dealt with. This particular explanation raises more concerns than it addresses. What would happen to the workers, species or other biota if they were close to the explosion? Do explosions not often cause fire? Does explosion and fire in combination not cause significant degradation of the environment especially at industrial sites? Why do we expect that the explosion and resultant spread of debris and destruction would stay inside the fenced area? What if there were nuclear wastes caught in the explosion? Construction is a very dangerous and volatile activity: consider all the fires and explosions and mining accidents as a result of hitting gas that have occurred in our history. If the explosion would not likely be noticed by the public because it would sound like all the other construction blasting, should we not be very concerned about the noise generated by the construction blasting for 35 years? Will we just get used to it?
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) 4.5 A Science that explains the past, but does not predict the future: Concerns about Geology and Safety
The rock formation in this region is argillaceous limestone.5 An article in the International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences (July, 2009), presents problems with the mechanical strengths of argillaceous limestone when exposed to chemical weathering through excavation, creating landslides and sinkholes. According to C. Rhodes, P.Eng, PhD. (in discussion about the requirements for a HLRW DGR) “the nuclear waste storage facility should be in crack-free igneous (crystalline) rock. When damp and in the presence of carbon dioxide, igneous rock (CaSiO3) at normal temperatures decays to sedimentary rock (CaCO3 + SiO2) in about 100,000 years according to the weathering equation: CaSiO3 + CO2 + H2O = CaCO3 + SiO2 + H2O. However, in the presence of similar amounts of water and carbon dioxide, sedimentary rock fails in less than 1,000 years according to the equation: CaCO3 + H2O + CO2 = Ca(HCO3)2 because Ca(HCO3)2 is water-soluble. The only place where man-made sedimentary rock structures have lasted over 5,000 years is in North Africa where the climate is very dry. There is nowhere in Canada where we can reasonably forecast such dryness.”6
Other concerns cited by many but best summarized by Rhodes include the potential for flooding of the DGR and crushing of materials, with potential contamination of the water table, the level of which is also unpredictable. A major oversight in the DGR plan is the effect of high hydrostatic pressure at the depth (500m below grade) required for the DGR. Flooding under these conditions is likely in a man-made pit in the absence of continuous mechanical pumping. The requirement for pumping introduces yet another vulnerability given the long-term scope of storage.
There is serious concern expressed in the scientific literature about the effects of acidic corrosion caused by sulfuric compounds dissolved in ground water over a period of at least 100,000 years.7 To summarize, we have not seen a convincing strategy, let alone evidence, that radioactive nuclear waste can be safely isolated from ground water “into eternity.”
Dr. Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and now chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has eloquently expressed the scientific and technical concerns of many geologists: “…in the 1970s, geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Energy Research and Development Administration questioned the ability of models to predict the performance of geologic repositories. Since then, geologists have continued to warn about the limitations of using models to make geologic predictions (Hodges, 1992; Kornichow and Bredehoeft, 1992; Oreskes et al, 1994; Ewing 1999; Oreskes and Belitz 2001; Bredehoeft 2003), largely because they understood geology to be a science that explains the past but does not predict the future. More important, based on their experience and theories that guide their work, geologists know that geologic systems are thermodynamically open systems where all the features, events, and processes are neither knowable nor predictable”8
OPG does not acknowledge in its public-information material the prevailing geologists’
13 view that their science is not predictive and that no model can predict what will occur over thousands of years. Despite this we are led to believe that the DGR site will be reliably, geologically stable for 1,000,000 years. According to C. Rhodes, P. Eng., PH.D., “based on very recent history most of southern Ontario is relatively geologically stable. However, in the longer term this assumption is likely faulty, as is demonstrated by the existence of the 100 metre-high Niagara Escarpment, which is only 12,000 years old.”9
4.6 About $1-Billion
The OPG has not demonstrated prudent use of funds, reasonable financial projections, or projections of cash flow for the more than 400-year period that the DGR will be in operation, plus its’ ultimate ‘monitoring’ phases. At a minimum, a breakdown of the projected construction and long-term operating costs of the contemplated nuclear-waste storage facility should be included in the Plan.10 However, arriving at a number given the inconsistencies in the EIS material and design data would be a challenge.
For example, EIS charts of projected operation of the DGR show shut down of the Bruce facility at 2024 and 2037 (Bruce A and B) after which there would be a 40-year decommissioning phase. However, if Bruce B is refurbished, it could be in operation to 2050, with a decommissioning phase to 2090. And, Table 10.4-1 indicates in item 31 that the decommissioning waste from all OPG-owned-or-operated facilities will start arriving at the DGR (at the earliest) in 2050. This process, including monitoring after capping, will take us well into the 22nd century, with 300 years of monitoring after that (EIS: 1.2.4 Project Schedule).
There are three lines in the EIS Summary regarding cost.
“1.2.5 Project Cost: The construction cost of the DGR is currently estimated to be about $1-billion. An existing segregated fund established by the OPG (Decommissioning Fund), which has been accumulating funds as part of electricity rates, will be used to pay the cost of the DGR project.”
There is no indication of what this ‘billion’ is ascribed to, what the hard or soft costs are that are included. Later in 4.7.2, there are six more lines relating to cost, the $1,000,000,000.00 is defined as capital cost for site preparation and construction: 20% labour, 10% equipment, 70% other. What are the estimated pre-construction costs? What are the operational and maintenance costs? What if the construction is more than the five to seven years? What if the size of the facility is doubled as described by Table 10 4-1 to account for the entire province’s decommissioning needs? Does that double the cost? At first glance this construction cost seems low, compared with other infrastructure costs that are being incurred by the province, including highways, subways, light-rail transit, the price of individual hospitals and stand-alone cultural facilities. But there is no data to grasp at, at all.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) There is also no calculation of what the cost of site selection has been, and that is a ‘known.’
Alternative plans with costs should also be listed in order to assess cost-benefit options, because one of the mitigative procedures to lessen costs that cannot be managed is to change direction and chose another more environmentally and economically acceptable option.
Rest assured, if the $1-billion is what is allocated for construction and site preparation, we are likely way over budget for the upcoming construction season.
Will there be no reconciling of numbers and determination of how costs will be met before approval? If not all environmental effects have been identified, will they not merit assessment if there is an associated cost? Will protective measures be cut if the estimate is exceeded in design or construction, or later in monitoring and operation? There is a definitive relationship between cost and risk that should have been described here.
The municipal councillors keep saying that this is a win-win situation because of the $35-million hosting agreement. Some have been to Europe and back a number of times on OPG’s ticket. Our former Mayor Mark Kraemer’s ‘trip to Spain’ made headlines worthy of inclusion in the EIS Appendices. Have our leaders and the OPG not realized that it is the rate-payers and utility users now and in the future who will bear the cost of frivolous adventures, hand-outs and poorly conceived DGR plans? Should this not be part of the question posed to the provincial public as a whole?
4.7 Residual and Adverse Effects of the DGR (EIS: Table 10.3-1)
There are nine assessed categories of residual and adverse effect: Hydrology and Surface Water Quality; Terrestrial Environment; Aquatic Environment; Air Quality; Noise Levels; Socio-Economic Environment; Human Health; Aboriginal Interests; Radiation and Radioactivity. Each one of these categories is cited as causing a negative and potentially long-lasting or permanent effect on the valued ecosystem components (VEC). The effect of construction on water quality, water systems and flow, water level, air quality, noise levels, health, the enjoyment of use of personal property and traditional and sacred grounds due to changed visual setting and noise, plus radiological emissions are all noted.
There is no mention of potential permanent effect on the Great Lakes system or on Lake Huron itself. There is no mention of industrial accidents caused during mining operations or the socio-economic and residual effect of being in a region that has a rock waste pile 1,000 cubic metres (could be 2,000) between Highway 21 and Lake Huron. There is passing mention of highway accidents and increased traffic on our roads as a result of the transport of the decommissioning waste of the entire province to this DGR site, up to
15 and after 2050. How many trucks a day will that be? What kind of a world will that be for us?
Bear in mind, the construction period that has been assessed is six years (the OPG public-information sheets say 5), not 35 or more years; there has been no attribution of negative effect as a result of accident or malfunction that may occur; there is no quantification of cumulative affect in this table, nor accounting for lasting effects to species or environment over time; or effects of a catastrophic fire, explosion, spill or seepage of radioactive material into the ground, ground water, the lake or the air.
Accidents happen. Residents of Saugeen Shores will remember the clean-up required for the stretch of water between the Bruce Power Nuclear installation, Port Elgin Harbour, Chantry Island Lighthouse and Southampton beaches after April 15, 2005. (Appendix: Questions and Answers, Unit 6 Transformer Fire and Insulating Oil Spill, Bruce Power). The clean-up went on from April 15 to June 10 with boats to troll for the spill, and gravel dumps to absorb the material. The leaked material was eventually judged to be harmless. The fire was started by a lightning strike, as we recall. Regular spring weather, but eight years ago (note, EIS: ES. 9 Climate Change indicates that future environment affected by climate change will not influence the DGR). We are not sure if there was a newsletter. If there was, we didn’t get it.
4.8 What Beneficial Effects? (EIS: Table 10.3.2)3
There are five categories of benefit analyzed by the EIS and summarized in Table 10.3.2. They are Population and Demographics; Other Human Assets; Employment; Business Activity; Municipal, Finance and Administration; and, Other Financial Assets.
The summary statement below the table is this: Although a number of beneficial effects were identified for the DGR Project, these effects were assessed in the Socio-Economic TSD to be of a low magnitude and are not expected to contribute to cumulative effects. The beneficial effects are not considered further in the assessment of cumulative effects.
This is an incredible revelation: Despite all the adverse effects listed during construction and potentially during implementation, decommissioning and monitoring, despite all the claims about benefit to the municipality and the region, despite the promise of jobs, that amounts to an average of 142 jobs per the EIS, on average, per annum over the operational life of the facility, the Cumulative Socio-Economic Effects are so minor, as to not be worthy of consideration in the Report.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) 5.0 A FLAWED PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
5.1 Ethical Questions
Since the early 1990s, it has been increasingly recognized that the Canadian public expects an ethical and social context for discussion and planning of radioactive nuclear waste disposal as well as the limited discussion of the technical choices surrounding its disposal.
The requirements of ethical examination are documented, for example, in the Report of a Workshop, Moral and Ethical Issues Related to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Concept (AECL, TR-549; COG-91-140) held in March 1991;11 as well as in in Senator Lois Wilson’s book, Nuclear Waste: Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas (2000) in which she refers to her experience with the Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel (known as the Seaborn Panel) from 1989-1998. The Seaborn Panel’s recommendations included development of an ethical and social assessment framework, “a comprehensive public participation plan”, and an “Aboriginal participation process”.12
In an opinion written for the NWMO, “The Ethics of High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal in Canada.” (2003), bioethicist and environmental scientist Peter Timmerman stated “we are a long way from having an acceptable social and ethical framework within which to discuss high- level nuclear fuel waste management.”
Timmerman says, “we have not yet developed a mechanism whereby both representative and participatory structures can be used in issues like high level nuclear fuel waste management (HLNFWM). Jurisdictions all over the world have been groping towards such mechanisms, including environmental assessments, commissions, fact- finding groups, and so on. It is likely that - as in this case - an appropriate mechanism will need to be evolved over time. At its heart will be some need to create, maintain, and foster trust.”13
Based on our own experience and the records supplied in the Appendices to the EIS, it is clear that the ‘trust’ of a community, region, nation and international interest in preservation of human and environmental issues has been set aside entirely; the process has been resoundingly flawed and conclusions drawn from consultation data are incorrect.
5.2 Conflicts of Interest
There are numerous examples of conflict of interest, actual and perceived, evident in a reading of the EIS Report and its Appendices; further research, including recent Freedom of Information Requests conducted by the Bluewater Coalition makes even
17 more vivid the conflict issues that have occurred during the 2002 to 2010 period.
5.3 One Community Choosing for All
Is it ethical to permit one small community to host a DGR in pursuit of its economic self- interest if the project will have serious effects on a much larger population? Should Kincardine’s offer/decision to host a DGR ignore the health and environmental interests of its neighbours in Bruce County, in Canada and the United States and do so without their consent? There is a fundamental ethical conflict presented by the polling of a small sample of people: the autonomous rights of the local community are potentially in conflict with distributive justice due to the much larger populations of North America.
The safety and efficacy of a DGR must be established beyond all reasonable doubt (which it has not, and cannot be due to indeterminate factors) to even remotely justify one community’s interest over regional, national and international interests.
5.4 Accepting Hosting Agreement Payouts: Infinite Obligation
The $35-million hosting-agreement payouts14 have clearly been established to create a sense of obligation on the part of the Town of Kincardine and the surrounding municipalities so that they will continuously support the OPG plan for the DGR at the WWMF. Not only would a reversal of opinion by the Town of Kincardine cause loss of future revenue and shame for that community, the adjacent municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Brockton, Huron-Kinloss and Arran-Elderslie have agreed to similar terms of payment and potential cancellation of payment through agreements made by the municipal councils. The Town of Saugeen Shores has entered into an agreement to receive $8.25-million for a show of continuous support.
Many believe the communities have entered into a Faustian bargain.
Review of the letters to the editor in in the EIS Media Appendices document relay concern from the public that is not reflected in the EIS report in any detail. The words “hush money”, “blood money” and ‘bribe’ are used by some to describe public distrust of the process of accepting money in lieu of safety from risk. For example, “the blood money for the nuclear waste facility is a lot, but is only a drop in the bucket, should something go awry. Celebrate the beauty, ambiance and blessings this town has and remember there is no going back once the damage is done.”15
An article by John Spears in the Toronto Star 2005-01-03, further expresses the skepticism of some of the community: “Critics say offers of jobs and cash amount to bribes to accept an underground radioactive waste site. Public opinion firm hired to poll every Kincardine adult on the question next month.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Kincardine Mayor Glenn Sutton says his community wants to be part of a responsible solution for the permanent storage of low and intermediate-level nuclear waste. That is why he is supporting plans by Ontario Power Generation to stash waste hundreds of metres underground at the Bruce nuclear site north of Kincardine. But others in the community say that supporting the dump – and taking multi-million-dollar payments from OPG - means risking citizens' safety in return for cash. ‘Is it ethical to accept this facility on the basis of how much money we can get for it?’ local opponent Sam Heisz demanded in a recent brief presented to town council. He believes the answer is, ‘No.’ Asked whether he is advising citizens to take money in return for risk, Sutton replies firmly: ‘No. Definitely not. I want to make it crystal clear that safety is No. 1. Safety is first. Any financial considerations are secondary, even tertiary.’ Early in the new year, a poll will be conducted to gauge the mood in the community on the shore of Lake Huron. A public opinion firm has been hired to try to reach every resident 18 and over to ask whether they favour the waste site, which will cost $800 million to $1 billion. The poll, to be conducted over 10 days next month, will now include all Kincardine adults after people complained about a plan to survey only heads of households. However, critics say the survey is being conducted at a time when the views of seasonal residents will be missed. Complicating the technical issues of whether the waste site is desirable is the issue of compensation for the local communities. OPG is offering to pay a total of $35.7 million over 30 years to Kincardine and four surrounding municipalities: Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kinloss, Arran-Elderslie and Brockton. Kincardine is to receive the biggest share: $22.1 million. OPG, backed by town officials, says the payments are standard-nuclear or not.”16
(It should be noted that in fact there was only a one-opinion-per-household poll, and no referendum as discussed.
5.5 Employment and long-term benefits offered by the Nuclear Power Industry to Individuals and Municipalities
What would the incentive be for an OPG employee to express scepticism about a DGR as a suitable form of facility in comparison to other means of disposal, or speak out against siting the DGR in a location where OPG prefers?
What incentive would there be for a municipality to refuse to enter into an agreement of future cash payouts and favours when all the other neighbouring municipalities had gone on-board? What shame and retribution would there be for an individual or municipality to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the Hosting Agreement terms?
5.6 The Fox Guarding the Hen House
Another example of a conflict of interest in this process is of the “fox guarding the hen house” variety. Can the waste producer always be relied on to act in the community’s best interests? The waste producer’s wants to find a place to put the waste as cheaply and conveniently as possible; otherwise, it can no longer produce waste. What
19 assurances does the community have that the waste producer is acting in the community’s best interest when there is no “arm’s length” oversight mechanism? They could have had a peer review of the independent assessment study and the poll results. They chose not to. They pretended that the Kincardine poll was the Town’s poll, but they paid for it. In a recent New York Times article, “Flow of Tainted Water Is Latest Crisis at Japan Nuclear Plant”, Martin Fackler states, “the story of how the Fukushima plant ended up swamped with water, critics say, is a cautionary tale about the continued dangers of leaving decisions about nuclear safety to industry insiders.”17 OPG is an industry insider.
6.0 MISREPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION
6.1 What’s in a Name?
The serial name changes for the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) are a fitting introduction to a series of questionable representations and less-than-candid disclosures by OPG. The name for the nuclear waste management facility has become progressively more innocuous sounding over the years as the likelihood of public scrutiny has increased. The original “Radioactive Waste Operations Site” was renamed “Bruce Waste Management Facility” and then changed to the “Western Waste Management Facility”.18 What happened to the word, “radioactive”?
In fact, OPG and NWMO have even changed the nomenclature for radioactive waste used by the Canadian Standards Association and the CNSC to seem less threatening by eliminating the word, “radioactive,” in most of their public descriptions, as well as using the abbreviations, LLW and ILW, instead of the LLRW and ILRW that are listed on the CNSC website.
6.2 How is Radioactive Waste Classified?19
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA)—in collaboration with industry, government and CNSC—has developed a standard that recognizes four main classes of radioactive waste: Low-level radioactive waste Intermediate-level radioactive waste High-level radioactive waste Uranium mine and mill waste
The same pattern of avoiding nuclear or radioactive terminology was seen in the telephone poll of Kincardine residents assessing support for siting the DGR in their community. The survey question itself omitted any use of the words, “nuclear” or “radioactive.” The question made the issue sound like a change in management style for a landfill site:
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) “Do you support the establishment of a facility for the long-term management of low and intermediate level waste at the Western Waste Management Facility?” - Yes - No - Neutral 20
6.3 Less Than Candid Disclosure in Educational Materials
Another example of less than candid disclosure occurs in the “Keeping You Informed Booklets” published by the OPG and NWMO. The following question is asked: “What is intermediate level radioactive waste?” The answer listed is: “Intermediate level wastes require shielding to protect workers during handling;” “Intermediate level wastes typically include ion exchange resins, filters and irradiated core components; “Approximately 300 m3 of intermediate level waste is received at the WWMF each yr.;” and “Approximately five % of all waste (excluding used fuel) received at the WWMF is intermediate level waste.”21
Omitted entirely are the names of the isotopes and the half-lives of the isotopes, not to mention the potential radioactive toxicity of the nuclear waste, which is listed as only “waste” in the answer statements. One has to dig about 680 metres deep into OPG and NWMO documents to find anything of substance about these topics.
Further review of the Keeping You Informed Booklets fails to reveal any chapters specifically addressing “risks”, “uncertainties”, or “concerns”. Only chapters titled, “Safety Assessment Results”, “Preliminary Safety Assessment”, “Radiation Safety Background”, “Other Community Benefits”, and “Reasons Why Estimated Public Doses [of what?] from Deep Geologic Repository Are so Small” appear.22 Although we do recognize the use of the words, “radioactive waste”, in the chapter titles, the repetitive use of the word, “safety”, suggests that there are no concerns with the proposal. The chapter titled, “Other Community Benefits” gives the impression that there are only advantages to the project.
6.4 Use of On-Side ‘Experts’
Further OPG and NWMO’s understatement of the risks is evident in the involvement of an Ontario Public Health Officer to vouch for the safety of the project in an ad for the proposed Kincardine DGR sponsored by OPG and the Municipality of Kincardine. Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Medical Officer of Health for Grey-Bruce, appeared in the ad, “A Public Health Official’s Perspective on the Proposed Deep Geologic Repository”.23 Dr. Lynn states she is a “specialist in radiological health.” In fact, her credentials are limited to certification in Family Practice.24 She also holds a MHSc. in Community Health and Epidemiology.25
21 Dr. Hazell Lynn, the Grey Bruce Medical Officer of Health appeared in this ad in local papers in 2005 before the polling of Kincardine residents on the DGR took place.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) There is a shocking conflict of interest, and oversimplification of the qualifications necessary to discuss issues of radiological risk demonstrated here. In her testimony at the Natural Resources Committee meeting of March 10, 2011 about the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s decision regarding the transport of decommissioned steam generators to Sweden, Dr. Lynn states,
“I'm the medical officer of health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit. I'm a fellow in The College of Family Physicians of Canada and licensed to practice in Ontario. I also have a master's degree in epidemiology and community health from the University of Toronto in 2003. As part of the course work for the master's, I completed a graduate-level course on radiological health offered at the school of industrial hygiene at U of T. This course covered both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Although I'm not an expert in this field, I certainly do understand units of measurement, measurement techniques, and relative exposure risks, and I have participated in various educational opportunities in this field to keep track of the new research and technology.” 26
Specialized training in the context of this ad suggests to the general public that someone has had extensive training in radiation safety and health, as you would expect of “a specialist.” In our opinion, Dr. Lynn’s qualifications do not meet the public expectation that would be necessary to endorse the safety of the DGR project. Furthermore, the potential conflict of interest of a Public Health Officer appearing in a paid ad for a municipality and the proponent is also of concern.
7.0 COMMUNITY INPUT
7.1 EIS Requirements and OPG Requirements
OPG placed requirements on the Town of Kincardine to gain community support for the DGR project prior to the signing of the Hosting Agreement in Kincardine. For the support, the town and the four adjacent municipalities would share over $35-million over time, as long as all continued to demonstrate community support.
The EIS Guidelines describe factors that must be considered in the assessment of potential adverse effects of the project, including comments that must be made in favour of the project, or against the project, during the EA process.
These requirements are related.
23 7.2 The Timeline
For the IAS 2003: ‘Communications Activities’ (the term used by the EIS Summary page 7) – 2003 public attitude testing telephone survey – 2003 tourism testing – 2003 Stakeholder briefings (councils, First Nations, Ministries, other stakeholders) – 2003 Newsletter (households in Kincardine and neighbouring municipalities and all cottages as well as businesses and residences) – website – 2003 Open Houses (5 in June 2003 including Port Elgin Legion Hall) total 77 people in all with 37 cards or comment sheets filled out – 2003 no report on First Nations Consultation
For the Hosting Agreement: – Jan 6 and 25 2005 – Gregg Kelly, Sullivan and Woolstencroft: the Strategic Council, Ottawa – Telephone poll to households, with follow up mailing to seasonal residents
2007-2010 Open Houses
EIS Public Attitude Surveys (2009)
7.3 Public Attitude Analysis 2003, Intelliplus Ltd.
The IAS Report of February, 2004 documents public attitude and tourism research, and is described as a broad consultation with stakeholders and members of the public on possible options and the proposal to locate at the WWMF. The research was used to prepare their section 6.0 Social Assessment.
In June, 2003, Intelliplus undertook a telephone survey of 751 residents, 400 in Kincardine and 351 in neighbouring communities. The research was to garner information on public attitudes toward a future DGR and the potential effect on their lives.
Tourism research amounted to a summer, 2003, questioning of 32 business participants and 54 randomly selected tourists at provincial parks.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) A tourism roundtable was conducted of business people to discuss potential influence on the tourist trade.
The conclusions made by the Social Assessment, and widely reported in later documents as a demonstration of support for the DGR as the preferred facility form indicated:
“nuclear power and radioactive waste are not major issues of concern in Kincardine and the neighbouring municipalities….it (the WWMF) has little to no negative effect on community attitudes, attractiveness …”
There is a follow-up indicating that the results of the polling in neighbouring municipalities yielded the same results. The tourism polling indicated similar results, says the report.
The EIS Appendices contain the tabulated results of answers, and interesting commentary from the participants not reflected in the IAS Summary, nor later reported in the media, through OPG or through councils.
To get 751 interviews for public attitude sampling, Intelliplus had to make 8,565 random telephone calls therefore the sampling represents a mere 8.9% of those that they attempted to interview and contact. There were 2,837 people contacted who refused to respond to the interview, and 49 who would not complete the interview half way through. There were a total of 101 people interviewed from Saugeen Shores, out of a total population of approximately 11,000 summer and full-time residents. There were notes saying that of the respondents, 455 in Kincardine alone, or well over 50%, were employed by Bruce Power, OPG or AECL or had a family member who worked for those employers.
There was a note that ‘respondents who own a cottage and were interviewed at that residence are part of the sample. Perhaps as a result of the late spring, too few cottagers may have been available for interviewing, and hence the sample size is too small to examine their responses on their own.” None of the answers given that was reflected negatively on the DGR plan were cited in the Report text, and there were many. Most respondents had not heard of the initiative, had not received any information that may have been forwarded to them, many were upset about it, one noted that there would be a referendum. There were an exceptional number of questions that resulted in a ‘have no opinion’ or ‘don’t know ‘answer that were not given value in the final summary of opinion.
This was the 2003 work that was cited as consequential to support of the DGR: The conclusion drawn was that there were no major issues of concern.
25 7.4 Open Houses, June, 2003
The IAS report indicates that there were five open houses in Kincardine and surrounding areas advertised through newspapers and through post cards distributed in Kincardine. Only 77 people attended one or more open houses out of the total county population, and only 37 filled out cards, expressing an opinion about the helpfulness of the ‘event’.
7.5 Open Houses, June, 2007-2010
Following the Open Houses of June 2003 and after the signing of the Hosting Agreement, additional Open Houses were held between 2007 and 2010.
Again, relevant to almost every documented effort to poll or interpret the results of attendance records at events meant to ‘educate’ the public ( not consult, but issue canned material that did not discuss risk) is the following quotation from the Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited (HSAL) Final Peer Review for the Municipality of Kincardine,(date):
“Conversion of small data sets into percentages and the consequent citation of the percentages in the text is always discouraged as it magnifies and imputes reliability to statistically insignificant data.”
HSAL wrote this note in response to the percentages listed in Table 5.9.3.-3 “Effects of the WWMF on People’s Daily Life,” which was based on a very small sample size.27
We have observed a consistent pattern of drawing favourable conclusions from statistically insignificant numbers throughout the submission papers. Worse, conclusions have been made from no data at all, as seen in some of the open house submission documents.
OPG L& ILW DGR OPEN HOUSES 28
Location 2007 Attendance Kincardine October 15 40 Ripley October 16 13 Walkerton October 17 16 Port Elgin October 18 32 Owen Sound October 23 42 Chesley October 24 26 Wiarton October 25 22
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Location 2008 Attendance Kincardine November 3 28 Ripley November 4 13 Walkerton November 5 12 Port Elgin November 6 17 Owen Sound November 10 31 Wiarton November 11 35 Chesley November 13 13
Location 2009 Attendance Kincardine November 2 18 Ripley November 3 5 Walkerton November 4 19 Port Elgin November 5 18 Chesley November 9 5 Owen sound November 10 22 Wiarton November 12 11
Location 2010 Attendance Southampton August 23 16 MacGregor Point Park August ? 11 Port Elgin September 27 13 Ripley September 28 2 Kincardine September 29 17 Walkerton September 30 6 Chesley October 3 3 Owen Sound October 5 15 Wiarton October 6 12
Small wonder that many seasonal residents didn’t know a thing about the DGR plan (and still may not) when one reviews these open house dates for the proposed DGR. Seasonal residents were essentially excluded in every year because of the timing of the open houses in the fall months. Seasonal residents also had severely limited options to attend, because they did not receive notice by mail to their permanent addresses. Also, because the open houses were held off-season, seasonal residents would not have seen newspaper or heard radio advertisements about them.
27 Seasonal residents represent 30% of the population of Saugeen Shores29 and approximately 20% of the Municipality of Kincardine. These ratepayers make up a significant portion of the population and have been repeatedly excluded from this process.
We find the open house data problematic, not only because of the exclusion of a significant portion of the population, and the small numbers (only 523 people attended the open house sessions over a four-year period – an average of 131 people per year), but also because of the OPG interpretation of the open house evaluation cards.
The evaluation cards were not ballots for support or opposition to the DGR. The cards were meant to evaluate the event, not the attendee’s opinion about the DGR proposal itself. The OPG presentations not surprisingly featured free lunches or snacks, glossy printed handouts and panel boards described by the industry representatives. No alternative views were presented or encouraged.
Questions on the Evaluation Card 1.) The open house panel helped me to understand the deep geological repository (DGR) proposal. 2.) The open house location and hours were convenient for me. 3.) The open house staff were helpful. 4.) Overall, the open house helped me to satisfy the information needs I had. 5.) I will recommend to my friends and family members that they should come to a future DGR open house.
In the DGR submission documents, the responses to the above questions are tabulated through graphs. However, as can be seen by these questions, the responses should only be used to rate the event – they should not have ever been extrapolated to indicate expressions of support for the DGR project, but were.
A telling example of OPG having distorted facts to misrepresent approval of their proposal can be found in the article, “People knowledgeable about DGR, says official” published in the Kincardine Independent (Wednesday November 11, 2009, page 13):
“The low turnout at open houses in Kincardine and Ripley last weeks was a positive sign, says Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) official. Spokesperson, Marie Wilson, said Wednesday that 17 people turned out at the deep geological repository (DGR) open house in Kincardine Monday and five at the one in Ripley Tuesday. The low turnout is a sign that most people are knowledgeable and comfortable with the project, said Wilson.”
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Low turn-out or apathy is often interpreted by the presentation of information in the EIS as acceptance by the public of the DGR, rather than pointing to inadequate advertising of events, or inadequate presentation of risks or alternatives to the stated proposal. Also systematically underemphasized is the number of respondent comments through poll or written comment where respondents had a negative impression of the DGR proposal, or did not understand or relate to the data presented.
Our review of the open house data concluded that they were attended by a non- representative, statistically insignificant number of people whose evaluations were inappropriately interpreted as support for the DGR.
The EIS submission documents relating to stakeholder presentations suggest that all local stakeholders, as well as those in the adjacent communities, received presentations about the project. Two major citizens’ groups, The Southampton Residents’ Association and the Port Elgin and Saugeen Township Beachers’ Association appear to have been excluded, as documented by the OPG and NWMO list below:
“2.5.1 Briefings with Property Owner’s and Ratepayers’ Associations
Five local ratepayers’ and property owners’ associations were provided with presentations and opportunities for questions and feedback over the course of the DGR Project.
These groups included: Inverhuron District Ratepayers’ Association; Bruce Pines Association; Saugeen Shores Beach Association; Bruce Beach Association; and Point Clark Beach Association.
These associations represent seasonal and permanent property owners on or near the Lake Huron shoreline to the north and south of the Bruce nuclear site in Bruce County, within the EA focus area. Briefings were previously provided to these groups in 2003 to 2005.” 30
The Southampton Residents Association - formerly known as the Southampton Property Owners’ Association and earlier as the Southampton Beach Association - has been in existence since the 1930s, well before nuclear power came into the area, and has represented Southampton residents’ interests in Saugeen Shores.31 The Port Elgin and Saugeen Township Beachers' Organization was organized in the early 1900s. The Beachers' is the voice of its members in Saugeen Shores regarding environmental and
29 civic concerns.32 Both organizations represent significant numbers of stakeholders in Saugeen Shores.
We do not know of any organization by the name of the Saugeen Shores Beach Association, although this is possibly the organization currently known as the ‘Beachers’ in the former Port Elgin. There is no record of consultation with the Southampton Residents Association, or any such association in the former Town of Southampton. Either conclusion raises doubt about the accuracy of the rest of their data.
7.6 Public Attitude Research (PAR), 2009 and the Socio-economic TSD
A new and final round of public attitude testing is described in the AECOM Socio- economic TSD portion of the EIS. The studies include: stakeholder interviews in Kincardine, site neighbour survey, tourist /day user survey, and community leader survey. Questions were related to community well-being, perception of the Bruce Nuclear Site, and questions about the proposed DGR (effect on image of county; effect on your activities or plans; comments) . The results of the work were tabulated to create the TSD chapter in text and charts, along with the description of demographics, community and employment character, site character, etc. There is no information on how the sample set of people was chosen. The following is a record of the unbelievably low number of complete responses that were achieved to determine the community self- assessment and their opinion on the coming of the DGR.
Stakeholder Interviews: 77
Neighbours: 8
Tourists / Day Users: 121
Community Leaders: 23
It appears that those few responses were the base of all extrapolation of opinion in that chapter. The conclusion was that there would be little adverse effect on people’s feelings about their community if a DGR was built.
The chapter also posits many new aspects of critique that are analyzed through three screenings resulting in contradictions about considerable adverse effect. The new information that is presented here, then dropped, includes for example, the incoming population would not measurably increase in the area as a result of the DGR (in comparison to normal population increase) (Appendix viii); that tourism would likely decline; that the environment would likely be degraded; that there would be noise impacts and air quality impact due to significant particulate in the air at various stages of the project.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) On page 222: “Apart from the potential effects of dust, noise and traffic it was hypothesized that adverse effects on the use and enjoyment of the Provincial parks and the tourism industry in general within the Local and Regional Study Areas may occur, if the DGR Project results in an adverse effect on community character (i.e. a physical asset), particularly if a stigma is attributed to the Local Study Area and tourists take steps to avoid the area, and its tourism-related products and services. “
Then, “ As concluded in Section 8.3, the DGR Project is not likely to result in adverse effects on community character . Rather the DGR Project represents a strengthening of an existing presence at the Bruce nuclear site .
So long diversity of socio-economic factors and everything else!
After all this the final line, “ the DGR is not expected to result in any significant adverse effects on the socio-economic environment.” (Socio Economic Environment TSD, 2011. P.293)
8.0 A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT AND FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY
8.1 Telephone Poll to Test Willingness Left to Kincardine
The various preliminary tests of Kincardine’s public willingness, and the final telephone poll were timed to occur well before the current joint review panel.
It is of exceptional concern, from an ethical and technical standpoint, that the test of local community willingness, and then the requirement for consent from adjacent municipalities were conducted and implemented before the federal environmental assessment of potential success and risk had been concluded. What in fact was agreed to? There was no basis for consent to the DGR based on the data available at the time.
It appears that OPG, Kincardine council and industry insiders were concerned that, if the public of Kincardine and adjacent areas had an opportunity to assess the implications of the DGR based on fuller reporting and statements of alternative viewpoints, they might vote “no.”
Additionally, of course, the much larger regional/national/international populations were never allowed into the process to give informed consent.
8.2 The Telephone Poll of 2005: Not a Referendum or a Vote
31 The Kincardine community’s willingness to host DGR 1 was assessed by a mail survey carried out by consultants hired by the Municipality of Kincardine and paid for by OPG. The results of this survey have been repeatedly used as a measure of support for the DGR project. It is misleading that the telephone poll and mail survey have been represented as an actual vote. The respondents had no guarantee their opinion would be secret or that they would enjoy any of the other protections associated with a formal referendum vote. For a decision of this magnitude, an official vote or referendum should have occurred, and was originally promised.
Make no mistake, this was not a vote. And yet, in the EIS Summary, page 7, the text reads as follows: “A poll was conducted in early 2005 of all Kincardine permanent (by telephone) and seasonal (by mail) residents 18 years of age and older by an independent polling company working on behalf of the Municipality of Kincardine. With a 71% response rate, 60% of the Kincardine community voted (our italics), in favour of the DGR, 22% against, 13% neutral, and 5% don’t know/refused to answer. “
How did a poll become a ‘vote’? There is a big difference.
It is troubling as well, that on review of newspaper articles from that time, the majority of letters to the editor expressed dissatisfaction with the process that council selected and concur that a DGR is not suited to the use defined by the poll.33
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) 34
33 8.3 The Question that Was Asked
As mentioned above, the question posed to Kincardine citizens in the “poll” did not clearly state the issue, as there was no mention of “nuclear” or “radioactive” in the question. The question actually posed to the households read as follows:
"Do you support the establishment of a facility for the long-term management of low and intermediate level waste at the Western Waste Management Facility?"
The ambiguous question alone should invalidate the results; but if that is not enough, consider the following:
8.4 Poll Results
According to the official poll results: Of the 5,257 eligible households indicated in the 2001 Statistics Canada Census, 3,763 households participated in the poll, representing 6,778 individual votes or 72 per cent of eligible participants.
The results of the vote were: Yes 60% No 22% Neutral 13% Don’t Know/Refused 5%
The Kincardine Municipal Council accepted the poll results as an indication of sufficient support to move forward with the Hosting Agreement. 35
We question the validity of the numbers and their interpretation based on our review and this analysis:
According to the 2001 Statistics Canada Census, there were 8,319 eligible voters in Kincardine at the time of the poll. Exactly 3,763 households participated in the poll. The pollsters and the Municipality decided that this actually “represented” 6,778 individual votes. Does this mean that 6,778 people completed the survey individually? Or, did the pollsters base this on the number of eligible voters in the household, where one voter completed the telephone or mail survey, making the incredibly naive assumption that all voters in the household would vote the same way? Why was “the household” and not the eligible voter used as the unit of representation in the polling? Why would the pollsters and the Municipality leave any doubt about the “n” of the database?
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Because the reporting is unclear; we believe that only 3,763 eligible voters actually participated. If our presumption is true, it appears that the Municipality, OPG and NWMO may have misinterpreted the result to provide false support for the DGR when in reality only 2,258 YES votes were collected out of a possible 8,319 eligible voters over 18 years of age. Simple division reveals that would in fact only be 27% of eligible voters supported the DGR, as shown below: Results collected (n=3,763) Yes- 2,258 (60% of n) No – 827 (22% of n) Neutral – 489 (13% of n) Don’t know/Refused – 188 (5% of n) % of Eligible Voters (n= 8,319) Yes – 27% No – 10 % Neutral – 6% Don’t know/refused – 2%
In another breach of statistical methodology, the consultants (Strategic Counsel) chose to eliminate the "neutral" and "don't know/refused" percentages and reported an even higher 73% support than their own numbers revealed.36
Regardless of how the data is interpreted, it is obvious that the telephone poll and mail surveys did not capture a significant percentage of the population, year-round or seasonal, given the gravity of this decision.
8.4 Peer Review of Poll Results
To our surprise, the peer review group Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd. (HSAL) did not comment on how community support was assessed. More surprisingly, HSAL suggested the results of the “referendum” be attached to the DGR Hosting Agreement as evidence of the community’s support when clearly no referendum in the proper meaning of the term took place. 37
However it turns out that this wasn’t really an “arm’s length” peer review at all because the report was paid for by OPG, as documented in the article, “Peer Review Of Deep Geologic Repository Documents Complete,” by Barb McKay in the Kincardine Independent and posted 09/05/2012. “The firm was hired by the municipality earlier this year to conduct a peer review of the Socio-Economic Environmental Technical Support document, prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. and the DGE environmental assessment document, prepared by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which owns the project. The peer review cost roughly
35 $18,500, which was funded by OPG.”38
HSAL Report: see Item “Page 50, Section 5.3”
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) It appears that Kincardine Council, when it accepted the HSAL Final Peer Review report as written without question or correction, may have seized the opportunity provided by this error to perpetuate further the idea that a referendum had occurred and there was community support for the project. The Minutes of Council read as follows:
Resolution #11/07/2012-08 Moved by: Randy Roppel Seconded by: Jacqueline Faubert WHEREAS in April 2012 the Municipality of Kincardine engaged Hardy Stevenson and Associates to undertake a peer review of a Socio-Economic Environmental Technical Support Document and Follow-Up Monitoring Program submitted by Ontario Power Generation in support of the construction and operation of a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for low and intermediate level nuclear waste proposed to be constructed on lands within the Municipality of Kincardine; AND WHEREAS the peer review process initially identified a number of items and matters that warranted elaboration, refinement and expansion by the proponent, each of which has been subjected to close scrutiny; AND WHEREAS following a rigorous re-examination of the matters and items of interest pursuant to a full and complete response by the proponent, Hardy Stevenson and Associates and the Municipality of Kincardine are now satisfied with the Peer Review as amended and qualified; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Municipality of Kincardine hereby endorses and accepts the DGR Peer Review and the findings of Hardy Stevenson and Associates confirming that the proposed Deep Geological Repository project will not have significant adverse socio-economic effects in the Municipality of Kincardine.39
Then the EIS Summary says that the community ‘voted’ in favour of a DGR.
To summarize, the credibility of the community consultation process is in serious doubt. We believe that the assessment of Kincardine community support was flawed in its conception because of the conflict of interest on the part of OPG who paid for the polling. To compound the problem, OPG paid for the peer review that approved the process and perpetuated the illusion of support. OPG is an interested party that would benefit from a favorable community response. Additionally, the polling question was flawed, the methodology of polling was flawed, and the data analysis was flawed, and the poll was misrepresented more than one case as a referendum or vote. To engage the community in a decision of this magnitude, this process would appear frivolous at best and negligent at worst.
37 9.0 PURCHASE OF SUPPORT IN SAUGEEN SHORES AND ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES
9.1 Striking Deals
While the Community of Kincardine was deliberating about the L&ILW DGR, OPG approached the councils of adjacent municipalities requesting support for the project. The deals that were struck with the municipalities were individual and some were contested by the Councils as being ‘insufficient’ one to another. The amount to be received by Saugeen Shores in aggregate was $8.25-million (inflation-protected) from 2005-2034, $250,00 per year and two lump sum payments of $0.5-million in 2005 and 2013. The payments continue, as do the letters of support for the DGR 1 to the authorities, including the Joint Review Panel.
We uncovered the following council records from Saugeen Shores that demonstrate the blasé and unilateral approach councillors took to addressing this consequential issue. In addition, omissions of standard procedure and recording regarding the discussions that occurred around the Hosting Agreement and the DGR are astounding.
In Saugeen Shores, there was no official community consultation or vote on the issue of acceptance of the adjacent DGR.
There is no record in the Saugeen Shores Council minutes that the letter of support from the Town, a contractually binding agreement for adjacent hosting community payouts, was ever reviewed by legal counsel. Why should citizens be confident in the wisdom of this process when naivete such as this is evident?
The council minutes below illustrate the extent of Saugeen Shores Council’s discussions about this project in the time period before and immediately after the Hosting Agreement was signed. Note the dates of these meetings are also “off season” for seasonal residents.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
April 13, 2004 Saugeen Shores Committee of Whole Meeting40:
Glen Sutton, Mayor of Kincardine & Terry Squire, Director of Site & Programming present the Independent Assessment Study Report. Mayor Kraemer welcomed Glen Sutton, Mayor of the Municipality of Kincardine and Terry Squire, Director of Site and Programming, Ontario Power Generation to present the Overview of Independent Assessment Study Report for Long Term Management of Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste at The Western Waste Management Facility. Terry Squire gave a power point presentation for the centralization of management of low level waste (LLW) and intermediate level waste (ILW) from Bruce, Darlington, and Pickering at The Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF). Mr. Squire reported that in 2003 dry storage of used fuel from Bruce Power for both LLW and ILW began at the WWMF until such times as a permanent disposal solution is available. The WWMF currently receive three categories of LLW being compactable wastes, incinerable wastes and non- processible wastes. The ILW consists primarily of used nuclear reactor components and the resins and filters used to purify reactor water systems Mr. Squire explained that for the last 30 years the WWMF has been the only facility in Ontario which can safely manage LLW and ILW from the Province’s nuclear generating stations. The continued safe management of LLW and ILW is essential to the operation of the nuclear stations. The WWMF is designed for storage only and Ontario Power Generation’s planning assumes that a long term management solution will be available for LLW in 2015. Ontario Power Generation is committed to ensuring that a long term management solution is available when it is required. Mr. Squire explained that in 2002 the Municipality of Kincardine and Ontario Power Generation ( OPG) signed a memorandum of Understanding and are conducting a fact-based assessment of the possible long term management option at the LLW and the ILW at the WWMF. Three options were identified for consideration being enhanced processing and storage, surface concrete vaults and deep rock vaults. An independent assessment study was completed that develops information on the three options, provides the municipality and OPG with assessment of costs and benefits of long term waste management options.
The independent assessment study considered engineering feasibility, safety and licensing, environmental protection feasibility, economic analysis, social assessment and communication and public consultation Mr. Squire indicated that the enhanced processing and storage uses super compactors to process low level wastes in the United States and the United Kingdom. Surface concrete vaults have been in operation since 1992 and is Europe’s largest repository. These wastes are placed in concrete vaults under a movable shelter that protests the waste from the weather during transfer. Deep rock vaults have been used Sweden and was commissioned in 1988 wherein the vault is excavated in rock situated 1 kilometer offshore below the bottom of the Baltic Sea with access via a ramp from the surface. Mr. Squire reported that the safety and licensing was achievable related to the percentage of dose limits, time maximums and intrusion scenarios within the current regulatory limits. With respect to environmental protection there were no significant residual effects for surface and groundwater, land, air and noise, natural environment, resources, socio-economic, heritage and culture, aboriginal and radiation. Mr. Squire gave an overview of the economic assessment
39 broken down into direct employment, indirect employment, and induced employment for the current WWMF with annual expenditures of $21.2-million with 81 existing employees. If long-term management is considered there will be direct, indirect and induced employment increases, increased purchasing and increased municipal taxes along with income related spending in the communities. Two charts indicating employment associated for the three options and spending associated with the three options. Mr. Squire indicated that some public attitude research has been done by a survey of 800 people wherein it was asked “Does the WWMF have an effect on your daily life?” The survey indicated that 91% felt there was no effect with 9% indicating there was some effect. Out of the 9%, 5% thought there was a positive effect while 4% thought there was a negative effect. In the survey approximately 50% of those surveyed were confident with the existing technology. It was also asked “Would any of the long term management options have an effect on your satisfaction with your community?” It was reported that 75% said no, 9% were unsure and16% said yes. Of the 16% that said yes, 3% were unsure, 3% said enhanced processing and storage, 4% said surface concrete vaults and 6% said deep rock vaults would have an affect on their satisfaction with the community. Community consultation began in the spring of 2003 and involved stakeholder briefings, two newsletters, 5 open houses and information on the OPG Website. To date the extent of the consultation was centered in Kincardine, the 4 neighbouring municipalities and the First Nations. Based on feedback received from stakeholder briefings, open houses and business and farm and tourist operator interviews, the majority of the people are supportive of the Independent Assessment Study and appreciates the consultation efforts. The Independent Assessment Study concluded that three internationally proven options were examined with each of the options: - technically feasible and can be constructed and operated at the WWMF - capable of meeting stringent Canadian and international safety standards with a considerable margin - environmentally feasible and any adverse effects could be safely managed or mitigated.
In addition each of the options would provide: - significant economic benefits to Kincardine and the neighbouring municipalities - long term solution without any significant adverse effects on residents, businesses, agriculture or tourism.
In conclusion, Mr. Squire thanked Council for the opportunity to report on the Independent Assessment Study and that this Report is posted on the OPG website and available at municipal offices and local libraries.
Councillor McCallum noted that in the survey approximately 50% were aware of the WWMF and asked what process was being used to educate the public.
Mr. Squire indicated that the survey was only a part of the study and that there would be further consultation that would be required at the Federal level along with community
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) consultation and requirement to meet a number of conditions and that the process would be as transparent as possible.
Mayor Sutton of the Municipality of Kincardine reported that his Council will be considering a report at Committee dealing with the recommendation for deep rock vaults and an option for a referendum.
Councillor Freiburger asked if it was possible for the Town of Saugeen Shores to obtain intervener status for the project.
Mr. Squire reported that throughout the environmental assessment process there will be time for comments.
Deputy Mayor Smith asked about the time frame for decision on the matter.
Mr. Squire indicated that Kincardine may hold a referendum in November or December and possibly an agreement in June 2005 all of which is dependent on public input.
Mayor Kraemer asked how Saugeen Shores would be kept informed with Mr. Squire reporting that the Mayors and Deputy Mayors of Kincardine, Huron–Kinloss and Saugeen Shores can meet to keep everyone informed on the status of the process.
Mayor Kraemer thanked Mr. Squire and Mayor Sutton for their presentation with Saugeen Shores looking forward to future meetings.
Note that the information conveyed by Mr. Squire of OPG to the Council in the deputation, in relation to calculation of results of community willingness, exaggerated the findings of the Report, which had already been drastically exaggerated in favour of community willingness.
41 9.2 Was There An Official Agreement?
On Sept 9, 2004, OPG came to Saugeen Shores Council requesting support in written form for the DGR 1.
9/27/2004 Saugeen Shores Committee of Whole Meeting:41
4.7 COMMUNICATIONS/PETITIONS FOR COMMITTEE OF WHOLE ACTION (Appendix i)
Ontario Power Generation’s request support for long-term management of waste. The Committee received a letter from Terry Squire, Director of Public Relations for Ontario Power Generation, seeking support of the concept of a deep rock repository for the Bruce site for the storage of low and intermediate level waste. The Committee members discussed the concept at length and recommended that the Town of Saugeen Shores supports the Deep Rock Repository for low and intermediate level waste storage facility as proposed by Ontario Power Generation.
We were unable to find a record of vote to proceed on this matter.
As we were unable to find a copy of a signed letter of support in the DGR EIS submission documents we asked Saugeen Shores Council for a copy as proof that our town was involved in this financial deal without our knowledge. Council produced an unsigned letter by then Mayor Mark Kraemer (See letter below).
This letter is dated a day after the Council meeting – hardly enough time for the Town to have obtained a legal review and opinion of the hosting agreement documents which list the specific goals and objectives adjacent communities must meet in return for payment.
We ask that the Joint Review Panel request from OPG a copy of the letter signed by Mayor Kraemer so that it can be considered as evidence in your deliberations.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
43 9.3 The Offer
OPG made another deputation at the April 25, 2005 Saugeen Shores Committee of Whole Meeting:42, some seven months after the alleged letter of support was issued to the OPG by Mark Kraemer. (Appendix ii)
Deputation:
2. Terry Squire, Director of Public Affairs, Ontario Power Generation
Mayor Kraemer welcomed Terry Squire, Director of Public Affairs for Ontario Power Generation, to the meeting to update Council on the Deep Geologic Repository Proposal.
Mr. Squire reported that as part of the operation of and maintenance of the nuclear power plants, there is low and intermediate level waste such as clothing, tools, filters, etc. that need to be stored. For over the past 30 years Ontario Power Generation has managed this waste from Bruce Power, Darlington and the Pickering Nuclear Stations at the Western Waste Management Facility located on the Bruce Site.
The proposed concept at the Bruce Site is to house this waste some 660 meters under ground in the limestone layer which is covered by shale some 1. km from the shoreline.
The Deep Geologic Repository Concept: - will not be designed or licensed to store high level waste or used nuclear fuel, - will store the same type of low and intermediate waste that is in the interim facilities on site with increased margins of safety, - will permanently isolate the low and intermediate level waste stream for future generations to come, - provides excellent isolation of the waste from ground water sources, the environment, - will be rigorous environmental assessment and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulatory process that includes opportunities for public input before construction or operation is approved.
Mr. Squire reported that the geology for the Repository: - are mined caverns approximately 660 m or 2150 feet below ground in low permeable limestone further protected by 200 m or 650 feet of overlaying low permeable shale. - the rock formations are approximately 450 million years old and have endured major climate change including multiple glaciations,
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) - the location is seismically stable and comparable to the Canadian Shield, - at 660 m, the proposed repository would be at a depth that isolates the wastes from groundwater resources and is at least 400 m or 1300 feel below the bottom of Lake Huron, - at the 660 m level, water salinity is three times that of sea water, indicating that it has been isolated at that depth for approximately 1 million years and is not readily mixing with the freshwater above it, a clear indication that the wastes can be safely isolated for generations, - extensive understanding internationally of similar sedimentary rocks that helps the understanding of the site.
Mr. Squire reported that the public process is now under way and that: - OPG is committed to public transparency for the Repository proposal - discussions about the proposal has been ongoing for three years and have yet to reach the project stage, when traditionally, public information begins, - April 2005 updates to four surrounding municipalities - Conducting a series of Mini Storefront or Open Houses in each of the four surrounding municipalities th th Saugeen Shores April 28 – 30 Brockton May 5 – 8 Huron-Kinloss May 12 – 13 Arran-Elderslie May 26 – 28 - Additional advertising covering repository concept, geology, protection of groundwater sources -Distribution of proposed Repository information book to all households in the four surrounding municipalities - Speakers are attending various community groups.
Mr. Squire reported that the proposed schedule includes all site characterizations, safety assessments and environmental studies taking place between 2005 and 2010, preliminary design between 2008 and 2010 and possible construction by 2017.
In conclusion, Mr. Squire indicated that the Municipality of Kincardine conducted a poll wherein 60% of the residents indicated that they were support of Deep Rock Repository. th Saugeen Shores will receive $500,000 by June 30 2005 and the remaining $250,000 st by December 31 , 2005.
Mayor Kraemer thanked Mr. Squire for advising Council on the status of the Deep Rock Repository and the announcement of the public meetings in Saugeen Shores and confirmed with Mr. Squire that every household in Saugeen Shores would receive a letter and information about the environmental process.
45 Note that in the deputation, Mr. Squires indicated that an information book would be available to all households in the four surrounding municipalities, and Mayor Kraemer confirmed that every household in Saugeen Shores would receive a letter and information about the environmental process. That did not occur: There were not letters to seasonal residents, despite the fact that tax bills were regularly received by all at their address of choice that year. We do not know what the percentage of other residents in Saugeen Shores received the promised packages.
Mr. Squires again exaggerated the polling results on resident support of the DGR as 60%.
10. HOW WELL INFORMED WERE PEOPLE?
The municipalities have reported in recent letters to the JRP that the DGR 1 project is well received and supported by members of their communities. The various councils have also stated that there has been adequate information and opportunities for the public to learn about the L&ILW DGR project.
These assertions are in fact strangely contradicted by an exchange forwarded to us.
As late as December, 2011, then and current Saugeen Shores council member, Taun Frosst, seems not to have been aware of the $35- million dollar Hosting Agreement our community had engaged in with OPG over DGR 1. The following is an e-mail from Mr. Frosst forwarded to our organization.
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:07:46 -0500
Subject: Re: No Nuclear Waste in Saugeen Shores From: [email protected] To: Email address Private
Morning ( NAME WITHHELD FOR PRIVACY):
I have no idea of what you are talking about with the $35M. You can review the Towns budget at anytime and if you find a portion of this $35M, please point it out.
Council cannot make any decision with regard to approving any site. IT IS YOUR DECISION ONLY.
I would ask you to listen to information as it comes available and ask many questions.
Council keeps an open mind to all opportunities as they would arise and I ask you to do the same.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) Have a wonderful day and take comfort in the fact that you are the decision maker here and not me, or council.
Taun
11.0 CONTINUED SUPPORT BY THE MAYOR OF SAUGEEN SHORES IN 2012
11.1 Letter of Support
Just months later in 2012 Saugeen Shores Council sent a letter of support to the JRP regarding the L&ILW Project.
26 June 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3
Attention: Debra Myles, Panel Co-Manager
Dear Members of the Joint Review Panel,
Re: Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) – Kincardine Ontario
On behalf of the Council of the Town of Saugeen Shores I am pleased to provide this letter of support for Ontario Power Generation’s DGR project at the Bruce Power site in Kincardine, Ontario. Our Council is on record as supporting this project since inception. We are a beneficiary named as an‘adjacent municipality’ within a Hosting Agreement signed between the Town of Kincardine and OPG in October 2004. As a neighbouring community to the Bruce Power site we recognize a large component of our economic well-being is derived from our proximity and the benefits of housing a significant portion of the plant population. We are comfortable with all facets of nuclear energy including the need to effectively manage the waste materials generated. We are aware OPG has safely held low and intermediate level waste for over 40 years at the Bruce Power site. Transitioning the material to a safe underground Facility will be a better long term management plan.
The NWMO updated Council in March 2011 regarding the project and continue to provide newsletters on a regular basis. We note that there has been a strong NWMO presence at various venues in Saugeen Shores resulting in many opportunities for the public to find out about this project, ask questions and share their views and opinions.
47
On behalf of Saugeen Shores I wish to express our continued support for this important project and the many economic and other benefits it will provide as it moves towards fruition.
Yours truly,
Mike Smith, Mayor Town of Saugeen Shores
11.2 SOS Deputation to Council June 25, 2012 (Appendix v)
We asked why Mayor Smith issued this letter during 2012, a year of turmoil in Saugeen Shores because of, first, Council’s unilateral decision to enter the competition for the HLW DGR2 and, second, the recent discovery and concern by many citizens of the adjacent community Hosting Agreement for the L&ILW DGR.:43 :
“the explanation may lie in a report presented to Council by Larry Allison in the Committee of the Whole meeting of June 11, 2012 .44 This report recommended that Council submit a letter of support to the Joint Review Panel for the Low and Intermediate Level DGR in Kincardine. During the meeting, Mr. Allison read the report word for word into the record, that is, until he reached the last section of the report, “Financial Implications.” For that section, he read only the first word under that heading – “Nil". As in None. But that WASN’T the only thing under that heading in the report. In fact, there WERE financial implications. Big ones. Mr. Allison didn’t read the whole paragraph which outlined those financial implications. So let me read that for you now and you can follow along with it on the attached copy of the report ‘Nil – however the provisions of the Hosting Agreement indicate that Adjacent Municipalities are, as a condition of continued financial benefit, to make best efforts to assist in achieving key approval milestones in the delivery of the project.’
Why would Mr. Allison omit that paragraph? Why didn’t members of Council say - “Wait, Larry, you forgot part to read part of your report. ” Could it be that this paragraph refers to money the town of Saugeen Shores has been receiving from OPG (Ontario Power Generation) as a result of a hosting agreement signed in Oct. 2004 by the Municipality of Kincardine and OPG? Under this agreement, Saugeen Shores gets at least 6 million inflation-protected dollars from 2005 to 2034. And what does Saugeen Shores have to do to continue getting the money? It must “exercise its best efforts, as perceived by OPG”, to support the Kincardine DGR project .45 If Town Council doesn’t provide a support letter at this point, can it be determined by OPG that reasonable efforts have not been made to support DGR 1 and stop the payments? How can this be “Nil” financial implications? Would Council’s rejection of the high-level DGR project
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) be perceived by OPG as less than “best efforts” and therefore mean an end to the money from the Kincardine hosting agreement? It also bears reminding that the NWMO is totally funded by the nuclear industry with over 90% coming from OPG. 46
We have reviewed all of the published Saugeen Shores Council minutes since 2003 and have not found any documents or resolutions which show our Council voting to approve our town being a party to the 2004 hosting agreement. We were interested to see a resolution from the town of Brockton approving its participation in the 2004 Hosting Agreement. (see attached) An OPG document from 2006 states that there was a letter of support from all the adjacent municipalities.47 However, an October 2006 report from OPG discussing adjacent municipalities’ Council support for the project only lists Arran-Elderslie, South Bruce, Brockton, and Huron Kinloss, but not Saugeen Shores. Then, in October 2006, Saugeen Shores Mayor, Mark Kraemer made an oral presentation at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Public Hearings on behalf of Saugeen Shores and adjacent municipalities to the proposed Kincardine DGR. In that statement, Mr. Kraemer claimed that the majority of residents in Saugeen Shores supported the project, but mentioned only OPG’s publicity events as a means of gauging public support. When pressed by Dr. Christopher Barnes, Commission member, about process, Mr. Kraemer admitted that quarterly meetings between OPG and town officials were “generally done with the mayors, the CEOs and representatives of OPG” and he did not answer the Commission member’s direct question about minutes being available for Council or the public. 48 If there was a Saugeen Shores Council resolution to enter into the hosting agreement, why wouldn’t it have been presented at either of these official proceedings? So, despite evidence to the contrary, if there is any document showing that Saugeen Shores Council voted to enter into the 2004 Hosting Agreement you need to publish it now on the Town website.”
11.3 Other Letters of Support from Saugeen Shores: Unrepresentative
Another letter in support of the L&ILW DGR was sent on behalf of an organization whose general membership was not polled. On April 20, 2012, Joanne Robbins, General Manager of the Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce, wrote: “The Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce continues to support the DGR, especially since there is demonstrated local support and no evidence of any significant issues or opposition to the project.”
Members of this group have only approached SOS privately because of fear of reprisal if they spoke against either of the DGR hosting proposals. All expressed outrage about the stated position of the Chamber and the failure to consult adequately its membership.
49
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) CONCLUSION
The members of SOS thank the panel for your consideration of our submission.
We believe the OPG justification for siting a DGR for low and intermediate-level nuclear waste in Kincardine is deeply flawed because of:
Slip-shod interpretation of the projects risk, Over- simplification of risk, An unsubstantiated conclusion that indicates that there is ‘little to no effect’ due to the design, construction, operation, decommissioning and monitoring over a 400- year period, An underestimation of construction time, An underestimation of overall project cost, and no analysis of cost benefit, A failure to examine the plan both in relation to recent accidents (e.g. Fukushima), cutting-edge developments in the international nuclear industry or the effect of weather on malfunction and accident due to climate change, A complete failure to consider cumulative risks with relation to safety, human health, environmental impact and socioeconomic well-being of local communities, Lack of understanding of the role of tourism, and seasonal -resident contribution, and agriculture’s importance to the economy and the community, The lack acknowledgement of the stigma that this project will bring to this county and the locale (buried in the TDS but not recognized in any summaries), Statistically inadequate samplings of opinion requisitioned throughout the 2002 to 2010 period but especially by the 2009 PAR of 77 telephone interviews and 14 written respondents in total for all of Kincardine and its neighbourhood, The manipulation of polls, The misrepresentation of the poll of Kincardine residents in 2004 as a referendum or vote, The use of money to obligate five municipalities and a county in the plan to 2034, The disenfranchisement of whole segments of the population, Conflicts of interest, misrepresentation and non-disclosure in the educational and political process including secretive process and closed meetings, The pattern on the part of OPG/NWMO of buying compliance -- pumping money into the area through payments to the municipalities and other local organizations in order to achieve consen,t The lack of democratic due process in the DGR planning,
51 The lack of consideration of valid conflicting opinions in the professional scientific, spiritual, environmental, cultural and philosophic expertise of the county’s constituents.
SOS is citizens' group in a nuclear oasis.
We are volunteers, we have no government or industry funding. We have not hired scientists, or pollsters, or politicians. We have sponsored music events, educational seminars, Town Halls, information days and two highly successful walk-a-thons to show the Town that we are not insubstantial in number. The two walks of 2012 and 2013 had over three hundred people each: men, women, youth and children. That is more than OPG and Kincardine have been able to get at Open Houses and through polling despite their multi -million dollar budgets!
Despite the disparity between our resources and those of industry and governments, we have spent countless hours familiarizing ourselves with the scores of documents originating in Canada and abroad that raise serious concerns about DGRs as a solution for the safe containment of radioactive waste in any circumstances, let alone on the shore of a large body of fresh water.
We have watched the planning process that has occurred here carefully.
We are a growing voice of the people of this locale.
No matter how many OPG engineers stand confidently in these hearings to tell you this process will work, we remind the panel respectfully: first, that they serve their masters -- a governmental/nuclear industry alliance quite naturally most focused on one pre- conceived solution--and thus it is their job to look at this scenario in a severely limited way—‘how can we make it work?’ ‘What can we ignore to make it work?’
Second, we remind you that geology is not a predictive science and its models are particularly in danger of failure faced with the many thousands of years this waste material will be toxic.
Third, we remind you that expertise in this field is not well- developed. There are only a few operational DGRs in the world, and numerous problems with leakage have been reported. Given these two facts alone, even a child would conclude that placing a DGR next to a precious legacy -- the Great Lakes, the largest continuous body of fresh water in the world-- is MADNESS.
Given the flawed process and the existence of a significant body of scientific opinion questioning the long-term safety of DGRs, we believe the Joint Review Panel should reject the OPG EIS as inadequate .
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) The above ground cement-encased fuel bundles at Fukushima survived both the earthquake and the tsunami. Keeping L&ILRW securely above ground also has the benefit of ensuring that it holds the vigilant attention of both government and industry over the years and will attract the kind of research funding that may provide a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
In March, 2013, one unlucky rat almost devastated Japan when he bit into a high tension wire and effectively stopped the cooling process at Fukushima. In April, the rat’s cousins stopped the cooling process again. Nuclear power has mercilessly taught us to expect the unexpected. You, the members of the Joint Review Panel have the heavy responsibility of protecting the safety and welfare of countless individuals for eternity. We believe your decision to reject the present DGR proposal will be in the best interests of the public and future generations.
Yours sincerely,
Jill Taylor on behalf of,
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
53
End Notes
1 Ontario Power Generation. OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Waste. Environmental Impact Statement Summary. March 2011. Pg. 10-11.
2 Executive Summary, Written Submission Regarding the Environmental Assessment for OPG’s Deep Geological Repository for Low & Intermediate Level Waste).
3 Great Lakes Information Network website: http://www.great-lakes.net. Accessed 2013-04-22.
4 p.6, OPGs Deep Geological Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste, March, 2011 Environmental Impact Summary
5 International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, July 2009
6 C.Rhodes, P. Eng., PH.D. Nuclear Waste Management Response to NWMO Plan For Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste http://www.xylenepower.com/NWMO%20Response.htm. Accessed 2013-04-20.
7 C.Rhodes, P. Eng., PH.D. Nuclear Waste Management Response to NWMO Plan For Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste http://www.xylenepower.com/NWMO%20Response.htm. Accessed 2013-04-20.
8 Allison M. MacFarlane. “Decision Making in Siting a Nuclear Waste Repository,” Uncertainty Underground, ed. Allison M. Macfarlane and Rodney C. Ewing, 2006, Pg. 93.
9 C.Rhodes, P. Eng., PH.D. Nuclear Waste Management Response to NWMO Plan For Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste http://www.xylenepower.com/NWMO%20Response.htm. Accessed 2013-04-20.
10 C.Rhodes, P. Eng., PH.D. Nuclear Waste Management Response to NWMO Plan For Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste http://www.xylenepower.com/NWMO%20Response.htm. Accessed 2013-04-13.
11 Report of a Workshop, Moral and Ethical Issues Related to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Concept (AECL, TR-549; COG-91-140) , March 1991.
12 Senator Wilson L. Nuclear Waste: Exploring the Ethical Dilemmas (2000).
13 Timmerman P. The Ethics of High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal in Canada. NWMO background Papers. 2-1. 2003.
14 DGR Hosting Agreement Between Ontario Power Generation and Municipality of Kincardine. October 2004. Section 4 and Schedule “A”, Pg.23.
15 Susan Franks. Letters to the Editor. “Blood money” Kincardine Independent, 2004-12-08. EIS Vol. 2, Part 2 Appendix D, Pg. 156.
16 John Spears, Toronto Star 2005-01-03. EIS Vol, 2, Part 2 Appendix D. Pg. 157.
17 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/asia/radioactive-water-imperils-fukushima- plant.html?_r=0
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS)
18 http://www.friendsofbruce.ca/NEWChronology.html Accessed 2013-04-25.
19 http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/regulated/radioactivewaste/how.cfm. Accessed 2013-04- 25.
20 http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/553_DGRPollingResults.pdf. Accessed 2013-04-21.
21 EIS Volume 2, Part 2 Appendix D6, Keeping You Informed Booklets.
22 EIS Volume 2, Part 2 Appendix D6, Keeping You Informed Booklets.
23 EIS Volume 2, Appendices – Part 2, D5, 2005. Pg. 201.
24 http://www.cpso.on.ca/publicregister/details.aspx?view=1&id=%2056249. Accessed 2013-04- 20.
25http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5040941&Language=E&Mod e=2&Parl=40&Ses=3.Accessed 2013-04-21.
26http://www.dlsph.utoronto.ca/facultyprofile/hazelynnhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Pu blication.aspx?DocId=5040941&Language=E. Accessed 2013-04-21.
27http://www.kincardine.net/public_docs/documents/HSAL%20Peer%20review%20of%20Kincardi ne%20DGR%20October%2024%202012.pdf . Pg. 20. Accessed 2013-05-12.
28 http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads/DGR%20PDF/EIS/Environmental-Impact-Statement- %28Volume-2_1%29.pdf. Appendix D4 Open House Reports (Including Panels). Accessed 2013-04-22.
29 http://www.saugeenshores.ca/downloads/municipal/Background_Report-_Oct_6.pdf. Pg.20. Accessed 2013-05-12.
30 http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads/DGR%20PDF/Environmental-Impact-Statement-%28Volume- 1%29.pdf. Pages 134-140. Accessed 2013-04-22
31 http://southamptonontario.org/about-us/history-of-the-association/. Accessed 2013-04-21.
32 http://beachers.org. Accessed 2013-04-21.
33 EIS Volume 2, Part 2 appendices D5, Pg.152.
34 EIS Volume 2, Part 2 appendices D5, Pg. 177.
35http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/553_DGRPollingResults.pdf Accessed 2013-05-04.
36 http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/553_DGRPollingResults.pdf Accessed 2013-05-04.
37http://www.kincardine.net/public_docs/documents/HSAL%20Peer%20review%20of%20Kincardi ne%20DGR%20October%2024%202012.pdf. Pg. 18. Accessed 2013-05-12.
38 http://www.independent.on.ca/site/?q=node/2662
55
39 www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p17520/83719E.pdf Accessed 2013-05-04. Pg. 36.
40 https://saugeenshores.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=832. Accessed 2013- 04-22.
41 https://saugeenshores.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=45266. Accessed 2013-04-22.
42 https://saugeenshores.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=249. Accessed 2013- 04-22.
43 https://saugeenshores.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=45657, Accessed 2013-03-22.
44 https://saugeenshores.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=45352. Accessed 2013-04-22. 45 http://www.nwmo.ca/dgrhostingagreement. Accessed 2013-04-21.
46 http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/1910_learningmoretogether- annualreport2011.pdf. p. 63. Accessed 2013-04-13.
47 Oral Presentation Submission from Ontario Power Generation Inc. In the Matter of Ontario Power Generation Inc. - Scoping Document (Environmental Assessment Guidelines) regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s proposal to construct and operate a Deep Geological Repository within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario, August 2006. P10.
48 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Public Hearings, October 23, 2006, p. 167-176 Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision In the Matter of Applicant Ontario Power Generation Inc. Subject Environmental Assessment Track Report Regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.‘s Proposal to Construct and Operate a Deep Geologic Repository Within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario Hearing Date October 23, 2006, Pg. 13.
Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. (SOS) List of Appendix
Appendix i - Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday September 27th, 2004.
Appendix ii - Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday April 25th, 2005.
Appendix iii - Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday September 26th, 2005.
Appendix iv - Regular Council The Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday June 25th, 2012.
Appendix v - Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday June 25th, 2005.
Appendix vi - Unit 6 Transformer Fire and Insulating Oil Spill – Questions and Answers, Chronolgoy, Maps and Media Releases. No date listed.
Appendix vii - Public Attitude Research – Socio-economic Environment TSD. Protocol for Stakeholder Interviews. March 2011.
Appendix viii - Changes to Population and Demographics – Socio-economic Environment TSD. March 2011.
Appendix i
Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday September 27th, 2004.
Appendix ii
Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday April 25th, 2005.
Appendix iii
Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday September 26th, 2005.
Appendix iv
Regular Council The Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday June 25th, 2012.
Appendix v
Committee of Whole Meeting of the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Saugeen Shores. Minutes. Monday June 25th, 2005.
Appendix vi
Unit 6 Transformer Fire and Insulating Oil Spill – Questions and Answers, Chronolgoy, Maps and Media Releases. No date listed.
Appendix vii
Public Attitude Research – Socio-economic Environment TSD. Protocol for Stakeholder Interviews. March 2011.
Appendix viii
Changes to Population and Demographics – Socio-economic Environment TSD. March 2011.