SUBMISSIONS BY JOHN MANN TO THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA
JOINT REVIEW PANEL DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR LOW AND INTERMEDIATE LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROJECT
by
John Mann, Registered Participant Citizen of Saugeen Township and Port Elgin, Within the Municipality of Saugeen Shores, Bruce County, Ontario
Volume XXIX of XIII
John Mann Citizen, Registered Participant Saugeen Township and Port Elgin within the Municipality of Saugeen Shores Bruce County, Ontario
February 27, 2017 John Mann
Written Submissions DGR Record Table of Contents
Volume I of XIII: pages 1-212
Volume II of XIII: pages 213-426
Volume Ill of XIII: pages 427-644
Volume IV of XIII: pages 645-855
Volume V of XIII: pages 856-1,069
Volume VI of XIII: pages 1,070-1,173
Volume VII of XIII: pages 1,174-1,327
Volume VIII of XIII: pages 1,328-1,450
Volume IX of XIII: pages 1-145
Volume X of XIII: pages 146-308
Volume XI of XIII: pages 309-476
Volume XII of XIII: pages 477-603
Volume XIII of XIII: pages 604-668Q
Volume XIV of XIII: pages 669-716
Volume XV of XIII: pages 1-308
Volume XVI of XIII: pages 309-720 Volume XVII of XIII: pages 721-866
Volume XVIII of XIII: pages 867-984
Volume XIX of XIII: pages 985-1,080
Volume XX of XIII: pages 1,081-1,361
Volume XXI of XIII: pages 1,362-1,516
Volume XXII of XIII: pages 1,517-1,599
Volume XXIII of XIII: pages 1-211
Volume XXIV of XIII: pages 212-454
Volume XXV of XIII: tabs 1-7 [pages 1-56]
Volume XXVI of XIII: pages 57-248
Volume XXVII of XII: pages 249-437
Volume XXVIII of XII: pages 438-470
Volume XXIX of XII: pages 471-676 ~ ~ ~ ~~'
. ~r; ~~\~
i ~ f!l.l !'l: _f}_F_. f.. N(! fHlnrgJ}If1.(~f!!..1z1!![(J:.1_/)._J_~ 1 \ I I 5 STREET ADDRESS IADRESSE (N' ET RUE/ •Ii APT.. SUITE APP. BUREAU a Of COMPTI: DU Ot;STJNATAfRt: OUTIERS i r-1-1.4n!kc::~ Iii~ '-' ~~~ "' :~ L~-{2--!; _L.: _()_ L/.Y..-- -~T._ -~·-··... '!:I?:_~~ f}~c:~~--- :;z: CrTYI VILLE l'ftOv./SfATE/ AT POSTAl,' ZIP "fttHIRC'l PARTY Rll! lNG NAMF~ AflnR~~ /FAlTt/RAnrw A tt
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
Subject: Re: Delegations by John Mann to Saugeen Shores Council and to Bruce County Council, regarding Bruce County Municipalities seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR sites pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG.
June 9 at 9:30 is good. Thanks Bettyanne. I appreciate it.
Take care and have fun,
John Mann
From: Bettvanne Cobean Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:04 PM To: 'John Mann' ; Mayor Mike Smith ; Linda White ; Luke Charbonneau ; Cheryl Grace ; Dave Myette ; Don Matheson ; John Rich ; Mike Myatt ; Neil Menage ; Mayor Buckle ; Mayor Eadie ; Mayor Eagleson ; Mayor Inglis ; Mayor Jackson ; Mayor Mciver ; Mitch Twolan ( Warden ) Cc: Frances Learment; Amanda pfeffer; David Akin; Jim Lynch; Mike Strobel; MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Han. Catherine McKenna; Jeffrey Lyash; CEAA National Programs Div. conditions; Darlene Batte; Donna VanWyck; Kelley Coulter ; Prime Minister Trudeau ; Scott Berry ; Jerry Keto ; Jill Taylor ; Pat Gibbons ; Aimee Puthon ; Bettyanne Co bean Subject: RE: Delegations by John Mann to Saugeen Shores Council and to Bruce County Council, regarding Bruce County Municipalities seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR sites pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG.
Good Afternoon Mr. Mann
Bruce County Council is scheduled to meet on June gth. Your email requests a delegation to the June 2nd meeting which was previously rescheduled due to conflicting schedules. Please confirm that you are able to attend June gth at approximately 9:30am. Delegations are limited to 10 minutes and your email will serve as your presentation and be included in the agenda.
Warm regards, Bettyanne
Bettyanne Cobean, Director of Corporate Services
5/21/2016 Page 2 of32
County of Bruce
From: John Mann
To: Mayor Smith and Council of Saugeen Shores To: Bruce County Council From: John Mann
Re: Delegation by John Mann to Saugeen Shores Council for May 24, 2016, regarding Saugeen Shores seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR site pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG.
Delegation by John Mann to Bruce County Council for June 2, 2016, regarding Saugeen Shores, Huron Kin loss, Brockton, South Bruce, and Arran-Eiderslee seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR sites pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG. May 12,2016
Hi Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau and Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, and Mayor Mike Smith and Council of Saugeen Shores:
Minister McKenna's Ordered alternate DGR site studies must include the Group of 5 Bruce County Municipalities that support the OPG DGR- including my Town of Saugeen Shores, the Twin Nuclear Town to Kincardine- and adding another decade to the process before finding a suitable DGR site.
1. Minister McKenna has Ordered OPG to study alternate DGR sites.
2. The 5 Municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kinloss, Brockton, South Bruce, and Arran-Eiderslee [known as the Group of 5] must be first in line to be studied in the same manner [over a period of 10 years] as their neighbour Municipality of Kincardine who has heretofore stolen the limelight.
5/21/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Donna VanWyck"
Thank you for your email. I am away from the office and will return on Tuesday, May 24, 2016. If you require immediate assistance please call the office at
Donna Van Wyck Deputy Clerk, County of Bruce
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committees should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the County's website.
"If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies (electronic or otherwise). Thank you for your cooperation."
5/21/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Darlene Batte"
I am out of the office returning Tuesday, May 24, 2016. In my absence, please contact Donna Van Wyck -
Thank you
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committees should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the County's website.
"If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies (electronic or otherwise). Thank you for your cooperation."
5/21/2016 ..,fiPurolator
Tracking Details
Shipment Status
Package Status Shipment Summary
Delivered Packages 1 to 1 of 1 Tuesday, May 24, 2016 9:01 a.m. Received By:
History
Date Local Time City Description
May24,2016 9:01a.m. Ottawa, ON Shipment delivered to STHILAIRE at: RECEPTION May24,2016 8:06a.m. Ottawa, ON On vehicle for delivery May 20,2016 3:58p.m. Owen Sound, ON Picked up by Purolator at PORT ELGIN ON Page 1 of33
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
May 24,2016
Hi Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Wynne and Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President ofOPG:
The attached letter with enclosed materials were delivered by Purolator today to Minister McKenna for her meaningful review, meaningful consideration, and meaningful inclusion into her decisions related to the OPG DGR Application. OPG's request to build a DGR consisting of 80% harmless clothes and rags requires immediate dismissal of the OPG DGR Application.
The materials have been delivered to complete my DGR Record to date. Volume 28 that has been delivered in hard copy and on is also on the computer memory stick for easy filing on the Minister's Public Registry consists of the following email thread set forth below. This email stream has gone unanswered. Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau and Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, have refused to answer the serious questions and concerns related to the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that can never be justified when only 1-DGR is necessary to store all levels of nuclear waste. Fortunately, the Citizens and Taxpayers can rely upon the Judiciary to provide a remedy when our "leaders" fail to act as established by the clear DGR Record filed with Minister McKenna previously and today.
In addition, the attached report prepared by lvey Client Project Team 54: March 10th, 2004, Richard lvey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, must be included in the DGR Record and filed on the Public Registry for all Citizens and Taxpayers to review, and for Minister McKenna to meaningfully review, meaningfully consider, and meaningfully include in her decisions related to the OPG DGR Application. The Report prepared by the University of Western establishes how Kincardine was looking for money from OPG that had been stripped from it when Bruce Power privatized the nuclear plant. All of a sudden the gravy train was over and Kincardine was in a panic. Looking at a disastrous decommissioning of Bruce Power by
5/25/2016 Page 2 of33 Y!? 2034, Kincardine, in a panic, investigated how to get free Taxpayer money from OPG at the highest amount possible for the short run. The Report clearly shows no interest by OPG and no need for OPG to even negotiate with Kincardine on a clothes and rags DGR let alone actually enter into the disastrous hosting agreement in 2004 that simply threw Taxpayer money into the air over a DGR clothes and rags project that no one in the World could justify or support. And not one alternate site was considered, sought, or tendered. High level spent fuel was not even addressed. How is this even remotely possible? So Kincardine got its money fix for a decade now. OPG has been caught as complicit in this scam. Nevertheless, instead of cutting its ongoing irresponsible losses, OPG forges ahead full speed to bury clothes and rags in a meaningless yet obscenely expensive hole costing billions of Taxpayer dollars that will ultimately be front page headlines when the Judiciary intervenes. And in the meantime our health care, education, and legal aid budgets starve. Is this the way to protect and spend our precious and finite Taxpayer dollars? Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Wynne and Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, owe the Citizens and Taxpayers an explanation behind this reckless and irresponsible Taxpayer dollar spending that can never be justified or supported by anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is undisputed that the 2- Track 2-DGR boondoggle spearheaded by OPG and allowed to continue by our politicians must be terminated in favour of the responsible 1-Track 1-DGR process to store all levels of nuclear waste. Therefore, it is undisputed that the OPG DGR Application must be immediately dismissed to stop this unending and unnecessary Taxpayer loss and government boondoggle. in 2004, while facing a declining nuclear benefits presence, Kincardine needed money and wanted money. Solution: build a meaningless clothes and rags DGR in Kincardine and sell OPG on the idea. OPG did not need a DGR for clothes and rags and did not want a DGR for clothes and rags. See lvey Report (attached to this email), particularly at page 6 wherein the Report states: "OPG sees little need to change the status-quo, but is honouring a Memorandum of Understanding to work with Kincardine in resolving the issue." Yet here we are more than a decade later with obscene amounts of Taxpayer dollars wasted on an unnecessary and meaningless DGR for clothes and rags. As a result, OPG's request to build a DGR consisting of 80% harmless clothes and rags requires immediate dismissal of the OPG DGR Application.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen Registered Participant
To: Mayor Smith and Council of Saugeen Shores To: Bruce County Council
5/25/2016 Page 3 of33 ('tv From: John Mann
Re: Delegation by John Mann to Saugeen Shores Council for May 24, 2016, regarding Saugeen Shores seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR site pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG.
Delegation by John Mann to Bruce County Council for June 2, 2016, regarding Saugeen Shores, Huron Kinless, Brockton, South Bruce, and Arran-Eiderslee seeking to be studied as alternate OPG DGR sites pursuant to Minister McKenna's Order to OPG. May 12,2016
Hi Minister McKenna and Prime Minister Trudeau and Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, and Mayor Mike Smith and Council of Saugeen Shores:
Minister McKenna's Ordered alternate DGR site studies must include the Group of 5 Bruce County Municipalities that support the OPG DGR- including my Town of Saugeen Shores, the Twin Nuclear Town to Kincardine- and adding another decade to the process before finding a suitable DGR site.
1. Minister McKenna has Ordered OPG to study alternate DGR sites.
2. The 5 Municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kinless, Brockton, South Bruce, and Arran-Eiderslee [known as the Group of 5] must be first in line to be studied in the same manner [over a period of 10 years] as their neighbour Municipality of Kincardine who has heretofore stolen the limelight.
3. The Hosting Agreement between Kincardine and OPG for the OPG DGR requires that each of the 5 neighbouring Municipalities be studied as alternate DGR sites. After all, in the Hosting Agreement, OPG intentionally set up a 30 year payment plan for Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kin loss, South Bruce, Brockton, and Arran Elderslee to receive exorbitant Taxpayer dollars each year from 2005 through 2034. The only catch was that Saugeen Shores, Huron-Kinless, Brockton, South Bruce, and Arran-Eiderslee, individually as well as collectively, were required to use "best efforts" to support the OPG DGR. And what constituted "Best Efforts" was to be determined solely by the discretion of OPG!
4. So from 2005 to the current day, the 5 neighbouring Municipalities have unwaveringly used their "best efforts" to support the OPG DGR. OPG has confirmed the "best efforts" through paying each Municipality as promised in the Hosting Agreement.
5. For over 10 years now, the continuous and unwavering and glowing support confirmed on the Public Record by the 5 supporting Municipalities establishes that each would certainly welcome the opportunity to be the site for the OPG DGR. Not only would that opportunity present huge benefits to the winning site that Kincardine alone is now and will in the future enjoy over this Group of 5, each and every Municipality has to agree that the best site is the best for all of us- and the only way to determine where the best DGR site is located is for each Municipality of the Group of 5 to go through the same 10 year rigorous study previously done related to the Kincardine proposed site.
6. Alas, in response to Minister McKenna's Order directing OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies, OPG has unilaterally set a self-imposed deadline for the alternate DGR studies to be completed by December 31, 2016, woefully short of the required minimum of the 10 years it takes to study just 1 DGR site.
7. Therefore, Minister McKenna must immediately clarify to OPG that OPG must conduct the same 10 year study for each alternate DGR site, and OPG's proposed 8 month study will not suffice. And of course added
5/25/2016 THE MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
Analysis and Recommendations regarding Intermediate Level Waste I Low Level Waste Management Facilities
A report prepared by Ivey Client Field Project Team 54: March 1 ost. 2004
~Ith!!"d IV~ Sth~~..!E!'Ilt;~Si~e~~ cnen,t Field 1.1W lJr~h··~ISiff1IF\Vi'1
Liz Chang Alfonso Trevino Tetsuya Imigi Ashish Agarwal .!. INTRODUCTION -4-
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -5-
;}, ISSUE -6-
i SIZE~UP OF MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS -7-
-~ ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE DEAL -10-
5.1 HISTORY -10 • ·5.2 ANALYSIS OF THE DEAL· PRESSURE TACTICS - 11 • 5.3 ANALYSIS OF THE DEAL· POSSIBLE STRATEGIES AND COURSES OF ACTIONS • 11 • 5.4 ANALYSIS OF THE DEAL· FUTURE DILEMMA - 13 •
§. DECISION CRITERIA
'l VALUATION MODELS: -16-
7.1 ASSUMPTIONS: -16- 7.2 BATNA MODEL -17- 7.3 DCF MODEL {DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW) -23. 7.4 COMPARABLES AND MULTIPLES -26. 7.5 LIMITATIONS OF THE FINANCIAL MODELS . -27-
.§. COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATIONS -29-
8.1 COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION VS. COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATION -29- 8.2 NET BUYER BENEFIT AS A VALUE CREATION MODEL -30-
2 RECOMMENDATION /IMPLEMENTATION -32-
9.1 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS -32- 9.2 URGENCY & IMPORTANCE MATRIX -36- 9.3 WEAKNESSES OF THIS REPORT -36-
JJ! CONCLUSIONS -38-
.ll FUTURE INVESTIGATIONS -39-
ll TABLE OF APPENDIXES -42-
12.1 APPENDIX 1- KINCARDINE 12.2 APPENDIX 2-WWMF 12.3 APPENDIX 3- OPG, OEFC & RELATED INFORMATION
- 2-
··---~--·---. ------·-----·-·· 12.4 APPENDIX 4- STIGMA -42" 12.5 APPENDIX 5- COMPENSATION/ COMPARABLE SCHEMES -43- 12.6 APPEND£X 6- GENERAL NUCLEAR & NUCLEAR WASTE INFORMATION "43" 12.7 APPENDIX 7- CONSULTANT REPORTS -43- 12.8 APPENDIX 8" EXTERNAL BOOKS USED -44-
., - .'J - 1 Introduction A team of four students from the Richard Ivey School of Business were commissioned to consult in a study regarding negotiations on a. Radioactive Waste disposal facility ..In the original mandate for the report, Kincardine requested a fmancial analysis, which they can use in negotiations with Ontario Power Generation.
The Municipality of Kincardine has offered to become the hosting community of a pennanent nuclear waste management facility for Low Level and Intennediate Level Radioactive Waste from Ontario Power Generation. This offer is a major part of a strategy the Municipality has taken in response to stagnated growth during the last decade. The team understands that the ultimate goal of the Municipality of Kincardine is to provide greater benefits for its population and to grow steadily.
To fulfill its mandate, the team initiated the following activities: ·
" Gained an understanding of the principles of a deal, as well as the motivation behind the need for a deal. · e Gained an understanding of the nuclear industry and the environment in which it operates. • Gathered information on the history between OPG, Kincardine, and other stakeholders. • Created models for valuating a deal according to Kincardine's outline, and testing them using mock negotiations. e Brainstormed value-creating options to bring about success in a deal. " Planned a negotiating strategy to move forward.
It is important to note that the content of this report largely focuses on the business opporhmity and value-creating mechanisms. Wbile the report does not dwell too deep on the technical or political aspects of the deal, it does integrate the chronicles of past experiences with similar deals in an attempt to provide a more holistic analysis.
-4-
------···--·-··········-----·------.. ------·------.-.. -.___ ...... 2 Executive Summary . The client, :MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE, is negotiating a contract for the building of a nuclear waste disposal facility with Ontario Power Generation (OPG). This report investigates the current state of the negotiating environment, analyzes the decision drivers of the major stakeholders, and provides various models useful for valuation. Based on the issues identified in this study, recommended changes to Kincardine's negotiating strategy are summarized, along with a "Future Investigations" listing of tasks for future groups.
Issue Identification In analyzing Kincardine's development goals, current position, negotiating power and strategy, five important issues were identifted:
• Kincardine and OPG are divided on the issue of remuneration and accordingly impact offset payment for a disposal facility if the wastes are to be hosted in the community pem1anently. • Kincardine is not able to assess and claim the economic value of the impact. • Kincardine needs to leverage this opportunity to support its long tem1 development goal but does not want to be captive for an under-estimated value. • OPG claims to have options and does not feel an urgent need to make a final decision. • Kincardine turns to using OPG's alternative cost as a floor benchmark for negotiation. , ·
Recommendations Based on the conducted analysis as outlined in the introduction, we recommend Kincardine implement the following actions:
1) Decrease the level of competitive negotiation tactics, employing more collaborative negotiating strategies. 2) Clearly defme development and growth goals Kincardine wants to implement, including a timeline for each item. 3) Increase the level of urgency OPG sees in completing a deal. 4) Include Provincial Government agencies in the negotiations. 5) Increase the value proposition OPG & the Ontario Government perceives in using Kincardine as a hosting community. 6) Expand on the number of options to increase the value of a deal.
Analysis In order to assess the state of the key stakeholders, the report outlines infonnation gathered from Kincardine and OPG. The Value Creation model is also explored as a more attractive and attainable strategy for Kincardine.
- 5 • 3 Issue The Municipality of Kincardine is seeking to be the long tenn solution to properly accommodate the temporary low-level nuclear waste (LLW) storage, owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for decades. Before OPG was privatized in 1999, the two parties had i::stablished processes and contracts managing the rnatters. Yet, the privatization of OPG, and its succeeding actions in termh1ating some of the benefits to Kincardine, brought the working dynamics into a new landscape undesirable to Kincardine for its future development.
Currently the community faces the following challenges:
• Highly dependent on nuclear power related industry, and related impact offset payments for growth. Kincardine has not been able to diversify its economy; yet OPG tenninated some of the previously agreed benefits to the community. • A permanent solution to OPG's LLW waste storage dilemma is required. OPG sees little need to change the status-quo, but is honouring a Memorandum of Understanding to work with Kincardine iri resolving the issue. A possible option for OPG is to site the pem1anent facility in IGncardine. For OPG, it presents no new impact to the community, while Kincardine understands it will have great impact and constraints to its growth. • Kincardine is not able to assess the size of the impact in economic ten11S to ·support its decision, or back up its negotiating strategy. • OPG bas options and time to solve the issue, while it is a very high stake matter for Kincardine to succeed. o Facing such constraints, Kincardine is lured to a cost~based approach to negotiate a contract with OPG.
- 6-
-·-·-···-~---·~-----·-·---~------·-----·-·--···-- -···-- ····-- --- ···--··- ·-·- 4 Size-up of Major Stakeholders The followiJ;J.g is a list of stakeholders categorised according to their relationship to this deal. "Stakeholders" comprises of stakeholders that are directly affected by this deal, or have some active say in the deal. "Competitors" comprise of alternative sites OPG has possibly approached in the past. Table 1- List of Stakeholders Stall:eholders Competitors - Kincardine - Deep River - 'OPG - Geraldton - Ontario Government - Darlington - Neighbors . Pickering - LLWRWMO (LLW - Port Hope radioactive waste management office) - Federal Government Below is an analysis of the three major stalceholders we have identified:
4.1.1 The Municipality of Kincardine Kincardine is currently the hosting town of one of OPG's nuclear power plants and waste storage facilities. The municipality has about 12,000 residents as of2004. Approximately 3000 of these residents work with the power plants. The primary source of ernploy1nent and revenue come from OPG-related facilities located in Kincardine. ·
As one ofthe communities hosting nuclear power generators and its wastes, Kincardine is bound by the stigma of 'nuclear' to attract outside businesses and talents to the community. Without ar1 adequate injection of these two important factors for growth, it would be highly difficult for Kincardine to further develop in the long run.
Knowing its deep ties with nuclear power, and understanding the threat of the community's sustainability after the Bruce site is de-commissioned in 2034, Kincardine wants to leverage its current involvement with nuclear power to diversify its industries alongside its development goals.
Kincardine believes that a long-tenn contract for the disposal of low and intennediate level waste at the Western Waste Management Facility (JTWMF) is in the town's best interest. At the same time, the town has long-term plans of further diversifying in an effort to reduce their reliance on nuclear related businesses. In support of diversification, Kincardine plans to develop its secondary industry, tourism, and agriculture. As such, a long-tenn contract with OPG in terms of hosting a low-level waste management facility remains a vital issue for the town.
- 7- 4.1.2 Ontario Power Generation Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is a utility provider formerly owned by the Ontario government and privatized in 1999. OPG' s principal business is the generation of electricity to distributors in Ontario and Northeastern U.S. In response to the Ontru.io government's planning of competition in the utility industry, OPG has leased nuclear facilities in Kincardine to Bruce Power- yet, OPG remains to be the nuclear waste owner in its contractual relationship with Bruce Power.
According to recent a1mouncements, plans for increasing the number of operational nuclear plants are materializing to add electricity supply in support of Canada's long-tenn economic growth. With the total number of nuclear plants increasing, the resulting volume of nuclear waste is expected to increase.
Cun·ently, it appears the utilization level and flexible storage capacity provide OPG with little urgency to actively consider an ideal pe11nanent disposal site for the low-level nuclear wastes, though it is a high priority issue for Kincardine. Yet, a recent turnover in OPG' s top management, due to great cost and schedule over-runs, could affect OPG's planning guidelines. The new executive team may place greater emphasis toward pre-cautionary, long tem1 perspectives that identify and 1ncorporate potential risks into project budgeting, in addition to recognizable costs.
4.1.3 Province of Ontario As the province with the most active industrial, commercial and living standard growth. development in Canada, Ontario sets precedents among its peer provinces in handling many of the provincial-wide issues in business development, including nuclear waste management. Cimently Ontario government has budget deficits, and any further financially-stressing projects could lead to Ontario residents' high concerns.
To strengthen its power industry, Ontario government privatized its Onta1io Hydro to several business entities and provided incentive to encourage competition. The goal is to have a power industry that can respond to the increasing power demand from Ontario's continuing economic growth, at a price that helps Ontario industries stay competitive. On the other hand, an affordable charge is critical to residents to get through the long, low temperature Ontruio winter months.
The permanent solution ofLLW nuclear waste disposal is the first instance for Ontario, and successfully managing the issue will be an important milestone demonstrating Ontario's ability in utilizing nuclear energy and in managing its resulting issues. The principles, the processes, and the initial results will serve as important precedents for future handling of similar event.
- 8- 4.1.4 Summary Table 2- Interests of Major Stakellolders Kincardine Ontario Power Generation Ontario Government Be treated fairly Becomes more attractive to Introduce competition to power shareholders industry; divest interest in OPG Growth New power plants, divest I Lease Show OPG as attractive large fixed assets Revive secondary and tertiary Solve waste disposal siting issue Get Re-elected industries and manage the disposal operation Make Kincardine a better place to "For the Greater Good'! live for descendents
- 9- 5 Environment Surrounding the Deal
5.1 History In the previous chapter, we discussed the drivers that motivate the three major stakeholders with respect to this deal. In this chapter, we will discuss the pressures placed on these stakeholders to come to a deal, along with probable behaviour analysis.
Prior to 1999, Ontario was supplied its electricity by Provincially.,owned Ontario Hydro. Due to economic and public pressures, the govenunent at the time decided to privatize the industry by selling their stake in the utility. Thus, in 1999 Ontario Hydro was divided into 5 separate entities: 1) Hydro One (power distribution) 2) Ontario Power Generation (OPG) (power generation) 3) Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) (debt-holding company) 4) Electrical Safety Autho1ity 5) Independent Electricity Market Operator
During this same period, Hydro One and OPG became incorporated, carrying forward mainly the assets of the old Ontario Hydro. With the penuission of creditors, a majority of 1 2 the equity (including the massive $38 Billion debt ), was taken over by the OEFC, as it contim1ed on as the legal. entity of the old Ontario Hydro. To pay down the massive debt, Hydro One and OPG contributed a portion of their revenue towards debt repayment.
The privatization process did not proceed smoothly. With a sudden jump from being crown corporations to publicly-traded entities, both companies introduced dramatic price increases that the public could not digest. Relating to Table 2, the Ontario Government became fearful of their re-election prospects, as well as the embarrassment of an episode of privatization that did not meet the needs of the public's demand for 'a greater good'.
In a haste to cahn very high public discord, the Government introduced an Energy Price Cap, thereby limiting the magnitude of a price increase to all consumers and industry. The effect of this price cap on OPG meant a decrease in its revenue-generating potential, as well as its market value in a publicly traded system. In response, all shares of OPG came under the control of the Ontario Government. One consequence of cutting the revenue generating potential ofOPG was the cessation of payments to the OEFC. By limiting its debt-reducing ability, creditors felt betrayed, as they viewed this move as an increased risk to the capital tied up inside the OEFC. In 2002/2003, to appease these creditors, the Ontario Government completed a $1.8 Billion borrowing program & $1.6 Billion short-term borrowing program on behalf of the OEFC, presumably guaranteed by the government.
1 Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation- 2002 Annual Report 2 www.amoco.onr, "The Issue on Stranded Debt- Feb- 22- 200l.pdf'. See Appendix 3
• 10- 5.2 Analysis of the Deaf.. Pressure Tactics In late 2003, Ontario elected a new premier, Dalton McGuinty, who outlined plans to scrap the price cap and bring an end to the deficit through unpopular means such as tax increases. While he is currently popular amongst Ontarians, this support could slip once overall expenses noticeably increase. ·
To summarize the issue with the Ontario Government: 1) Increased pressure to decrease the deficit 2) Increased pressure to lift the price cap 3) Increased pressure by consumer and industry to keep energy costs from sharply increasing · 4) Increased pressure the OEFC and its creditors maintain or increase payback.
Fi e 1
Industry Power Industry (mandate}-+- ·.... :- ·: . \ (GOP) OEFC----~------• .. ·... :~~;·: .. ~{. .:: : :.i.: ::_: ..... ~ ;: .. ~; ·: .: ', . ... .:
··• .~ " i I • .-: • ~· ,' •' '.' ', :,~ ,,.~ :. :' : Kincardine ------..-
4¢/KWh 6¢/KWh 8¢/KWh
Kincardine's role in this high-pressure envirorunent further increases the strain on the government in an upward price direction. With a mandate to increase competition in the energy market, and a notorious habit of legislating problems away, one of the easiest options the government has in its arsenal is imposing an order that would see LLW & IL W disposed of in Kincardine.
5.3 Analysis of the Deale Possible Strategies and Courses of Actions Assuming that it is the best interest for Kincardine to pursue the option of LL WI IL W disposal, the municipality should evaluate OPG's possible course of action or strategies that could minimize the financial compensation for the municipality.
OPG' s core competency is in the generation of nuclear power, but not necessarily in the management of nuclear waste; nor is it one of OPG's top priorities. However, OPG does
- 11 ~ recognize their responsibility to manage the waste that they generated and the historical waste inherited from Ontario Hydro. With the shake~up at the executive level of OPG, future management decisions will try to minimize any possible financial obligation related to non~priority functions. h1 this case, one of the possible strategies for OPG is to minimize the compensation for Kincardine. One possibility is to hold off on a decision until some event tJ.iggers a real necessity for a long-term waste management facility. This does not mean that OPG would not negotiate with Kincardine, but that it would not need to make any compensation conn!l.itments until there becomes an absolute necessity to do so. OPG could keep using the short tenn waste storage facility at Kincardine until the status quo changes to foril1 a real pressure for OPG to build a long term waste management facility. This is a "Temporal forever solution" that Kincardine is highly concerned about? OPG can implement this strategy by arguing that Kincardine already hosts a temporal waste management facility, so modifying the situation slightly to host the long-tem1 facility does not really affect the community:
... after reviewing the public opinion evidence, ... posited that most siting schemes had failed beca\.tse they attempted to reduce people's risk perceptions, and approach, he soundly concluded, that Is all but futile. To address this problem, he suggested searching for existing facilities, such as chemica1 plants, (etc), that neighbours regard as dangerous; buying the old factory and shutting it down; and building the new facility on the same site or nearby. This ... would be acceptable to the nei.fhbours because there would be no net change in the risks to which they were exposed.
In 6PG's view, the change from a short tenn to a long"tenn facility is just.an upgrade of the cun·ent facility, and all fmancial compensation was already paid when the short-tenn facility was built. With a population dependent on OPG as an employer and a revenue generator, fighting OPG using Kincardine's own population would be a difficult task should OPG decide not to negotiate,
While this option may be acceptable to OPG in the short-tem1, it will set a precedent detering other municipalities from considering a relationship with OPG. For example, a recent government mandate calling for greater energy supply may require OPG to start operating a greater number of facilities. For new plants to become operational, seeds for a competitive market need to be in place. Candidate communities will view the hard-handed tactics of OPG as a threat, and refuse to fully cooperate in this mandate. Spoiling the environment .for a one-time gain may not bode well for OPG, however should it occur, Kincardine's would still not see an optimmn value in the deal.
Another strategy that OPG could use is what we call "the several other opportunities" option. As Kincardine approached OPG, OPG could surmise that waiting for another town to volunteer would increase the competition among candidate communi tie~ and drive down the
3 Kincardine clearly expressed their concern in this strategy. 4 Michael B. Gerrard, "Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear & Fairness in Toxic & Nuclear Waste Siting", 1996, pg. 138
- 12- remuneration for a hosting community. Again, this strategy is not sustainable, but could be used as anegotiation tool in the short tenn.
Other strategies OPG can employ include waiting until there is a need to renew federal or provincial licenses that requires the approval of the municipality.· They can also wait until the social pressure of OPG' s prolonged inaction becomes too risky or umuanageable that forces the provincial or federal government to step in to push for a permanent solution. These are principally political solutions, and Kincardine may exercise activities of the same nature, such as lobbying, to trigger an event that forces OPG to decide upon a pennanent facility.
There are also operational situations that may force OPG to get a pennanent facility. For example, when the storage space in the temporal facility is diminishing and cannot be further expanded physically. While not sustainable indefmitely, it is an option that may be viable for several decades. Without a thorough study on this matter, it would be difficult to predict an exact period.
5.4 Analysis of the Deal- Future Dilemma The current deal is structured such that only Historic waste and Operational waste will be stored in any agreed upon facility. Forecasts of these wastes are given in Table 3.
Table 3- Forecasted Waste (as of Nov. 2003) LLW ILW December 2002 (Historic) 48,000 m3 9,300 m3 December 2015 62,000 m3 12,000 m3 December 2034 77,000 m3 15,000 m3 * Assumes 20 nuclear reactors .,.,. AU figures are cumulative. •*" Source: OPG meeting- November 2003
The majority of the waste produced is LLW, meaning tow radioactivity, and a shorter half life. All waste will be place in structures that are either above ground, or underground. Both concepts are expandable, and each carries its own risk profile and cost estimates.
In our analysis, having a single site for waste disposal is more rational than having several smaller sites: • Economic cost ·of building and monitoring several sites indefinitely - Politically less challenging Single site has smal.ler risk profile than multiple sites. Operationally more streamlined.
In coming to a deal, there is most likely going to be annual disbursements from OPG to Kincardine. In discussions about future trends of waste levels, OPG has revealed that after 2034, during the decommissioning phase of its nuclear facilities, a large amount of decommissioning waste will be generated. Unlike the operational and historic waste, a vast majority of the waste will be IL W. Total decorrnnissioning waste will be equivalent to
- 13 - V9Y
about 100,000m3 (roughly the same amount of total operational and historic waste that would exist in 2034).
The consequences ofthis revelation should be of concern to Kincardine. Should Kincardine be unable grow out of its large dependence ofOPG's proceeds, it may be 'forced' to accept a deal not in its favour:
" .. ,ongoing compensation schemes- such as per ton payments- can become addictive. If a community grows accustomed to having no property tax because of facility fees, then the closure of the facility becomes a feared event, and penn it renewals gamer active support." 5
As an example, poverty-stricken West African countries are seeing an explosion of revenue generation from oil ponds currently being exploited. With this income, very few economies are diversifying. There is a fear that when the oil runs dry, the genera1 population will not have the skills needed to sustain their economy.
In applying this example to the context of Kincardine, if Kincardine is able to diversify during the next few decades, the bargaining power of Kincardine would improve significantly, and a new contract for placing the decommissioning waste will not be signed under an atmosphere of fear.
In light of this, we must be conscience that OPG may not wilfully be aware of this issue. The year 2034 is more than 3 generations away; for an executive to justify making a deal which their children would have to act upon would not rest well for OPG's board of directors.
5 Michael B. Gerrard, "Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear & Faimess in Toxic & Nt1clear Waste Siting", 1996,pg.l26
- 14- 6 Decision Criteria The most important criterion in making this decision centers around the issue of Kincardine's long-term development goals being met. The Municipality of Kincardine aims to be the safeguard fat its resident's well-being in a prosperous community long into the future. The goals are achievable via economic development and population growth, thus, the following criteria are appropriate:
• No safety or security concerns. • No stigma to Kincardine's residents • High standard of living for residents This includes good infrastructures such as transportation, communication, education and healthcare facilities, as well as the platfonns for leisure and culture activities. • Sustainable economic development in addition to energy sector. This includes strengthening existing fanning, fishing and tourism industries, as well as diversifying into any industry that Kincardine has a comparative advantage to engage in. • Able to attract new residents for population growth • Long.:.terni, complete solution • Benign working relationship with the facility owner 7 Valuation Models: Establishing a value for a negotiated settlement is a particularly difficult task to accomplish. Here, we will examine 3 different methods to valuate the impact as a hosting community for the wastes:
1) the BATNA model (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) 2) the DCF model (Discounted Cash Flow) 3) Comparables and multiples model
For simplicity, each analysis will focus only on the monetary vaiue (single dinl.ension). For these models to work there are a number of assumptions we need to make.
7.1 Assumptions: 1) No other hazardous waste will be sited on the land 2) Kincardine will not take on any financial burden of maintaining the facility for as long as the facility exists (the next 300 years and beyond.) 3) Waste classification system will not change over the active life of the repository, thereby allowing ILW to be classified as LLW, or some HWL to be classified as ILW. 4) OPG will be a going concern for over 300 years 5) OPG (or some other institutions besides Kincardine) will monitor the facility indeflni.tely. · 6) OPG will not impmi waste from outside producers and store them in Kincardine 7) The Ontario Government is unwilling to 'force' a community to accept the waste. 8) Any changes in regulation for maintenance criteria, upgrading technology, (during and after 2034) will not be the responsibility of Kincardine. 9) Kincardine will not be the legal owner of the waste at any time 10) The land which Kincardine owns and is 'leasing for long-tenn' to OPG will always belong to Kincardine. There will be no redefinition ofKincardine's boundaries.
- 16 ~ 7.2 BA TNA model BATNA (Best Altemative to Negotiated Agreement) seeks out to fmd the cost of the second-best alternative to OPG. Using this method, a negotiator will be confident that $1 below the cost of the second best alternative will be attainable through negotiation.
The original scope of the project called for fmding various costs that OPG would incur if OPG selects an alternate site. Kincardine could then use this information to justify a higher monetary settlement from OPG. The model proposed in this section classifies the various costs to OPG and presents them in the BATNA model.
Figure2
... ·.. ,. ··.:· ·... ·.:,:: -: ... ·.. · : ·.. . .· .· ..
The BATNA model presented in Figure 2 is composed of three components: 1) Direct Costs, 2) Compensation & 3) Incentive. The sum of all three components adds to the BATNA of OPG.
The next few sections will discuss each component in detail, in the context of the Municipality of Kincardine vs. the residents of Kincardine.
- 17 - 7.2.1 Direct Costs (A) Direct Costs refer to the costs to OPG for building and maintaining a disposal facility. 6 There are three further sub-classifications for Direct Costs :
1) Pre Operational Costs: Pre-Operational costs are upfront fixed costs to OPG. These costs can include: • Site Selection • Site Charactelisation • Licensing • Site Preparation • Hiring Expenses
2) Operational Costs Operational Costs are composed of mostly variable costs, needed for the day to day operation of the facility over its lifetime . .These costs can include: • Mate1ial costs for processing and packaging e Salaries for required labour contents c Transportation i. Moving historical waste to disposal facility ii. Moving all future (operational) wastes to disposal facility • Environmental Monitoring o Facility expansion o Training (police, fire) 11 A more unquantifiable cost is one referred to as a "Geological Risk Premium". Take, for example, aLLW disposal facility placed on a volcanically active site prone to frequent earthquakes and floods, and a second facility placed in a geologically sound environment. Both structures may cost essentially the same to build, but the expected increase in long tenn maintenance costs, and the increased risk profile of the first facility will add to a "Geological Risk Premium".
3) Post-Operational Costs At some point, the facility will need to close permanently. Since IL W has a half-life of thousands of years, proper markings and sensory devices will need to be installed. Because of a 'Geological Risk Premium', a site that can minimize the risk of natural disasters will reduce indefmite maintenance costs.
6 Partially taken from: William F. Newberry, "Radwaste Magazine'', date unknown (Appendix 6) 7.2.2 Compensation (8) The cost of getting public opinion and government approvals is the key driver of compensation. In the context of nuclear waste management, compensation serves as a remedy to the community for the stignia it will suffer as a result of the facility. While there can be an argument that stigma does not exist, if this were true then communities all over Ontario would have no qualms about accepting the facility into their boundaries. The fact is, there is a social stigma against nuclear waste, and with social stigma comes damages. "Restitutio in Integrum- restoration to the original position" Imagine $100 worth of merchandise stolen from a shop owner. If the next day the owner is compensated with $100 cash, the owner will feel that there has been no loss, and no gain; the original position is restored. The same basic principle applies to compensation. While htmdreds of differing opinions can exist on the reality of stigma, the basic question remains the shop keeper will not allow for $100 of merchandise to be taken unless he feels that his original position will be restored (no loss, no gain)?
. . . . In the context of the deal, OPG's po~ition is that since waste is already stored in a temporary facility, there will be no additional stigma for a pennanent facility for the residents of Kincardine.
In targeting OPG 's position of a stigma-less environment, consider the Municipality of · Kincardine as an individual.
Table4 Municipality of Kincardine Residents of Kincardine Indefinite Lifespan Shorter Lifespan Requires growth & infrastructure Requires money, stability, health and respect Does not have an option to move Has an option to move
To make the legal case for stigma, let us first look at some legal precedence .. There are two types of claims that can be made:
j) loss ofbusiness (profitability) ii) loss ofmarket value of land.
Other legal challenges in a case for stigma may exist, but these are the two most commonly used in Canadian law. In the first claim, because of the current presence of nuclear facilities, any business currently operating in this environment has already been valued under a
- 19- stigmatized condition. However, unlike a nuclear facility, a disposal facility has a 'forever' nature, which affects the value of business for the long term (indefinitely)?
In the second claim concerning loss of market value of land, again, the c[aim can be made that LL W will not bring stigma to an area already affected by a nuclear plant, unless we consider the land stigmatized indefinitely.8 Current residents may not feel much stigma, but the long-tenn value ofthe Municipality receives the bulk of the stigma. In valuing economic and population growth, a disposal facility may keep outsiders from settling in the Municipality to become residents. 9
While the case for stigma on the market value of land will be difficult to argue in a negotiation, the general public attitude towards nuclear waste disposal may still be negative due to perceived risks in this deal.
The costs to OPG for dealing with these risks include "public indignation, political opposition, and even obstructionist lawsuits." 10 Another topic to ponder is why niany conmmnities fear such a deal. Many of these bottlenecks may not be due to the physical act of placing the waste in a facility, but rather due "to our collective state of mind about .. attempting to execute a solution that is meant to be permanent and in·eversible"tl. If this is true, then consider regular waste storage sites are generally hteversible once they are covered with soil, and a park is made over top. So why then is the prospect of doing the same with LLW so different, even if the waste is disposed of in such a way as to avoid contact with the public? In resisting the temptation to go into a philosophical explanation, one can assume the fear of change aud the fear ofthe unlmown. There are social stigma fears of Kincardine becomirig la1own as a provincial "nuclear waste dump". There are fears of Kincardine having a permanent liability that may drive away future inhabitants, or discourage newcomers from establishing a presence. There are worries of even having modem-day engineering ideas antiquated by the standards of the next century. These are all examples of drivers for stigma.
In evaluating a compensation scheme, it is hnportant to note that before a disposal facility is ever built, residents can begin experiencing losses immediately (mostly market value of property). The delay between the signing of a deal and the time nuclear waste anives may see a decrease in property market value. This decrease may be unfair to residents in the surrounding communities.
Another in1portant item to note is that with storage facility; there is always a possibility that the waste will someday be retrieved, and the community can be 'repaired'. However, with a disposal program, long-tenn stigma should be considered with short-term stigma. Consider- what is the value of stigma of the first unit of disposal waste, versus the value of
7 For more information on business losses, see Appendix 4 5 For more information on Property Value losses, see Appendix 4 9 Smali sample of individuals (<20) were asked if they would ever move to Kincardine if given a job offer of $80,00, knowing that there is a LLW disposal facility and nuclear facility in the area, None answered ftositively. 0 William F. Newberry, "Radwaste Magazine", date unknown (Appendix 6) 11 William F. Newberry, "Radwaste Magazine", date unknown (Appendix 6)
-20- stigma after the I O,OOOth unit. The largest stigma will be up front with the first unit, after which the marginal stigma decreases significantly. The reason for this is simple: Nobody ever asks how inuch waste exists at a garbage dump. The fact that it exists is cause enough for stigmatization.
7.2.3 Incentive (C) Let us look again at the example of the shop owner. In the previous section, the shop owner did not gain any money, nor did he lose. It is as if the incident never took place. What then is the incentive for him to allow for the grief and personal resources in dealing with the situation? In this section, we discuss the final component ofthe BATNA model- the incentive.
.··.. ·. ··::· ... ··.··.... ····: .. . ,
As a motivator for action, the incentive is generally a tool used to gamer support. In the context of the LLW issue, an incentive is a 'reward' for accepting the social burden of the waste, or the cost ofeducating.the population (general public as well as political lobbying) in an attempt to reposition the waste as a non"'liability. · · ·
With respect to the deal, OPG believes the value of increased employment and indirect business growth should be incentive enough for this deal to exist. This may or may not be true, but if communities in general disagree with this assessment, then the cost to OPG to educate and lobby will increase, thereby increasing the incentive component anyways.
One drawback with the incentive system is that there will always be individuals against any incentive no matter what the ammmt. "Individuals who perceive these facilities as dangerous will not change these perceptions when offered money. They will view the o'ffer itself as immoral. Health, like love or salvation, does not belong in the marketplace; to buy or sell any of these is a travesty." 12
12 Michael B. Gerrard, "Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear & Fairness in Toxic & Nuclear Waste Siting", l996,pg. 126
- 21 ~ )02_
7.2.4 Applying this model: Now that the components of the model are understood, the next step is to put the components together and apply the model to the deal. While we have not been able to gather what alternatives OPG is-pursuing, we have drawn up a table of possibilities:
TableS- Example Alternatives Available to OPG Location Comments Geraldton Remote Community, may require less incentive small population Kincardine Existing facilities in place, minimize capital costs, geology. Minimal resistance by residents Deep River Existing nuclear research laboratory. Minimal resistance by residents. Talks have broken down. Darlington Existing nuclear generating station. Minimal resistance by residents. Too close to GT A. Politically sensitive Port Hope Already in a deal for federal waste, Minimal resistance by residents. Pickering Existing nuclear generating station. Minimal resistance by residents. Too close to GT A. Politically~ sensitive. Provincial Park No population to deal with. Owner is also sole shareholder of OPG: May prompt backlash by environmentalists and Native Canadians. Do Nothing Keep sending waste to Kincardine. Look into the issue at some future time. Alternative not sustainable. Using a BA TNA model, each alternative available to OPG will need to be filtered through this model. By stacking the components, we see that the total cost OPG sees is the sum of all three components together, and not individually. Take note, however, that there exists a possibility that no negotiable range even ·exists for a deal to take place with any alternative.
3 Point where OPG is not a healthy company c Incentive
Min. price is difference between Kincardine & competitor
For a deal to exist, the complete cost to OPG must be below the "point where OPG is not a healthy company". If every alternative is above this line, no monetary deal can exist unless one alternative reduces I changes its compensation or incentive.
~ 22- ~03
7,3 DCF Model (Discounted Cash Flow)
7.3.1 Concept Another way to assess the impact, we can compare Kincardine's values in two scenarios. Scenario 1 is how much Kincardine is worth if it does not have any nuclear power plants or wastes. Scenario 2 is how much Kincardine is worth when it has them. The difference in values of the two scenarios reflects the change of value due to having nuclear sites. Thus the impact is measured in economic tenns.
In Scenatio.l, we assume that Kincardine does not have the nuclear power plant and wastes. The community would be free from any nuclear stigma and could pursue its long tenn development goals at its maximum potential via the approaches of growing target industries and population. The pace of economic growth would follow Canada's average long run economic growth, because Kincardine would stand on the common ground as other average municipalities to realize their development goals. Here we can use Canada's long run GDP growth number as the approximation of Kincardine's potential economic growth rate.
In Scenario 2, Kincardine has nuclear power plants. and also hosts nuclear wastes disposal forever. tn this case, we assume Kincardine's growth would be highly limited because outsiders, including industries and people, would avoid moving into a nuclear-related community by choice due to perceived risks. Kincardine's opportunities to grow its industries and population may therefore b~come stunted. The capacity of growth would be extremely tied to the culTerit pegged-level of contribution from hosting nuclear power sites and wastes. In other words, Kincardine would have limited growth aspect in this scenario.
The statement that Kincardine would have little growth aspect in Scenario 2 can be supported by a closer look at Kincardine's demographic changes from 1966 to 2001, The population increased steeply between 1966 and 1976, as a result of utility-business-driven population inflows, yet the curve flattened from 19 81 to 1991 and started to drop from 1991.
The population's age profile provides another clue. In 1981, the Young Adults (ages 20-39) accounts for 33% of the population and School Age (5-19) is 27%. In 2001, after 20 years, however, the two groups dwindle to only 10% and 22% respectively. On top of that, 64% of the population ages over 40 in year 2001, comparing to only 30% in 1981. 13 A conclusion can be drawn that Kincardine's population is decreasing slowly and aging quic~ly. This is fundamentally detrimental to Kincardine's development goals. Therefore, we do not factor in a growth aspect in Scenario 2 in valuating Kincardine's worth.
7.3.2 Putting Dollar Values on Kincardine in two Scenarios In this DCF approach, to evaluate Kincardine's worth we view Kincardine as a fmancial asset that generates future cash flows (returns) to its owner for as long as the holding period. We add up all the future cash flows to the owner, and then discount them with a market rate to consistently bring the values of these future cash flows happened at different point of time
13 Source: M~micipality of Kincardine's Community Profile, 2002.· See Appendix l
-23- in the future to today. By calculating the present values~ we can fairly compare the two scenarios at the same time frame and clean of interest rate effects.
The formula for Scenario 1
The present value of a fmancial asset that has constant growth of return into perpetuity.
Present Value= [FCFF*(l+g)]/(Kc-g)
Where
FCFF =free cash flow to the asset owner. Here we will use Kincardine's annual net tax revenue (excluding sources fr.om nuclear power related contributions) as the proxy of all future cash flows to Kincardine.
g =growth rate. We will use Canada's long nm GDP growth estimate as Kincardine's growth rate for reasons discussed in the Concept section.
Kc =Cost of capital. It means the opp01tunity cost for the asset owner if he has the amount of interest-bearing capital that will be locked into this investment. Here we wili use Canada's 30 year government bond's coupon rate as an approxhnation of K.inca.rdine's cost of capitaL . ' The fonuula for Scenario 2
The present value of a financial asset that has no growth of return (i.e. g = 0). The cash flow stays at the same level into perpetuity.
Present Value= FCFF I Kc
Again~ FCFF will be Kincardine's all net annual tax. revenues, but here it includes sources from both nuclear related and non-nuclear related contributions. Kc is still the cost of capital, for which we still use the 30 year Canadian government bond coupon rate as a proxy. Notice that no growth component is built in this formula for Scenario 2 for reasons covered in above in Concept section.
7 .3.3 Calculation Scenario 1: Clear of nuclear site and wastes; tax. revenues will grow to perpetuity at the rate of Canada's long tenn real GDP growth.
Scenarios 2: Having nuclear site and wastes; no tax revenue growth factored in.
-24.
·--..------·----~--•··-~·------~---~-·A·---·-----.-...... ~-·----·------·------Calculation Inputs: 14 • Length ofTenn: perpetuity • Long run GDP growth (g): 3.1% in real term for Canada, according to current growth outlook estimates made by economists. • Long run inflation rate: 2% for Canada, which is Bank of Canada's objective. • Cost of Capital (Kc): 30 Year Government Bond: 5.75% (nominal term); 3. 75% (real · tem1) • Net annual tax revenue: Using the ratio of 3:2 for the tax revenues in Scenario 2 and 1 respectively. For example, according to Kincardine's fmanciai report for fiscal year 2002, tax revenue for Scenario 2 would be CAD 8,815,244, and we calculate a 2/3 of that for Scenario 1, CAD5,876,829.
The following shows Kincardine's values in two scenarios. We use "real tenn" rates and deducted inflation component fi:om 30 year government bond's coupon rate.
Table 6- DCF Summary Table
Kincardine's Value Using DCF
.. .. Scenarid 1: $C:enar.lo 2: ~o Nucle~r. ·eo.p Has N~,clear. No Components -. 'Growth ·· GrQwth PV ={FCFF.(1+g)LIJKc-g). PV= FCFF/ Kc
Net annual tax revenue (FCFF) · 5,876,829 8,815,244 30 year gov. bond; rear term (Kc) 3.75% 3.75% GOP growth estimate; real term (gl_ 3.10%
Present Value 932,155,545 235,073,173
697,082,372
The decreased Present Value from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 thus measures the approximate impact in economic terms.
However, the fact that Kincardine already has nuclear power generation site makes it difficult to separate the impact ofhaving nuclear power sites from the impact of hosting permanent waste disposal. An attempt can be made to further discount the two situations with different length of time (having nuclear power site till decommissioning for another 50 years vs. hosting nuclear wastes for 300 years of institutional control and actually waiting until the radioactivity totally decays after thousands of years). Thus, it is conceptually viable, but it would be difficult to recognize the differences and negotiate upon in real practices.
14 These inputs are from The Economists and Wall Street Journal.
-25- 7.4 Comparables and Multiples A third way to valuate a project or an oppotiunity is to use comparables. In the fmancial world "the price-eamings approach is a common valuation 'multiple' tecbnique" 15 but this method can be further refined to connect to some tevenue-driver measures for the industry. For exru.u~le, "(in) telecommunications;indus~ies pr~ce-to-cas~ flow .multiples are most popular." 6 So we can use any appropnate pnce-vanable multtples (1.e. sales, future cash flows, earnings before interest and taxes, etc.)
However, the multiples are based on the conditions of a specific market. The multiples that are used for valuating a company in Canada are different from .those used to valuate a company in Mexico. This means the same price-variable multiple can be used but has to be adjusted to the specific market conditions. Multiples are also affected by the tuning. In other words, even in the same geographic region a company could be valuated at 10 times earnings in general, but if the time of valuation ineets the optimistic market going rate, then the value has much higher upside potential than the usual 10 times earnings.
To use a multiple, we need to first identify a comparable situation and estimate their multiples. This requires an investigation into the similarities and difference between one business and the other, and those of their respective markets.
In this project, Kincardine can fmd a driver of the opportunity and look for a comparable situation in the world to generate a ri1ultiple. The possible drivers of this opportun~ty could be: ·
• Volume ofwaste (cubic meters) o Weight of the waste (tons) c Radioactivity of the waste (microSievert) a Land utilized (square meters) • Demographic conditions at the host communities • Other drivers of similar nature
For example, Kincardine can search for this data at various host communities, and divide the compensation paid to the host community by the different concepts. For exru.nple, a UK host community may receive $X per person, $Y per square meter, $Z per micro Siever, $L per ton ofwaste and $K per cubic meter of waste, while .in France, the structure could be $2X per person, $I/3Y per square meter, $5Z per microSiever, $21 per ton ofwaste and $1/4K per cubic meter of waste.
In negotiation with OPG, Kincardine could identify the best multiple to use and customize it to fit Kincardine's specific situation. For instance, if a UK facility received $X per person, and in France the rate is $2X, it may be because the population in France is older and so less open to this idea.
15 "Financial Management: a Primer", Stephen R. Foerster, Final draft version 16 same as above
- 26. 7.5 Limitations of the Financial Models
"Whatever valuation technique is used, it must be recognized that any results, either through simple calculations or more elaborated spreadsheets, are only as good as the assumption that 17 underlies the models." ·
At this stage, the uncertainties around this project are so great that the assumptions on the common financial models can be easily arguable and fall apart if used solely ]n negotiation. A fmancial model that can completely and faithfully represent the uncertainties and risks of this project is not only complicated, but will be immediately subject to constant re-modeling as unfolding real life changes shake the underlying assumptions.
The biggest financial and business risk in this project.can be conceptualized as illiquidity. In general, it means that a possession cannot be traded or exchanged promptly. Therefore, if a person invests in an illiquid business, the investor is not able to exit his investment easily. The deal surrounding the LLW project presents a highly unconventional risk beyond what a liquidity-based financial model is able to depict as a risk-return decision.
In this opportunity, the illiquidity is in the length of the business (i.e. using land for the next three centuries and beyond.) While Kincardine can recognize this constraint, incorporating this additional risk factor into any value provided by the financial models would be very . difficult. · . · . . Other disadvantageous factors for Kincardine in using these previous financial models include:
~ Quantifying the values for various siting alternatives may become difficult to predict. Surveying for a dollar value on a host-community's compensation and incentive requirements may in itself produce on uproar within a community.
e The impact of nuclear waste at a community is not well defined in current practices, and claiming for any stake could be highly arguable. While Kincardine can apply the models to make a case based on stigmatization for negative financial impact, OPG could focus on the quantifiable benefits to argue that the net effect is positive.
ID The fact that Kincardine now has nuclear power site makes it difficult to quantify the economic impact due to accepting the pennanent wastes disposal. Though the time durations of the impacts can be distinguished and consequently discounted (in the DCF model) to assign approximate values for comparing the difference, it would be difficult to translate to conceivable and actionable terms at negotiation table.
• Focusing on fmancial numbers can easily lead OPG and Kincardine into the thinlcing of "cost-based pricing" aspect in solving this issue. When there are other low-price towns "competing" with Kincardine, then the focus becomes seeking low-cost
11 "Financial Management: a Primer", Stephen R. Foerster, Final draft version
-27- solution. The matter becomes a price-cutting game instead of a complete solution for any of the accepting communities.
• 'Time horizon issue. OPG might focus on the impact to the hosting community in the first few decades while Kincardine assess the impact for hundreds of years. Such divided perspective in time horizon inevitably leads to different inferences of magnitude of the issue. It is very likely that hosting nuclear sites and wastes appears more financially attractive in the short tenn due to spin-off employment and business opportunities. This point could lead OPG to argue that hosting the disposal site itself will produces a net positive impact to the community than not hosting it, and that the community should not further ask for any offset payments. Howeve~·. :{{.incardine wants long-term prosperity, and in the long run of over 300 hundred years and beyond, the negative impact does exist (as demonstrated in the DCF model). Yet it is easier for OPG to justify the tangible, short tem1 benefits than for Kincardine to argue the conmmnity's growth potential in the far future.
• Using comparables to value a deal hinges on full disclosure of any deal. In most comparable deals studied, only monetary benefits were listed, with little mention of non-monetary incentives. Further, very little was mentioned about the environinent SUlTounding the deal, or the issues ofthe hosting community at the time. Using a potentially poorly-constmcted deal as a model for this deal may not produce a result · that is acceptable to Kincardine. Since there is no standard model on which to frame a valuation of a deal, many of these communities may have accepted a deal far less thm'J. its fair market value.
& As indicated in the previous section, the value of an opportunity is strongly affected by the timing, and currently the situation appears not the best to harvest a maximized financial OUtCOLlie OI this opportunity.
To sum up, applying the financial models above in order to define and maximize the outcome for negotiation often leads to a sub-optimal result that could leave Kincardine with a poorly- negotiated settlement.
-28- 8 Collaborative Negotiations
8.1. Competitive Negotiation vs. Collaborative Negotifltion In the preceding chapter, much of the analysis is done in the context of a competitive negotiating environment. That is, both sides solidify their positions and only reluctantly give concessions in return for the same. In the book 'Negotiate Your Way to Financial Success', the author details "Seven Golden Rules" of negotiating, one of which is outlined here:
"Negotiators are not necessarily popul~r individuals, but there is nothing wrong with getting the edge in any deal. ... 'Tough' means sticking to your guns, letting the other side know that you mean business, and being unafraid to ask for extra concessions"18
Each side can clearly draw up explanations on their positions, including valuation models and existing practices. However, if an agreement is ever reached, both sides will feel 'cheated' in a sense. The reason is, in these types of negotiations, a 'pie' of fixed size needs dividing. Each slice of the pie that is given is a slice that is taken away from the other negotiator. The ultimate prize is to have the entire pie. By relying on valuation models in the preceding section, the negotiations will be based around a single dimension, or a single, fixed pie. An alternative strategy is a more collaborative strategy, where both sides take a more collaborative approach to solving each other's issues.
. . To give a useful example, we will.discuss the 197 8 Peace Treaty 1?.etween Egypt and Israel. During the 6-day war of 1967, Israel had captured the Sinai Peninsula and occupied it for over a decade. During peace negotiations, the positions both sides took were incompatible with each other. Egypt's position for peace: the entire Sinai Peninsula had to be returned. Israel's position was that they could not return the land. In using the pie example above, the Sinai Peninsula is the pie which needs to be split up, but neither side wants to give the other any portion of the slice. Looking into their interests, instead of their positions, they found a way to reach an agreement.
"Israel's interest lay in sec1.lrity; they did not want Egyptian tanks poised on the border ready to roll across at any time. Egypt's interest lay in sovereignty; the Sinai had been part of Egypt since the time of the Pharaohs. After centuries of domination by Greeks, Romans, Turks, French, and British, Egypt bad only recently regained full sovereignty and was not about to cede territory to another foreign conqueror." 19
The two sides subsequently agreed to a plan that would see the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, in return for a large, demilitarized area on which no Egyptian military arms could pass. By looking beyond a 'fixed pie', the two sides were able to come to an agreement which satisfied each other's issues.
While we can recommend that the use of this alternate strategy, Kincardine should be aware that this strategy is vulnerable to 'competitive negotiating' strategies
18 Ronald J. Posluns, "NegoEiate Your Way to Financial Success", 1987 19 Roger Fisher, "Getting to Yes- Negotiating Agreement Witho\.lt Giving In", 1991, pg 41
-29- (exaggerating own benefits, while minimizing the benefits of the counterpart's concessions.)
Next, we will introduce a framework that could lead participants to think beyond the fixed size of the pie and engage in collaborative strategies to increase the total benefits to both parties, and to solve the issues in a fair and win-win fashion.
8.2 Net Buyer Benefit as a Value Creation Model The net buyer benefit is based on a business model with which a premium price can be obtained for the greater value from you perceived by a customer than from a competitor. For this to occur, the switching cost plus the perceived benefit by the customer should be lower than the price offered by the new supplier.· A client, logically, will not replace the current alternative unless he perceives more value from the newer alternative. Such a value can be driven by economic or strategic benefits.
The team decided to adopt this model to the permanent waste management facility opportunity at Kincardine because we believe this would be the ideal option to get an optimal results for both Kincardine and OPG. Here, we position Kincardine as the supplier of the hosting co1m11unity solution, and OPG as the buyer. We started by understanding the mindset of the principal stakeholders to identify if Kincardine projects higher value in the mind of OPG. The initial assessment showed a weak answer for Kincardine. Therefore, we . asked what was required to increase perceived value from this opportunity in the mind of OPG for Kincardine to get a premium price. Thus, this model is trying to achieve a premium price for Kincardine by increasing the total value to both parties.
Here the dominating thinldng to apply this tnode1 for success is a business relationship mindset. If the issues and solution is sought from a political solution mindset, this model would not be applicable because of the complicated relationships implied in this issue. It is true that a business relationship mindset might oversimplify the web of relationships involved in the development of a permanent solution to manage the nuclear waste from OPG at Kincardine. However, this simplification helps understand each player's issues, and finds how greater value for buyer is reached.
As mentioned above, we are assuming that Kincardine plays the role of the supplier in this relationship md OPG as the customer, and the product is a commtmity open to welcome the permanent solution for the nuclear wastes from OPG. Such role assignments might appear questionable to conventional thinking of a hosting community solution which the waste owner is usually the supplier and the conm1Uni.ty the client. Yet, it is important to review the fact that OPG has the time and options to wait as described in Chapter 5.3, while Kincardine's development approach needs to leverage the existing power industry in the community. Besides, OPG holds the view that Kincardine approached the company and offered to host the permanent disposal. Thus, it is in the best interest for Kincardine to demonstrate that it is offering a value-added solution to OPG, in order to reach an optimal outcome consisting of financial and non-financial benefits to the community in the long nm. In short, what Kincardine needs is a value creation model.
-30- )((
Net buyer benefits should be used to increase the offset payment for Kincardine. The key in the implementation of this tool is to underline and remark on the values that the town is offering to OPG as a volunteer host community,(i.e. The geology ofthe area, the open mind of the community to welcome the nuclear waste, the already existing temporal waste storage and the waste processor facilities.) Some of the benefits could be already appreciated by OPG, yet Kincardine should be involve in a more active selling process and demonstrate other no so clear benefits for OPG. for example: 'That as a volunteer community Kincardine could help to destigmatize nuclear issues demonstrating that a community could growth even while it host nuclear waste, also that Kincardine could solve the historical and . operational waste one for all. Some of these benefits are beyond the interest of OPG, but are important to the Ontario Government, and an ·essential part of the Kincardine offering. On the recommendation, we include several options on how to generate a net buyer benefits using a Value Creation Model principally point 3 to 5 of the recommendations section.
Traditional valuation models for Nuclear Waste Management facilities are often based on the stigma that in general is debatable. The financial models provide a relative value but are constructed on several assumptions which might not be able to fully anticipate the complexity and uncertainties around this project. Thus, holding firmly to a hard number from the fmancial models into negotiation does not bear the desired fruit. Yet by generating a net buyer benefit for OPG, Kincardine has the opportunity to optimize the deal.
- 31 - '7!2-
9 Recommendation /Implementation
9.1 Specific Recommendations We believe the best course of action for Kincardine is to pursue the following tasks:
1) Spell out clearly what Kincardine wants alongside its development goals Kincardine needs and wishes to grow, yet the vision and high-level planning toward that . target are not clearly in place. Lack of readiness to articulate what and how it wants to grow often projects too vague a picture for the other parties in the negotiation to understand and heip with Kincardine's challenges. Kincardine, for e:x.ru.nple, should have a wish list of desired areas for development and infrastructure. While this phase of the project is second priority, we believe Kincardine should wlite down a detailed growth plan, including all the facilities it needs, and the timeline it would like these facilities operational. This will provide a more concrete plan of issues with which to negotiate, instead of a pure monetary negotiation.
2) Increase the level of urgency for the deal h1 our investigation, OPG does not appear in any hurry to come to a negotiated deal for the LL W I ILW with Kincardine. This is a claim that was revealed to the team in our November, 2003 visit to OPG. A lack of urgency for a deal strengthens the possibility of a 'Do Nothing' option, which will maintain the status-quo. As argued in Chapter 5.3, should OPG decide to enact this option, Kincardine may find it difficult to counter such a move.
One way to inject urgency to the matter is to have an independent institution investigate OPG schedule, and fmd if it is self-imposed, or regulated by a government agency (such as the LLWRWMO, as cited in Table 1 ofChapter4.0.)
Inviting the press to make the public aware of the problem can be another way of creating greater urgency. Ontario residents cannot take the risk of interim storage capacity running · out while pennanent solution is not ready: a reality that bas happed many times in the US. Many shnilar siting efforts in the United States show that· these projects can easily ran behind schedule, largely due to c01mnunity resistance. As a greater number of operational nuclear reactors are corning online, focusing the public's attention on OPG's untimely management of the issue can work in Kincardine's favour.
Another option to scuttle the status-quo is to create a short-term contract similar to the contract that was cancelled by OPG. In a short-term deal, a contract should allow them to continue the status-quo for a short period of around two years. The short-term contract should also claim a somewhat premium price in order to spoil the \Short-term forever' option.
Having a short-tenn contract also provides additional benefits to Kincardine, one of which is a grace period. The Ontario Government signalled cost-cutting measures and increased fees to offset the large deficit it inherited. With a surge in recent economic activity, the government may be more willing to discuss possible deals on infrastructure more
- 32- SIJ
readily. Another benefit deals with the shake-up of OPG's executive management itself. With a new CEO arriving at the helm ofOPG, there will be a great deal ofpressure to cut back on costs and make new, reliable forecasts. By waiting until this shake-up has settled, greater OPG attention and resources can be put into making this deal possible.
3) Make Kincardine into a real offering Re-position itself as the community that accepts that nuclear waste for the good of whole Ontario as a well-informed decision. This positioning allows Kincardine to get away from any cost-based impact assessment that is not in its best interest for the long term because it is not in the role of passive accepter of the waste that only asks for compensation to offset the impact that is often tied to low cost drivers and sub-optimal results.
Acting for the good for whole Ontario to solve this trouble also has spin-offbenefits that are not quantifiable in pure monetary, cost tenns. For example, it can be setting the precedent for other Canadian community to follow for any future disposal. Considering the fact that many of the nuclear sites will enter a decommissioning process very soon, and that eight more nuclear generators are planed to be built to support Canada's economy, a welcoming, collaborative co1mnunity showing confidence in OPG distinguishes Kincardine among possible competition, and thus provides value to buyers including OPG and eventually Ontario government. And as we demonstrated in the net buyer benefit section, higher perceived value comes with premium price.·
Accepting the wastes as an infom1ed decision 1neans that Kincardine calculated the · scientifically proved minimum risk, does not resist to help waste owner solve the issue, and the community is willing to step further to start de-stigmatize the myth around nuclear power and its waste disposaL Carlsbad City in New Mexico state adopted this approach, and the collaboration has been working well. This is an ideal practice for Kincardine to learn from. 20
When the value proposition is defined, Kincardine can further investigate how to communicate the benefits to buyers. For example, having public relationship consultancy to educate and sellKincardine as a nuclear-energy-smart community with full growth potential and high quality of life to attract the waste owner, businesses, and people to the municipality.
4) Bring the Ontario Government into the negotiations The trend in US in disposing the equivalent nuclear wastes from 1965 to 1999 is that government agencies, in addition to facility/wastes owners, are having more direct involvement for the solution with the community due to the complexity implied. In fact, in virtually all successful comparables, government agencies took an active pati in the negotiations process.
This relationship-building exercise with government agencies is important not for the precedents is has set, but for the issue of core businesses. OPG' s core business is in energy
20 Source: "Why Carlsbad, New Mexico? A Small Town's Perspective on Hosting the Nation's First Radioactive Waste Repository" by Gary L. Perkowski, Mayor of City of Carlsbad. July 24, 200 l.
-33- generation, and not in hospital or school const.J.uctitm and supp01t. Kincardine's issue revolves around growth, an issue which OPG can help solve, but which the Ontario government is capable of doing better. As such, we see the Ontario government as the primary supplier of value to Kincardine. The facility being discussed is a one-tune event which will not require continuous contract negotiations. Therefore, as the single shareholder, the Ontario government may not see this as continuous subsidization for waste products.
Also, deregulation and privatization of power industry can really affect the strength and viability of originally state-owned incumbents. For example, British Energy in UK, privatized in 1996, has been undergoing financial distress due to strong competition, and independent watchdog institute is questioning private sector's ability to really manage up the long haul waste liability. This is another reason why the Ontario government should have direct involvement and endorsement of the effectiveness ofthe long tem1 solution, even in the event that if OPG could no longer perfonn its duties. In this worst scenario, Kincardine can be assured that the wastes will be well taken care of no matter what business volatility that OPG might go through.
Bringing the Ontario government mto the negotiation may prove difficult, especially as it wants OPG to act ind'ependently. For this reason, OPG may also be reluctant to have a tri party negotiation. In order to help convince OPG to brillg the government to the negotiating table, Kincardine can argue that historic wastes produced prior to 1999 (wastes produced 'Under Ontario Hydro), should not be the responsibility ofOPG, but of the fanner (and legal owner) of Ontario Hydro; this ·could be the OEFC. ·
. ' . A government endorsement, or other fonns of engagement, will redt1ce uncertainties and boost public confidence. It will sigi:lal to the community that the waste will be suitably managed for the long term. This can be an assurance that reduces Kincardine's difficulty in attracting new residents.
5) Expand Options to Create Value Create value for the parties involved for a long term relationship in areas such as planning and community involvement in the disposal facility's institutional control and destigma tizati on.
Considering the 1ong-tenn nature of the waste half-life, it is critical for Kincardine to keep a successful partnership with OPG to ensilre the wastes will be properly managed indefinitely. A partnership focuses on solving the issues, and not locking into positions. So when the parties involved focus their goals and efforts to solve the other party's issues, greater options for value is created. With the aim toward mutual success, Kincardine, OPG and the Ontario Government have challenges and pains that can be solved using each other's advantages. Kincardine's advantage is that its residents are relatively more successful in overcoming this stigma than the general public. For example, Kincardine can engage in efforts to build the public's trust and confidence in OPG and the Ontario government's handling of the waste issue:
- 34- S7r
Table 7- Overlapping benefits Can Provide But needs
Kincardine A cost effective envirom11ent -Economic & Population for waste disposal, free from Growth stigma that is perceived by - Infrastructure to attract other communities industry & populace OPG - Discounted power to - Stable operations for Kincardine to attract industry pennanent waste disposal. - Edu.cation programs to -Long-term solution teach energy alternatives, should a college open up. Ontario Government -Tax incentives for - Create a model of a industries to open facilities positive working in Kincardine. relationship. - infrastructure such as - decrease the fear associated hospitals and colleges, with nuclear power and including the personnel waste needed to run them - create an attractive atmosphere for competition to enter the energy markets.
Some examples of option expansion are identified:
i) tax-free status for a fixed number of years Kincardine can convince the Ontario Government to grant existing and incoming· industries tax-free (or tax incentives) to locate in Kincardine. The benefit ofthis approach is that new industries from the U.S. will see advantages in moviilg facilities up into Ontario, thereby increasing overall tax revenues where they were once non-existent.
ii) cheaper electricity costs for residents and industry We estimate that the distribution channel between OPG and power resellers such as Hydro One produces line losses in the range of 10%. These losses are priced into the invoices of the end customer. Since the Broce facility is within Kincardine, any line losses will be negligible. Kincardine may be eligible for price reductions of 10%, which will further attract industries to the community. ·
iii) Memorandum of Understanding to handle disposal wastes in 2034 Set up a working group to anticipate other needs in managing the decommission wastes to materialize in year 2034, and allow for future discussions of disposal wastes. In the instance OPG refuses, Kincardine can lay down a rule that if the facility is built and ready for operation in 2015, no waste will be allowed in until a solution for the decommissioning waste is fmalized (note, this does not mean that Kincardine needs to be a part of a plan for the decommissioning waste).
- 35- 9.2 Urgency & Importance Matrix The following matrix will outline the importance and urgency levels. of each task. Importance refers to the value of the task in relation to a positive outcome (it does not convey the need to do it right away however.) . Urgency refers to the significance in doing this task immediately (an urgent task may not need be important). · ·
Recommendation Urgency Importance 1. Spell out clearly what Kincardine wants alongside its developlnent Medium Medium goals 2. Increase the level of urgency foi· the deal Medlum High 3. Make Kincardine into a real offering Medlum High 4. Bring the Ontario Government into the negotiations High High 5. Expand Options to Create Value tow High
Note: This matrix highlights the imp01tance and urgency levels of our recommendations, and not the tasks laid out in the "Future Investigations" Section of Chapter 10.
9.3 w~aknesses of this report Chapter 8.1 provides samples of a few options available for expanding the value in a deal.
While this may sound good in theory, take note of drawbacks to this 1nethod:
e It does not fully address the issue of long~tem1 stigma. • It may seem that most of the benefits provided to Kincardine is from the Ontario Government, and not from OPG. • It gives little incentive for the other parties to keep their promises
Most of the value that Kincardine can get will need to come from the Ontario Government. In an effort to make OPG more marketable for shareholders, there may be little value exchange between OPG and the governinent through this deal. This posses a dilemma for the government as outsiders can interpret this deal as a further subsidization of OPG. This will also create an environment for artificially low cost for waste disposal (for OPG), possibly resulting; in inefficiently high volumes of waste sent to Kincardine (ie. With little incentive to reduce waste, OPG may find it more cost;.effective to reduce proces~:ing of the waste prior to disposal.). As for incentives to keep·promises, realize that the largest stigma will be upfront with the first unit of waste, after which the marginal stigma decreases significantly. Once the wastes are disposed of in Kincardine, incentive systems need to exist to ensure compliance with the goals of each stakeholder. OPG 's cancelling of the original contract shows a precedent of its willingness to cancel contracts unilaterally .. To mitigate this dilemma, Kincardine should investigate a deal structure that would provide incentives for all parties to work towards a goal. One example is the creation of a list of milestones that Kincardine would need to meet in the next 5 to 50 years. As Kincardine meets these growth objectives, OPG can decrease monetary support to
-36- ;;-;;
Kincardine, and the Ontario Government can start decreasing tax incentives. Both institutions will have an incentive to actively support Kincardine's growth objectives. Other areas of weakness in this report include lack of legal and political lobbying campaign procedures. The core competency of the ICFP team is in making and implementing strategic business decisions. The importance for legal and political lobbying strategy is high in the context ofthis deal.·
- 37. 10 Conclusions The initial mandate of this project called for valuing the opportunity to host a waste disposal facility in Kincardine. During our analysis we observed that Kincardine's strategy to pursue its perceived value from this opportunity may not produce optimal results, nor fully align with its development goals of economic and population growth. Principally, the team believes that disputing over a price tag will lead the negotiations into speculative, misguiding and highly arguable conflicts, focusing on concessions and delaying the agreement. As an alternative, this report outlines the team's view of a potentially more optimal result. The team steps further in providing some short-tem1 and long-tem1 action plans which Kincardine can take toward implementing the suggested alternative solution.
Figure 4 below depicts the team's observation of the negotiation and its goals. Kincardine's original strategy under discussion would lead to a result (Point A) that 111ay or may not be acceptable to Kincardine, but would not be optimal. The alternate strategy recommended in this report has the potential to produce a result which we believe will bring about greater value to Kincardine (Point B).
This report provides an altemate strategic direction and the initial steps to move forward. We recognize the existence of some unce1tainty beyond what the team can deliver on the full course of pursuit. Therefore, the following "Future Investigations" chapter provides a bridge to help Kincardine progress toward that goal. Kincardine might want to adopt its original path, but we would remind Kincardine that whatever it does, it should not engage in actions that would obstn1ct Kincardine's potential to reach the team's suggested solution.
Figure 4
- 38 - 11 Future Investigations The bulle of this report's analysis deals with the opportunity size-up between Kincardine and OPG, as well as the negotiating environment surrounding the talks. In this section, we will outline further topics that need pursuing in order to bridge the gap between this report, and the path leading to the fmal outcome.
1) Legal council on OPG's rights A possibility exists that OPG may continue to export its I,.L W!IWL wastes to Kincardine. In such an event, Kincardine may want to take a legal route to stop this dumping. In order to find the legalities of this alternative to OPG, Kincardine needs to consult with a lawyer to find out if OPG would actually be breaking any law. While by-laws may exist that can prevent private citizens from dumping their waste products on their own land, this may not be true in the case of OPG, who has a more specialized agreement with Kincardine. While there may be a possibility that OPG is perfectly within their rights to store waste from the Bruce facility within Kincardine, it may be interesting to fmd out if waste from the other facilities (Pickering and Darlington) are just as acceptable to store.
2) A talk with the ex-mayor of Deep River During the hist decade, OPG was in negotiations with Deep River with the purpose of finding a long-tenn disposal facility for the LL WI IL W. These talks broke down and were not pursued any further. It is in the interest of any future consultant to speak with officials from Deep River that were present for the negotiations at that time. The purpose would be to provide a clearer view of OPG's negotiating strategy (competitive versus collaborative), their offer, and the general negotiating enviromnent that lead to the collapse ofthe talks.
3) Review of the January 2004 Golder Report In January, 2004, Golder & Associates released a report to both Kincardine and OPG outlining their fmdings on a variety of topics including population acceptance statistics of a proposed disposal facility, estimated economic impact, and more. Wbile we have reviewed the report, we have not been able to fully analyze the fmdings. Some items to scrutinize in the report include:
i) Content and order of Questions asked to interviewees Some questions may be misleading, or may not be worded in a way that the interviewee may misinterpret or be lead to an answer.
ii) Characteristics of the interviewee base Is the sample size appropriate to malce an inference on the findings? Vlhere do they reside? Wbat is there age and general education level? Are any of these likely to lead to a skewed interpretation of the results?
iii) Interpretation of the results A quick view of the report shows little social-stigma to the cun-ent population residing in Kincardine. This is expected as the majority of individuals opposed to the nuclear facility would have moved away from the area decades before, leaving
- 39- those that accept the facility, and any stigma it brings. However, Kincardine's focus is on growth; therefore, is there sufficient data to answer the question if 'outsiders' are willing to come to Kincardine (both in the short and long~ term forecast?). The Report may come to a conclusion that there will be no effect on tourism, but this is not what Kincardine wants; Kincardine wants a positiv~ effect on tourism.
4) Source ofinfonnation The source of information for many of the rep01ts on the WWMF are paid for by OPG (see Appendix 11.7). It may be in the interest of Kincardine to use a greater variety of sources for consultancy purposes. Consultancy reports most cited in a negotiation need to be independently verified.
5) Review of the "A REVIEW OF IMPACTDFFSET PAYMENTS AROUND LIILW MANAGEMENT FACILITIES" report This document is a good document for collaborative~style negotiations. In reminding ourselves that Kincardine's issue is in economic and population growth, this document introduces ideas for 'expanding the pie' of available alternatives to pure monetary benefits. Some other thoughts on this rep01t: i) The survey took a very small sample (only 11 respondents) which is not statistically significant. The inability to get a larger sample is an indication that the world is still trying to define the rules for this impact offset. Thus, the report can be viewed as citing some examples or practices, but it's definitely not a consensus to follow. Kincardine should cite and combine from the best practices in the report that applies to K.incai·dine's context and can support its rationale. · ii) The survey only polled the facility owners/operators, and we don't hear the voice of hosting cmmnunities. What have they learned after agreeing their deals long time ago? What they would like to do differently if they were given the chance to do it again? iii) The Carlsbad City, New Mexico, US appears to be the more recent and best practices for Kincardine to learn from, though its waste type is a bit different. In essence~ the community actively tried to grow the value with the waste owner, and the results are mutually beneficiary to both the facility owner and the connmmity.
6) BA TNA Model~ Costs Generation If the BA TNA model of Chapter 7.2 is pursued, hard financial numbers must be filled into the model. Many ofthese numbers, including costs of drilling, training, transportation, etc., will not come from OPG willingly. Instead, these numbers should be found using alternate methods such as specialized consultants and industry experts. Secondly, this model must be applied to various alternatives that OPG has (i.e. disposal facility in Geraldton, Pickering, etc.) "While we have supplie~ some possible alternatives in OPG's arsenal, these alternatives are only educated guesses based on minimal economic costs and social resistance.
-40- ~-t_ I
7) Value Model- Options Generation As discussed in Chapter 8.0, 'Expanding the pie' is much more valuable and conducive to a positive negotiations atmosphere than is wrangling over monetru:y positions. By increasing the number of dimensions in the negotiation, a settlement that favours both sides is more likely attainable. ·
8) Create a resistance point for the negotiations If positional bargaining is pursued, a strong recommendation to the LLW waste committee of Kincardine is to settle on a 'resistance point'. A resistance point is a money-figure which, under no circumstances, the col.nmittee will agree to go below. If the committee sees a resistance point of $40 Million, then under no circumstances will the committee allow itself to go below this mark.
- 41 - 12 Table of Appendixes
12.1Appendix 1- Kincardine I. "The Corporation of the MunicipalitY ofKincardine Financial Stateme11ts", 2002 II. "Memorandum of understanding between Kincardine and Ontario Power Generation", April16, 2002 III. "Report to Council" Sep.9t11 2003
12.2 Appendix 2- WWMF I. OPG "Fact Sheets for Independent Assessment Report" II. OPG "Ontario Power Generation Fact Sheet" III. OPG, "Western Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility Backgroundinfom1ation" IV. OPG, "Ontario Power Generation Westem Waste Management Facility" V. OPG Western Waste Management Facility, "Report to the Joint Kincardine, Bruce Power, OPG Liaison Committee", September 19, 2001 VI.
12.3Appendix 3- OPG, OEFC & Related Information I. 2002 Annual report- Ontario Power Generation II. Long-tenn management of Ontario Power Generation's Low-Level Radioactive Waste,l999 III. www.ampco.org, "Ampco's Views on Stranded Debt", 2001 N. 2002 Annual Report- Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation
12.4 Appendix 4- Stigma I. The British Journal of Social Psychology, "Risk: from perception to social representation", 2003 II. Jodie Hierlmeier, "The enigma of stigma: A new enviromnental contamination challenge facing Canada's judiciary" 2002 III. Real Property Reports, "Tridan Development Ltd. V. Shell Canada Products Ltd"P141-143 IV. Ontario Rep01i, "Tridan Development Ltd. V. Shell Canada Products Ltd"PSOl- 511 V. "The impact of detrimental conditions on property values" VI. Richard A Nuestein and Randall Bell, Environmental Claims Journal, "Diminishing diminution: a trend in envirorunental stigma'\ 1998 VII. Material "Quicklaw" VIII. 91968 Canada Inc. V. La Ville Beaconsfield IX. Bustard Et AL. V. Irving Co. Ltd. X. Godfrey v. Good Richh Refining Co.Ltd. XI. Beierbach v. City ofMedicine Hat
-42- 12.5 App~ndix 5- Compensation! Comparable Schemes I. Siting Task Force "Review of host community incentives package", Februa.J.)' 1994 II. Siting TaskForce "Those who have negotiated community agreements recommend", November 1993 . III. Siting Task Force "Summal)' of five community agreements covering waste disposal projects", September 1993 IV. Enviros Consulting Ltd. "Terms ofreference- connnunity offsets and benefits", April 16th 2003 V. Vicki Been "Compensted siting proposals: is it time to pay attention? ", 1994 VI. Emil Kowalski and Valentin Egoloff, "Principle applying to compensation for services rendered in the public interest", 1994 VII. Gary L. Perkowski "Wby Carlsbad, New Mexico?", 2001 VIII. John Burl<, "Pennsylvania's c01mnunity partnering plan", 1996 IX. "Interim storage of low-level and intennediate-level waste in Finland", 1998
12.6 Appendix 6- General Nuclear & Nuclear Waste Information I. Micah D. Lowenthal, "Waste-acceptance criteria and risk-based thinking for radioactive-waste classification", 1998 II. Ali Mansouri, ''The Siting ofRationactive Waste Storage Facilities", 1994 III. IAEA, "Radioactive Waste Management Glossary 2003 Edition" 1V. Siting Task Force "Deep River commtmity agreement-in-principle", 1995 V. RADW ASTE Magazine . VI Jan Carlsson, "Nuclear Waste Management in Sweden", 1998 VII. Peter J. Pastorelle, "Environmentalism and low-level waste-the aftermath", 1995 VIII. Richard F. Paton, "The national low-level radioactive waste act: success or failure?", 1997 . IX. John R. Vinceti, "Interim storage is not long-term disposal", 1994 X. Caro Homibrook, "Epri's low-level waste management R&D program" XL "Update on low-level waste compacts and state agencies", 1995 Xll. William F. Newberry, Thomas A. Kerr, and David H. Leroy, "Assured storage facilities: a new perspective on LL W management" 1995 XIII. E. Michael Blake, "Crossroads or dead end: LL W Disposal in the United States" 1999 XIV. "Three perspectives on low-level waste", Radwaste Solutions, May/June 200D XV. OPG, '.'Nuclear Waste management: An Overview of Current Activities" Donna Pawlowski, November 2000 XVI. CNSC, "Information and Recommendations of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Staff", "Supplementary Information, Written Submission from Bmce Power Inc." In the matter of Ontario Power Generation Inc. Bruce Power Inc.", Aprill 0, 2003.
12.7 Appendix 7- Consultant Reports I. Golder Associates, "LLW Geotechnical Feasibility Study"
• 43- II. Golder Associates, "Status Report on Study ofLong-tennmanagement options at OPG's Western Waste Management Facility" 2003 III. Golder Associates, "Public Attitude Research Long-tenn Management of Low and Intennediate Level Radioactive Waste at the Westem Waste Management Facility" 2003 IV. Golder Associates, Newsletter Issue Nol, May 2003 V. Golder Associates, "Assessing possible options for the long-term mru.1agement of low and intennediate level radioactive waste at the Western Waste management Facility", May 2003 VI. Golder Associates, "Overview -Independent Assessment Study of Long-Tern1 Low and Intennediate Level Waste management Options';, May 2003 VII. Golder Associates, "Malcing a Decision on the Long-Tem1 Management Option", May 2003 VIII. Golder Associates, "h1temational Examples of Long-Tenn. Low and Intennediate Level Waste Management", May 2003 IX. Golder Associates, "Overview of Enhanced Processing, Treatment and Long Term Storage Option", May 2003 X. Golder Associates, "Overview of Long-Term Repository Options", May 2003 XI. Golder Associates, "Proposal to Prepare INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT REPORT on Long-te11i1 Management Options for LLW at OPG's Western Waste Management Facility", Februa1y 4, 2003 XII. Golder Associates, "Draft Repmi on Open Houses June 2003 Community Consultation Program Long-tenn Management of Low and Intermediate Level Waste Independent Assessment Sttidy", June 2003 . XIII. Golder Associates, "Community Consultation Plan. Long Tenn Low-level Waste Management Independent Assessment Report" March 4, 2003 XIV. Material from ZWILAG· Distribution of Money based on radius from disposal site. XV, Enviros Consulting Ltd "A Review of impact offset payment around L/IL W Management Facilities", 2004 XVI. Port Hope: "An agreernent for the cleanup and the long tenn safe management of low-level radioactive waste situate :in the town of Port Hope, the township of Hope and the municipality of Clarington"~2000. XVII. OPG, "Ontario Power Generation Western Waste Management Facility's Environmental Management System" . XVIII. OPG, "OPG Waste and Deconunissioning Plans, Cost Estimates and Financial Guarantee. Draft Presentation to CNSC". Aprill 0, 2003 . ·
12.8 Appendix s.. External Books Used I. Michael B. Gen-ard, "Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear and Fairness in Toxic and Nuclear Waste Siting", 1994 II. Roger Risher, "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In", 1991 III. Roy J. Lewicki, ''Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases", 2002 IV. Stephen R. Foerster, "Financial Management: a Primer", Final draft version.
-44- Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "Mail Delivery System"
This is the mail system
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
Ifyou do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
Received: from
Tue, 24 May 2016 16:05:17-0400 (EDT) Message-ID:
5/25/2016 Page 2 of2
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information ( CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire. Votre message a ete rec;:u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de l'agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 5/24/2016 4:08PM
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1 s-Jo John Mann
From: "Linda White"
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1 )]J John Mann
From: "Bettyanne Cobean"
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committees should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the County's website.
"If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies (electronic or otherwise). Thank you for your cooperation."
If you feel that this email was commercial in nature and you do not wish to receive further electronic messages from the County of Bruce, please click on the following link to unsubscribe: http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/machform/view.php?id=22357. Please be advised that this may restrict our ability to send messages to you in the future.
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Eugene Bourgeois"
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Akin, David"
Your message
To: Akin, David Subject: OPG's request to build a DGR consisting of 80% harmless clothes and rags requires immediate dismissal of the OPG DGR Application. Sent: May 24,2016 4:05:17 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on May 24,2016 7:00:54 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "The Office of Senator Hopgood"
Your message
To: The Office of Senator Hopgood Subject: OPG's request to build a DGR consisting of 80% harmless clothes and rags requires immediate dismissal of the OPG DGR Application. Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 4:05:17 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Wednesday, May 25,2016 10:57:46 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/25/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 5/24/2016 4:08 PM
5/25/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
May 28,2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, and Premier Wynne:
The following is a true story that rivals anything produced by Rod Serling:
10. The OPG DGR Application seeks approval from Minister McKenna to build a DGR at a cost of billions of Taxpayer dollars that will consist of 80% clothes and rags.
9. That's right, 80% of the proposed OPG DGR will be used to store the clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers without any special protection and without any special handling.
8. All experts agree that the clothes and rags do not need a DGR.
7. All experts agree that the clothes and rags can be incinerated.
6. All experts agree that the clothes and rags can be stored anywhere without special protection and without special handling.
5/28/2016 Page 2 of3
5. Vet after more than 10 years [more than a decade] of study, investigation, and absolute waste of Taxpayer dollars, OPG, NWMO, CNSC, and the Joint Review Panel have all determined that it is NECESSARY to bury these harmless clothes and rags 1 kilometer underground in order to protect the safety and health of all Citizens and the Environment, at an obscene Taxpayer waste of billions and trillions of dollars in the future!
4. In addition, OPG, NWMO, CNSC have convinced the Joint Review Panel that the DGR for harmless clothes and rags is the BEST ALTERNATIVE and that there is URGENCY that it be built immediately even though the extremely dangerous and highly radioactive spent fuel nuclear waste will remain stored above ground! Really!? Citizens and Taxpayers deserve better.
3. In response, and inexplicably, Minister McKenna has now Ordered OPG to study alternate DGR sites that should have been done in the first place and even though OPG had intentionally refused to investigate other sites for the 10 years it has been incompetently pursuing this boondoggle of all boondoggles. In 2004 the Municipality of Kincardine wanted money and OPG accommodated with the OPG DGR Hosting Agreement boondoggle at obscene Taxpayer expense. This Hosting Agreement represents government incompetence and reckless Taxpayer spending at the highest level.
2. Therefore, the question Peter Mansbridge or any Journalist must ask Minister McKenna boils down to this:
"Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct further studies of alternate DGR sites that will take at least 10 more years to complete, at further irresponsible obscene waste of Taxpayer dollars, when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere?"
1. More to the point:
"Who in their right mind would approve a clothes and rags DGR?" and "Who in their right mind would approve a clothes and rags DGR while spent fuel remains on the surface?"
Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, and Mr. Lyash, STOP THE MADNESS. It is your sworn duty and obligation that you owe to all Citizens and Taxpayers to respond and to be fiscally responsible when you are spending our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars. Send the Tax dollars to health, education, and legal aid. Dismiss the OPG DGR Application.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen Registered Participant Saugeen Shores, Ontario
5/28/2016 Page 3 of3
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Bon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 5/28/2016 8:21 PM
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Bettyanne Cobean"
I am currently out of the office scheduled to return Monday May 30th, 2016. If you require immediate assistance please call
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committees should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the County's website.
"If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies (electronic or otherwise). Thank you for your cooperation."
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re<;u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
5/28/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * *
For further inquiries, please direct your online message through https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/f~edback/default.aspx.
Confidentiality Warning: This email contains information intended only for the use of the individual named above. If you have received this email in error, we would appreciate it if you could advise us through the Premier's website at https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/feedback/default.aspx and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you. *******
Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s' ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de !'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re<;u a cette adresse.
5/28/2016 Page 2 of2
* * * Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez faire parvenir votre message en ligne a l'adresse https :/I correspondence. premier. gov. on.ca/fr/feedback/default. aspx.
Avis sur la confidentialite: Ce courriel contient des renseignements qui s'adressent uniquement ala personne nommee ci-dessus. Si vous avez revu ce courriel par erreur, nous vous saurians gre de nous en informer en utilisant le site Web de la premiere ministre a l'adresse suivante https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/fr/feedback/default.aspx et de detruire toutes les copies de ce message. Nous vous remercions.
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
Kristina-Premachuk@ceaa-acee. gc. ca
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1 <)Y5 John Mann
From: "Mail Delivery System"
This is the mail system at
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Bettyanne Cobean"
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committees should be aware that any personal information contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the County's website.
"If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies (electronic or otherwise). Thank you for your cooperation."
If you feel that this email was commercial in nature and you do not wish to receive further electronic messages from the County of Bruce, please click on the following link to unsubscribe: http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/machform/view.php?id=22357. Please be advised that this may restrict our ability to send messages to you in the future.
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Eugene Bourgeois"
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN)"
Your message
To: Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN) Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 6:30:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Saturday, May 28,2016 7:07:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Lynch, James"
Your message
To: Lynch, James Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2016 6:30:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Saturday, May 28, 2016 7:31:34 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Akin, David"
Your message
To: Akin, David Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: May 28,2016 6:30:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on May 28,2016 10:04:20 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "David Inglis"
Your message was read on May-30-16 12:38:25 PM UTC.
5/31/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Linda White"
5/3112016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Demers,Manon [CEAA]"
Your message
To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Jeffrey Lyash; Premier Wynne Cc: Aimee Puthon; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bernard Lord; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace; Dave Myette; David Akin; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Don Matheson; Eugene Bourgeois; Frances Learment; fsteve finch; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch; John Mann; John Rich; Ken Nash; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected]; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Chapman,Steve [CEAA] Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:30:37 -0400 was read on Mon, 30 May 2016 08:14:46-04000
5/31/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Demers,Manon [CEAA]"
Your message
To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Jeffrey Lyash; Premier Wynne Cc: Aimee Puthon; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bernard Lord; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace; Dave Myette; David Akin; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Don Matheson; Eugene Bourgeois; Frances Learment; fsteve finch; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch; John Mann; John Rich; Ken Nash; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected]; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Chapman, Steve [CEAA] Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:30:37 -0400 was read on Mon, 30 May 2016 08:02:46-04000
5/31/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Nash, Kenneth E."
Your message
To: Nash, Kenneth E. Subject: Minister McKenna, why are you requiring OPG to conduct alternate DGR site studies when it is undisputed that clothes and rags should not be buried in a DGR anywhere? And while spent fuel remains on the surface? Sent: Saturday, May 28,2016 6:30:37 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Sunday, May 29,2016 12:42:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
5/31/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Demers,Manon [CEAA]"
Your message
To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Premier Wynne; Jeffrey Lyash Cc: Frances Learment; Amanda Pfeffer; David Akin; Jim Lynch; Mike Strobel; MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Bettyanne Cobean; Scott Berry; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Pat Gibbons; Aimee Puthon; Cheryl Grace; John Rich; Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Chapman,Steve [CEAA]; Linda White; Ken Nash; Information (CNSC/CCSN); [email protected]; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Beverly Fernandez; John Mann; Bernard Lord; Kristina Premachuk; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Senator Hopgood; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Eugene Bourgeois Subject: OPG's request to build a DGR consisting of 80% harmless clothes and rags requires immediate dismissal of the OPG DGR Application. Sent: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:05:17-0400 was read on Tue, 31 May 2016 15:45:25 -04000
6/1/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
June 9, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Ken Nash, CEO and President of NWMO [formerly of OPG], and Premier Wynne:
Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine?
1. In its letter responding to Minister McKenna's Order to conduct alternate DGR site studies, OPG stated unconditionally:
"OPG maintains that a DGR is the right answer for Ontario's low and intermediate level waste, and that the Bruce site is the right location .... OPG is confident further studies will confirm this."
2. Therefore, why is OPG having NWMO conduct 21 separate DGR site studies related to high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has already determined that the best DGR site is the one at its
6110/2016 Page 2 of3 home base at Kincardine's Bruce Power nuclear facility? t(>?
3. Why is NWMO trying to find a second-rate DGR site that is not as good as the Kincardine DGR site?
4. Shouldn't the high level spent fuel be stored at the BEST DGR site? The answer is a resounding "Yes." Nevertheless, as a result of the prohibition of spent fuel in the proposed OPG DGR, OPG is proposing that the clothes and rags must be stored in the best DGR, while a DGR for spent fuel will never be approved because no one can afford to put the highly dangerous spent fuel in a substandard and inferior DGR compared to the DGR for clothes and rags, with its other commensurate problems of off site and security costs and dangerous hazards. The OPG DGR Application must be dismissed, but if it is not, at a minimum, this case must be remanded back to the Joint Review Panel for further Public Hearings related to this shocking revelation by OPG. Due Process and Citizens and Taxpayers require it.
5. And why did Kincardine prohibit spent fuel in the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags? What are Citizens and Taxpayers to think when Kincardine Council intentionally required that spent fuel nuclear waste be prohibited at the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags? Obviously something must be terribly wrong with putting spent fuel in the Kincardine OPG DGR otherwise the Kincardine Council would have allowed it. In addition, over the past 15 years through its literature campaign and Public Open Houses, OPG has adamantly, repeatedly, and forcefully convinced Citizens and Taxpayers that high level spent fuel was not coming to the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags. Why would OPG make such a big deal out of that when OPG had already determined that the proposed Kincardine DGR site is the best site for a DGR? Something is terribly wrong here. And nothing but resounding silence from all of our so-called "leaders/' while this travesty continues unabated!
[Side comment: And, by the way, where have you gone Albert Sweetnam formerly of World-wide embattled SNC-Lavalin, who directed the proposed OPG DGR to the brink of the JRP Public Hearings and then mysteriously disappeared without a trace, and without an explanation? We are still waiting for the Public and Judicial Inquiry into all of this.]
6. Why is OPG and NWMO content on burying clothes and rags in the best DGR site, while pursuing a lesser second-rate DGR site for the forever extremely dangerously radioactive spent fuel at a place that will require dangerous and hazardous transportation off-site, to a property not even owned by OPG, with the added security costs and burdens that could never confront the clothes and rags that merely need to be pitched into a DGR hole right next to the on-site facility where they are presently stored? Really?
7. Frankly, in my view, all Citizens and Taxpayers of Ontario and Canada require a refund of all monies spent on this boondoggle of all boondoggles, including all wages and compensation paid to those who orchestrated and continue this incompetence. OPG reiterated its relentless pursuit of this craziness today in its Delegation to Bruce County Council, without comment on any of the Citizen and Taxpayer concerns that have been raised only to be absolutely ignored by our so-called "leaders."
8. There is only one word that appropriately describes the failure to respond to the Citizens and Taxpayers raising these concerns: "DESPICABLE." Public Servants have the responsibility to meaningfully respond to the questions and concerns raised by Citizens and Taxpayers that employ them. A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to find out how this incomprehensible 2-Track 2-
6/10/2016 Page 3 of3 ?;r DGR process was allowed to get off the ground let alone continue. Citizens and Taxpayers require answers that will put an end to such wasteful and foolish spending here and in the future related to any government process. That is the silver lining that will benefit all. From there we can all meaningfully participate in our solemn obligation and duty on what to do with all levels of nuclear waste.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann Citizen Registered Participant Saugeen Shores
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN)"
Your message
To: Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN) Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Thursday, June 9, 2016 10:48:06 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "David Inglis"
Your message was read on June-10-16 12:49:30 AM UTC.
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Lynch, James"
Your message
To: Lynch, James Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Thursday, June 9, 2016 8:04:01 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Bettyanne Cobean"
Your message
To: Bettyanne Cobean Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: June 9, 2016 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on June 9, 2016 8:00:55 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
If you feel that this email was commercial in nature and you do not wish to receive further electronic messages from the County of Bruce, please click on the following link to unsubscribe: http://www.brucecounty.on.ca/machform/view.php?id=22357. Please be advised that this may restrict our ability to send messages to you in the future.
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Eugene Bourgeois"
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "fsteve fmch"
Your message
To: fsteve finch Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: June 9, 2016 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on June 9, 2016 7:25:59 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "LMT (Lisa Thompson)"
Your message
To: LMT (Lisa Thompson) Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: June-09-16 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on June-09-16 7:18:28 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 6/9/2016 7:14PM
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Mail Delivery System"
This is the mail system at
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
Ifyou do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
6/10/2016 John Mann
From: "Akin, David"
Your message
To: Akin, David Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: June 9, 2016 7:03:23 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on June 9, 2016 7:03:40 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Chapman, Steve [ CEAA]"
Je serai absentjusqu'au 13 juin. S.V.P. contacter Kristina Premachuk si vous avez besoin d'assistance au
I'll be out of the office until June 13. For assistance, please contact Kristina Premachuk at
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1 )7) John Mann
From:
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.
Delivery to the following recipients failed.
6/10/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * *
For further inquiries, please direct your online message through https :/I correspondence. premier. gov .on. calen/feedback/ default.aspx.
Confidentiality Warning: This email contains information intended only for the use of the individual named above. If you have received this email in error, we would appreciate it if you could advise us through the Premier's website at https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/feedback/default.aspx and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you.
*******
Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et j e vous suis reconnaissante d' a voir pris le temps de m' ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;:ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;:ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter 1'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite avotre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de !'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre res:u a cette adresse.
6/10/2016 Page 2 of2
* * * Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez faire parvenir votre message en ligne a l'adresse https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/fr/feedback/default.as~.
Avis sur la confidentialite: Ce courriel contient des renseignements qui s'adressent uniquement ala personne nommee ci-dessus. Si vous avez reyu ce courriel par erreur, nous vous saurions gre de nous en informer en utilisant le site Web de la premiere ministre a l'adresse suivante https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/fr/feedback/default.as~ et de detruire toutes les copies de ce message. Nous vous remercions.
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re~u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Linda White"
I will be out of the office on until Thursday, June 16th but will be checking my email periodically. If you require immediate assistance please contact Tracey Edwards
Linda White, Clerk Town of Saugeen Shores I Clerk
E
Individuals who submit letters and other information to Council and its Committee should be aware that any personal infonnation contained within their communications may become part of the public record and may be made available through the agenda process which includes publication on the Municipality's website.
This email and attached material is intended for the use of the individual or institution to which it is addressed and may not be distributed, copied or disclosed to other unauthorized persons. This material may contain confidential or personal information that may be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify me immediately at
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Demers,Manon [CEAA]"
Your message
To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Jeffrey Lyash; Premier Wynne; Ken Nash Cc: Aimee Puthon; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace; Dave Myette; David Akin; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Don Matheson; Eugene Bourgeois; Frances Learment; fsteve finch; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch; John Rich; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected]; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Chapman,Steve [CEAA]; John Mann Subject: Why is OPG and NWMO conducting 21 separate DGR site studies related to storing high level spent fuel nuclear waste when OPG has determined that the best DGR site is the one proposed at Kincardine? Sent: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 19:03:23 -0400 was read on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:01:53 -04000
6/10/2016 Page 1 of 5
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
June 27, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
1. Long ago on February 18, 2016, Minister McKenna Ordered OPG to provide studies for alternate sites for the DGR for clothes and rags.
2. Astonishingly, it took 2 more months for OPG to respond to Minister McKenna and finally did so by letter dated April15, 2016, suggesting that OPG would do a sham windshield review of 2 hypothetical sites that could never ever satisfy the Minister's required Order. In addition, OPG inexplicably sought guidance from the Minister on how to proceed despite the very clear direction in her Order that any Citizen understands.
3. It has now been over 2 months, and Minister McKenna has yet to reply to the inexplicable sham response offered by OPG. How is this remotely possible from our government public servants? On June 24, 2016, I finally was allowed to speak to a spokesperson at CEAA after trying since June 10, 2016 to get someone to explain why my recent Citizen submissions to the Minister were not being posted on
711/2016 Page 2 of 5 5'72 the DGR Public Registry for all Citizens to meaningfully review, meaningfully consider, and meaningfully respond to. I was finally informed that my submissions will be posted on the DGR Public Registry once the Minister outlines a brand new procedure that will be created and followed in her review process. The CEAA spokesperson expressed surprise that I had not received responses to my emails from the Minister and assured me that he would follow up with the Minister's office and that I would get responses. The spokesperson advised that the Minister responds to all inquiries from Citizens. I noted to the spokesperson that OPG had not received a reply from the Minister to its inexplicable sham response to the Minister's Order. I noted that this lack of response is unacceptable. Citizens and Taxpayers deserve better and certainly require better from government officials that have the privilege and honour to represent us, particularly when it is clear that our Taxpayer dollars are being unnecessarily squandered on an incompetent and irresponsible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle of all government boondoggles.
4. By her Order, Minister McKenna requires OPG to study alternate DGR sites that OPG was required to study initially in this DGR process. OPG should have been doing these studies simultaneously with its study of the proposed Kincardine site over the past 15 years. OPG has provided absolutely no explanation and no justification for its dismal failure to study alternate DGR sites. At a minimum OPG must study the 21 municipalities currently being studied by NWMO related to DGR sites for high level spent fuel nuclear waste. In addition, OPG must tender the DGR project to allow every Community and every municipality in Canada to bid on becoming a DGR site. The study of the proposed Kincardine DGR site took over 10 years, over a decade before OPG was able to propose it as a DGR site for review by the Joint Review Panel. Therefore Minister McKenna's Order requires an adjournment ofthe review proceedings of more than 10 years to study the various DGR sites and to further study how all the proposed sites relate to one another to come up with the very best site. At a minimum our Community, Flint, and the protection of the Great Lakes require it. Of course it makes no sense to duplicate studies currently ongoing and conducted by NWMO. To hold otherwise is like burying Taxpayer dollars in its own DGR- and any government official that endorses that line of study should immediately resign.
5. And what is OPG's irresponsible sham response to Minister McKenna:
"OPG maintains that a DGR is the right answer for Ontario's low and intermediate level waste, and that the Bruce site is the right location .... OPG is confident further studies will confirm this."
OPG is saying that no matter what studies are done, the Bruce site will be the right location for the DGR. OPG has confirmed in writing that no matter what studies are done OPG will make sure that any findings will confirm OPG's pre-determined bias that the Bruce site is the best DGR site. As a result OPG has inexplicably confirmed in writing that the Minister will not be able to find any study performed by OPG to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy. In other words, OPG has confirmed that it will engage in only "confirmation bias" studies, making every study meaningless, a sham, and of no value pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Court of Appeal Justice Goudge's Inquiry into expert evidence.
6. In addition, OPG makes the further irresponsible sham response to Minister McKenna:
"OPG will assess the environmental effect of TWO technically and economically feasible locations in Ontario for a new nuclear waste disposal facility. One assessment will consider a similar DGR in a
7/112016 Page 3 of 5 )79 sedimentary rock formation located in southern Ontario. The second will consider a similar DGR in a granite rock formation located in central to northern Ontario. SPECIFIC LOCATIONS WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED."
OPG is saying that it is only going to do a sham windshield appraisal of 2 "hypothetical" DGR sites. Absolutely meaningless, a sham, and of no value. And it will take OPG only a few months to conduct these sham studies and not the 10 years required for a study.
7. The next irresponsible sham response by OPG to Minister McKenna:
"OPG commits to completing further DGR studies by year-end [December 31, 2016]."
OPG commits to completing 2 studies within a few months, when one study requires at least 10 years to complete. It is impossible for OPG to complete 2 studies in less than 10 years. If it is possible to perform a DGR site study in a few months as proposed, OPG officials must personally reimburse all Citizens and Taxpayers for wasting our money over the past 15 years studying only Kincardine. As a result, OPG has confirmed in writing that it is not going to perform the studies required by Minister McKenna. And Minister McKenna does not respond. It has been more than 2 months and Minister McKenna has no response! What is going on? In my view, the OPG sham response is contemptuous of Minister McKenna's Order and requires immediate dismissal ofthe OPG DGR Application because of OPG's overwhelming bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias in favour of OPG's proposed DGR site in Kincardine, making everything OPG has heretofore presented as not reliable, not credible, and not trustworthy.
8. Despite OPG not being able to read and understand the clear language of the Minister's Order to conduct these extensive studies, and despite receiving no reply from the Minister, OPG has been updating our local Community councils and elected officials on the status of its OPG DGR Application. An OPG spokesperson recently has informed Huron-Kinless Council that the OPG DGR Application has been temporarily hampered by Minister McKenna's Order for further studies. Rather than doing actual studies that are required by the Minister's Order, the OPG spokesperson stated on June 22, 2016:
"We are looking at geologic regions, we're not seeking additional or new host communities; we're only considering it hypothetically from a geologic perspective."
So OPG views Minister McKenna's Order as temporarily hampering its mission to pursue its DGR in Kincardine. This is highlighted by the contempt OPG has toward Minister McKenna's Order where they will merely consider sham hypothetical geologic regions that are absolutely meaningless and do not in any way assist the Minister in the studies that are required and have been required from the outset of this boondoggle process commenced 15 years ago.
9. Incomprehensibly, an OPG spokesperson who presented a similar DGR update to Kincardine Council refused to speak to the media. The News Bayshore Reporter summed it up best in the following tweet:
"OPG spokesperson makes a public presentation on DGR update in Kincardine but couldn't speak to the media about it. Huh?"
Huh?
10. So OPG has no intention of performing any legitimate and exhaustive studies Ordered by Minister McKenna.
7/1/2016 Page 4 of 5 5?o Minister McKenna has no response to OPG's contempt of her Order. Minister McKenna has not responded even after 2 months. Thus, Minister McKenna must be content with OPG's proposed meaningless path forward regarding inexplicable and meaningless hypothetical studies [2] that OPG has already predetermined are not as good as the only proposed site studied in Kincardine where coincidentally the nuclear waste has already been stored for over 50 years above ground. It must be a miracle. It defies common sense to think that Minister McKenna was concerned about hypothetical studies when she made her thoughtful Order. For our government officials to treat Citizens and Taxpayers with such disdain and contempt is despicable. What would the Framer's of the Charter think of this conduct toward Citizens and absolute waste of Taxpayer dollars? Is this the vision the Framer's anticipated?
11. In all of the circumstances, I am certain that Minister McKenna will not be able to find any necessity for the OPG DGR consisting of 80% clothes and rags worn and used by nuclear workers that do not require any special protection or any special handling and can be incinerated to dust. I am also certain that Minister McKenna will not be able to find any urgency for the OPG DGR to be built prior to a DGR for spent fuel. One commentator highlights this in the following statement:
"Bruce Power is planning to rebuild reactors, beginning sometime after 2020 but near enough that date and to produce electricity at the site for at least another 40 years. Meanwhile, the last waste produced by the reactors in 2060-65 will need to sit in pools for at least another 15 years and then in dry storage for another period of time. That takes us to a timeframe between 2080 and 2090, 75 years from now. Nuclear fuels wastes, the most deadly of all, will sit on this site at least until then. That gives us all at least 75 years before any DGR at all is necessary, if, indeed, any DGR is necessary. OPG has stated during the Hearings that used fuel wastes can be permanently stored with low- and intermediate-level wastes, meaning that there is at present, as well as for the foreseeable future, any need for a DGR for mops and rags. Even these mops and rags are not what they seem because they are regularly incinerated to become ash. So we are dealing with ash that stored in metal containers which, in turn, is stored in simple buildings. Meanwhile, the first low- and intermediate-level wastes produced by OPG will now be more than 100 years old, a period of time when it will become available for free release to the environment, according to Jerry Keto of OPG."
Furthermore, the following comment requires Minister McKenna to dismiss the OPG DGR Application:
"[OPG's] current plan is to bury all of Ontario's nuclear wastes right here in lnverhuron underneath Lake Huron. For the moment they claim they will not include used fuel wastes but that is hardly a believable story. The Type 3 Intermediate-level wastes slated for this dump have exactly the same radiological characteristics as used fuel. The low-level wastes they plan to bury in this Taj Mahal of a dump (costing their estimate of $2.65 Bas opposed to $648 M for above ground storage that they claim can be safely stored this way for the long-term) will have lost approximately half of its radioactivity by the time the dump is built and the wastes that were first produced will have almost no radioactivity by the time nuclear operations are slated to be finished at this site. Every Deep Geologic Repository (as this is called- DGR) built to date on the planet has failed, with the longest-lasting one failing after a mere 15 years. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC- the nuclear regulator) claim that it would make no difference to the safety of the drinking water for 40 million people if the entire radiological content of this deep cavern were to leak into the lake (which kind of begs the question as to why we need such a dump at all). In fact, this is the final plan for these wastes: only the time-frame is in question. They claim it will take a million years Uust like WIPP in the US did before that failed after just 15 years) but every underground nuclear waste site OPG has built so far has leaked radioactivity into the groundwater, including immediately for their Radioactive Waste Operating Site 2. Please join us all in opposing this plan. These wastes, because of the inclusion of long-lasting intermediate level wastes, will continue to be radioactive for millions of years, and dangerously so for hundreds of thousands. Innocent people should not have this outrageous situation forced on them."
12. As a result, dismiss the OPG DGR Application.
Most Respectfully,
711/2016 Page 5 of5
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
Saugeen Shores
7/1/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
June 30, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
The Citizens and Taxpayers that you have the privilege and honour to work for again have received no response to our June 27, 2016 email and previous emails. How can you be so disrespectful?
In the meantime, OPG has given an update on Minister McKenna's Order related to the DGR to my Saugeen Shores council.
How can OPG conclude in its current DGR update that Minister McKenna will approve its Kincardine DGR Application based upon 2 hypothetical sham DGR studies that have not yet been conducted?
1. OPG confirmed that it is conducting 2 hypothetical studies. Hypothetical means "conjectural" and means "a conclusion deduced by guesswork." Is this what Minister McKenna requires to conduct her OPG DGR Application review? Apparently since Minister McKenna does not respond or reply to OPG's ludicrous sham response to the Minister's Order.
711/2016 Page 2 of3 )J>3
2. Adding further insult and disrespect to Citizens and Taxpayers, OPG confirms that its meaningless studies will only take a few months to complete. Obviously, alternate DGR site studies have always been required to find the best DGR site possible. For the DGR site studies to have any value whatsoever, they must be conducted in the same rigorous manner advertised by OPG when it was selling the Kincardine DGR site location to our Community and the Joint Review Panel. For that to happen, the alternate DGR site studies must go through the full 10 years study process and not some hypothetical, conjecture, guesswork that can be conducted in a few short months.
3. If a few short months is all that is necessary to determine the best site possible for a DGR, we Citizens and Taxpayers demand a full refund from government officials that have wasted our time and wasted our Taxpayer dollars conducting an unnecessary DGR site study in Kincardine.
4. In any event, OPG confirms the following "Conclusions":
"OPG is on track to provide the Minister of Environment and Climate Change the requested information by end of 2016. This will enable the Minister to approve the Environmental Assessment and allow a construction licence to be issued."
Therefore, just as myself and other Citizens and Taxpayers have concluded, this OPG DGR Application is a done deal, and the government is going to approve it no matter what.
6. All Citizens and Taxpayers need to see what information OPG has received that allows OPG to make this bold "conclusions" statement with so much certainty. How does OPG know that the "hypothetical" sham DGR site studies will confirm for Minister McKenna that the Kincardine DGR site is the best? After all, the alternate DGR site studies have yet to be done- Right?
7. Therefore, please consider this a Freedom of Information request and provide me and all Citizens and Taxpayers with all documentation related to Minister McKenna's Order and follow up to date. Something is terribly wrong! A Public and Judicial Inquiry is required. Minister McKenna must remand this entire process back to the Joint Review Panel so that Citizens and Taxpayers can test all of this debacle through rigorous cross-examination.
8. OPG also confirms that "OPG will collaborate with NWMO [created by OPG, and 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees] and with SON to best understand any potential effects within their traditional territory." Citizens and Taxpayers need to know why OPG will not collaborate with NWMO [created by OPG, and 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees] and study alternate DGR sites together? After all NWMO is 3 to 4 years into studying 21 DGR sites for spent fuel. Which begs the question, if it is only taking a few months for OPG to conduct 2 DGR site studies, why is it going to take NWMO at least 10 years to conduct its studies? Which further begs the question, why not find out where to bury the spent fuel and throw everything into the same radioactive grave? Which further and further begs the question, why not at the very least have OPG study the 21 sites NWMO is studying for spent fuel? There are many advantages to doing so, not the least of being the alternate DGR site study would actually be of a real honest to goodness proposed site that we all could compare with the already OPG anointed Kincardine consecrated DGR site, and would not have the disadvantage of being a meaningless sham hypothetical study based solely on conjecture and guesswork. One thing is certain,
7/1/2016 Page 3 of3 t:;ll'y OPG is expert in DGR conjecture and guesswork, but that expertise will not assist Minister McKenna who has to rely upon actual real and rigorous DGR site studies and not hypothetical sham DGR site studies based upon pure speculation.
9. Finally [for the time being] OPG confirms that it will also provide other information requested by Minister McKenna related to a cumulative effects update wherein this study assumes a used fuel repository is within the DGR study area. The obvious question to all Citizens and Taxpayers and to everyone, except OPG, is:
"Hey, why don't we wait for NWMO's studies to be completed along with a presentation of a proposed final DGR site for spent fuel and throw everything [low and intermediate nuclear waste] into the same DGR."
What a novel idea. That's exactly the way it has been safely stored together above ground for over 50 years. Why not do the same underground? And then there is no need to even consider cumulative effects that are obviously detrimental otherwise why would Minister McKenna question OPG's woeful lack of response to this crucial point. As it stands now, the cumulative effects can only be speculated on by conjecture and guesswork, similar to the 2 alternate DGR site studies proposed by OPG! This inept, incompetent and incomprehensible DGR process requires dismissal of the OPG DGR Application. Start spending Citizen and Taxpayer dollars in a responsible manner.
10. As a result, dismiss the OPG DGR Application.
11. Happy Canada Day!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
Saugeen Shores
7/1/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Mail Delivery System" <
This is the mail system at
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance/ please send mail to postmaster.
If you do S01 please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
< [email protected] >: connect to ceaa.ca[185.53.178.19]:25: Connection timed out
-a..cee.Jc..c~ ---
7/5/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
From: John Mann Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:15PM To: Han. Catherine McKenna ; CEAA National Programs Div. conditions; Prime Minister Trudeau ; Jeffrey Lyash ; Premier Wynne ; Ken Nash Cc: Aimee Puthon ; Amanda Pfeffer ; barb ; Bettyanne Cobean ; Beverly Fernandez ; Capitan my Capitan ; Cheryl Grace ; Dave Myette ; David Akin ; Demers Manon ; Don Matheson ; Eugene Bourgeois ; Frances Learment ; fsteve finch ; Heather [CEAA] Smith ; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch ; John Rich ; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau ; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson ; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith ; Mayor Weaver; Michael Binder; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden) ; MP Ben Lobb ; MPP Lisa Thompson ; Neil Menage ; Pat Gibbons ; [email protected] ; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell ; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood ; Steve Chapman ; Kurt Saunders; John Mann Subject: How can OPG conclude in its current DGR update that Minister McKenna will approve its Kincardine DGR Application based upon 2 hypothetical sham DGR studies that have not yet been conducted?
June 30, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
The Citizens and Taxpayers that you have the privilege and honour to work for again have received no response to our June 27, 2016 email and previous em ails. How can you be so disrespectful?
In the meantime, OPG has given an update on Minister McKenna's Order related to the DGR to my Saugeen Shores council.
How can OPG conclude in its current DGR update that Minister McKenna will approve its Kincardine DGR Application based upon 2 hypothetical sham DGR studies that have not yet been conducted?
1. OPG confirmed that it is conducting 2 hypothetical studies. Hypothetical means "conjectural" and means "a conclusion deduced by guesswork." Is this what Minister McKenna requires to conduct her OPG DGR Application review? Apparently since Minister McKenna does not respond or reply to OPG's ludicrous sham response to the Minister's Order.
2. Adding further insult and disrespect to Citizens and Taxpayers, OPG confirms that its meaningless studies will only take a few months to complete. Obviously, alternate DGR site studies have always been required to find the best DGR site possible. For the DGR site studies to have any value whatsoever, they must be conducted in the same rigorous manner advertised by OPG when it was selling the Kincardine DGR site location to our Community and the Joint Review Panel. For that to
7/5/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
From: John Mann Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:15PM To: Han. Catherine McKenna ; CEAA National Programs Div. conditions ; Prime Minister Trudeau ; Jeffrey Lyash ; Premier Wynne ; Ken Nash Cc: Aimee Puthon ; Amanda Pfeffer ; barb ; Bettyanne Cobean ; Beverly Fernandez ; Capitan my Capitan ; Cheryl Grace ; Dave Myette ; David Akin ; Demers Manon ; Don Matheson ; Eugene Bourgeois ; Frances Learment ; fsteve finch; Heather [CEAA] Smith ; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch ; John Rich ; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson ; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson ; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith ; Mayor Weaver; Michael Binder; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel ; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected] ; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell ; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Steve Chapman; Kurt Saunders; John Mann Subject: How can OPG conclude in its current DGR update that Minister McKenna will approve its Kincardine DGR Application based upon 2 hypothetical sham DGR studies that have not yet been conducted?
June 30, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
The Citizens and Taxpayers that you have the privilege and honour to work for again have received no response to our June 27, 2016 email and previous emails. How can you be so disrespectful?
In the meantime, OPG has given an update on Minister McKenna's Order related to the DGR to my Saugeen Shores council.
How can OPG conclude in its current DGR update that Minister McKenna will approve its Kincardine DGR Application based upon 2 hypothetical sham DGR studies that have not yet been conducted?
1. OPG confirmed that it is conducting 2 hypothetical studies. Hypothetical means "conjectural" and means "a conclusion deduced by guesswork." Is this what Minister McKenna requires to conduct her OPG DGR Application review? Apparently since Minister McKenna does not respond or reply to OPG's ludicrous sham response to the Minister's Order.
2. Adding further insult and disrespect to Citizens and Taxpayers, OPG confirms that its meaningless studies will only take a few months to complete. Obviously, alternate DGR site studies have always been required to find the best DGR site possible. For the DGR site studies to have any value whatsoever, they must be conducted in the same rigorous manner advertised by OPG when it was selling the Kincardine DGR site location to our Community and the Joint Review Panel. For that to
7/5/2016 Page 1 of5
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
From: John Mann Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:00 AM To: Han. Catherine McKenna ; CEAA National Programs Div. conditions ; Prime Minister Trudeau ; Jeffrey Lyash ; Premier Wynne ; Ken Nash Cc: Aimee Puthon ; Amanda Pfeffer ; barb ; Bettyanne Cobean ; Beverly Fernandez ; Capitan my Capitan ; Cheryl Grace ; Dave Myette ; David Akin ; Demers Manon ; Don Matheson ; Eugene Bourgeois ; Frances Learment ; fsteve finch ; Heather [CEAA] Smith; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch ; John Rich; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White ; Luke Charbonneau ; Mayor Buckle ; Mayor Eadie ; Mayor Eagleson ; Mayor Inglis ; Mayor Jackson ; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith ; Mayor Weaver; Michael Binder; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected] ; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell ; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood ; Steve Chapman ; Kurt Saunders ; John Mann Subject: OPG's sham study proposal to Minister's Order requires dismissal of OPG DGR Application.
June 27, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
1. Long ago on February 18, 2016, Minister McKenna Ordered OPG to provide studies for alternate sites for the DGR for clothes and rags.
2. Astonishingly, it took 2 more months for OPG to respond to Minister McKenna and finally did so by letter dated April15, 2016, suggesting that OPG would do a sham windshield review of 2 hypothetical sites that could never ever satisfy the Minister's required Order. In addition, OPG inexplicably sought guidance from the Minister on how to proceed despite the very clear direction in her Order that any Citizen understands.
3. It has now been over 2 months, and Minister McKenna has yet to reply to the inexplicable sham response offered by OPG. How is this remotely possible from our government public servants? On June 24, 2016, I finally was allowed to speak to a spokesperson at CEAA after trying since June 10, 2016 to get someone to explain why my recent Citizen submissions to the Minister were not being posted on the DGR Public Registry for all Citizens to meaningfully review, meaningfully consider, and meaningfully respond to. I was finally informed that my submissions will be posted on the DGR Public Registry once the Minister outlines a brand new procedure that will be created and followed in her review process. The CEAA spokesperson expressed surprise that I had not received responses to my emails from the Minister and assured me that he would follow up with the Minister's office and that I would get responses. The spokesperson advised that the Minister responds to all inquiries from Citizens. I noted
7/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Kurt Saunders"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/5/2016 4:30PM
7/5/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Kurt Saunders"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/5/2016 4:30PM
7/5/2016 Laurie Swami Senior Vice President Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Management
------·------··------.. - 1340 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L 1V OC4 Tel.
Apri115, 2016
CD#: 00216-CORR-00521-00004
MR. RON HALLMAN President Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3
Dear Mr. Hallman,
OPG's Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project- Further Studies to Support Environmental Assessment Decision
Reference: 1. Minister of Environment and Climate Change letter, Honourable Catherine McKenna to L. Swami, "Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project," February 18, 2016, CD# 00216-CORR-00521-00003.
This letter is to inform the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) of Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) response plan and when OPG will be submitting the information requested in a recent letter from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change [Reference 1]. Further, this letter seeks confirmation that OPG's response plan will meet the objectives set out in the Minister's request.
OPG will provide the additional information requested by year-end, 2016.
The following provides OPG's understanding and response plan for each of the three elements of the request:
1. Alternate Locations
OPG has interpreted this request as follows: OPG will assess the environmental effects of two technically and economically feasible geologic regions in Ontario for a new low and intermediate level waste (L&ILW) disposal facility. One assessment will consider a deep geologic repository located in a sedimentary rock formation located in southern Ontario. The second will consider a deep geologic repository located in a granite rock formation located in central to northern Ontario. This study will describe what is meant by technical and
~·· ,, .· :' Mr. Ron Hallman April 15, 2016 CD# 00216-CORR-00521-00004 ;._, 'f -z.,.
economic feasibility and document how those criteria were applied. It will also examine the incremental environmental effects, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and costs of acquiring lands and establishing these facilities in the two geologic regions in Ontario. As well, the assessment will examine the incremental costs and risks for repackaging and off-site transportation of the nuclear waste, this will include an assessment of conventional and radiological safety.
2. Cumulative Effects Analysis
The Nucl.ear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is leading a multi-year site selection process for a used fuel repository and is currently studying potential areas across Ontario. As such, there is no specific plan for a used fuel repository in southern Ontario at this time. However, for the purpose of responding to this request, OPG will assess the cumulative effects of a hypothetical used fuel repository on the L&ILW DGR, within the boundaries of the DGR study area for those communities that are active in the NWMO siting process and which lie within the Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON) traditional territory (i.e. Huron-Kinloss and South Bruce). The cumulative effects assessment will be based on the same identified residual effects for the L&ILW DGR as described in the 2011 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
OPG will continue to collaborate with the SON under existing OPG-SON protocols to determine how best to consider any potential cumulative effects within their traditional territory.
3. Mitigation Commitments
OPG will undertake a review of its mitigation commitments and mitigating actions for each identified adverse effect under CEAA 2012. Commitments that were previously brought forward to the Panel will be identified as well as any new ones identified in the reponses to this information request.
OPG seeks CEAA confirmation of OPG's understanding and response plan to address the Minister's request. Further, OPG requests clarity regarding the post submission review and acceptance process.
Sincerelv.
Laurie Swami Senior Vice President Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Management
cc: Dr. Michael Binder - President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission R. Jammal - CNSC (Ottawa) D. Newland - CNSC (Ottawa)
2 Page 1 of 4
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 8, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, and Ken Nash, President of NWMO:
Why is OPG proceeding with its sham alternate DGR site studies prior to Minister McKenna's response to OPG's request for confirmation of its proposed plan?
1. Minister McKenna has refused to publicly disclose any reply or response to OPG's incomprehensible response on April15, 2016, to Minister McKenna's clear Order for DGR site studies, wherein OPG merely said OPG was going to perform 2 sham hypothetical DGR site studies. OPG was obviously aware that the proposed 2 sham DGR site studies would not be what Minister McKenna wanted and certainly would not be of any benefit to her in the Minister's review. As a result, OPG was hoping to get away with doing the sham studies because doing proper studies would open up at least 21 proposed DGR municipalities already being considered by NWMO, and OPG was concerned that such studies would derail OPG's proposed DGR Application and add at least 10 more years to the never-ending process requiring further JRP Public Hearings more than a decade from now. OPG recognized its failed proposal immediately by including the following tepid inquiry of Minister McKenna that tempers OPG contempt
7/8/2016 Page 2 of4 of the Minister's Order:
"OPG seeks CEAA confirmation of OPG's understanding and response plan to address the Minister's request. Further, OPG requests clarity regarding the post submission review and acceptance process."
It is now July 8, 2016, almost 3 months later, and Minister McKenna has yet to respond to this OPG request for confirmation on its proposed path forward! This 2-Track 2-DGR fraud and boondoggle has created a culture of mistrust in our government by Citizens and Taxpayers. Why hasn't Minister McKenna responded to OPG? Minister McKenna is a lawyer, and she has an obligation and duty to respond to OPG as Minister of the Environment. This lack of trust is highlighted by the fact that OPG has recently within the past month presented its proposed sham plan to various government councils in our Community and confirmed that it will have its sham plan completed for review by October, a mere few months away, instead of the 10 year minimum required for actual DGR site studies. This Public confirmation by OPG highlights the fact that OPG must have received the green light to proceed from Minister McKenna. Obviously, however, it would be inappropriate for Minister McKenna to secretly communicate with OPG without publicly disclosing any communication in the same fashion that Minister McKenna disclosed her February 18, 2016, Order to OPG to conduct the required DGR site studies. That is why I have requested pursuant to Freedom of Information Act any and all documentation between the Minister and her agents [CEAA etc.] and OPG related to the DGR. [no response to my FOI request yet]. If the Minister has not given the green light to OPG, the question becomes: "Why would OPG proceed prior to receiving an answer from Minister McKenna clarifying and accepting OPG's proposed plan." What would a reasonable person think? A reasonable person would think that something is terribly wrong with the DGR process and a reasonable person would not be able to trust anything that government did in that process. Shameful!
2. The Citizens and Taxpayers that you have the privilege and honour to work for have yet again received no response to yet another email in an endless stream, the latest being our email sent to you on June 30, 2016. How can you be so disrespectful? What would a reasonable Citizen and Taxpayer think about all of this and after considering the following?: After suffering through 7 years of unlawful secret DGR meetings by our Bruce County Council, we Citizens and Taxpayers have now come to expect this despicable conduct by our government leaders and officials. When Citizens and Taxpayers hear that our government is going to be "transparent" and "open" related to the DGR, we all immediately know that our government is hiding something from us. It goes without saying that true /{government" automatically means "open and transparent." Therefore when /{government" has to tell Citizens it is going to be "open and transparent" something must be terribly wrong with the Democratic process. The 2-Track 2-DGR process is a fraud. Instead of being "open and transparent" and answering our legitimate and critical DGR questions and concerns, you all were probably celebrating on July 1 our wonderful Charter that allows everyone to enjoy our Free and Democratic Society. And the Charter's primary visionary just happened to be Justin's Dad. Rather than merely celebrating the July 1 holiday, we would rather you all practice what the Charter preaches- a Free and Democratic Society where everyone has a MEANINGFUL voice that is MEANINGFULLY considered, MEANINGFULLY reviewed, and MEANINGFULLY incorporated into all of your decisions. A Free and Democratic Society does not mean that a Citizen merely gets to vote for our elected officials who then can carry on in any way they personally see fit. But obviously that is what is going on with regard to the infamous 2-Track 2-DGR process. Otherwise, you would respond immediately to our seemingly endless
7/8/2016 Page 3 of4 t:;j) outcries for Justice and responsibility to our finite and precious Taxpayer dollars that you [unfortunately as it turns out] are entrusted to protect and preserve and to spend WISELY. Instead we Citizens and Taxpayers are left with nothing but despicable silence from our silent elected officials and so-called LEADERS and silent bureaucrats who are paid seemingly unlimited amounts of money for ignoring us. Why? Because if our so-called LEADERS responded to our crucial questions the ONLY response would have to be to pull the plug on this inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR process that is best described as the number one government BOONDOGGLE of all boondoggles -a complete and total waste of Citizens' and Taxpayers' time and money that could be easily transferred to a 1-Track 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste, with the resulting Citizen and Taxpayer savings in the Billions and Billions of dollars which would then be available to our starving Health, Education, and Legal Aid budgets. The following points illustrate and highlight the absurdity and the absolute lack of any thought on behalf of our government leaders in continuing with the mindless 2- Track 2-DGR fraud on the Taxpayer dollar: a. Why isn't NWMO studying a DGR site for spent fuel right next to OPG's DGR site for clothes and rags at Bruce Power in Kincardine? After all OPG created NWMO, OPG owns 95% of NWMO, and OPG and NWMO have interchangeable employees, and OPG owns the land at the proposed DGR sites [unlike at the other 21 proposed DGR sites]. Furthermore, OPG has already pre-determined without any study whatsoever that the proposed OPG DGR site for clothes and rags is the best DGR site in Canada! Should we not also put the most radioactively dangerous nuclear waste [spent fuel] in the best DGR? And after all Kincardine council in their wisdom unanimously required that the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags PROHIBITED high level spent fuel nuclear waste to be stored with the clothes and rags in the same hole. Apparently Kincardine council was concerned that the spent fuel might adversely taint the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste and harm the future use of the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste over geologic time as it remains abandoned on the shores of Lake Huron forever. And apparently Kincardine council was concerned that the spent fuel could not be placed in the same hole for burial below ground even though it has been safely stored compatibly with the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste above ground in the same facility for the past 50 years [half-Century]. It logically follows that Kincardine council would welcome a second DGR for spent fuel right next to the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags because the barriers that are proposed for saving our Lake Huron and the Great Lakes from nuclear radiation ruin will be equally adequate in saving the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste from exposure and taint from spent fuel in the future for all time. That should give the Kincardine council all the comfort they need to protect the clothes and rags in the future which was the basis for requiring 2 DGRs in the first place. And the real plus in all of this is that the spent fuel is already stored on site and will not have to be dangerously transported through our Community to a second DGR a few miles away at South-Bruce or Huron Kinless, or a few hundred miles away at some of the other 21 DGR sites being studied by NWMO at extravagant Citizen and Taxpayer time and cost. It sounds like a win-win for everybody!- if you are in favour of government boondoggles and absolute waste of Citizen and Taxpayer dollars! Who in their right mind would allow 2 separate and independent DGRs to be built side-by-side for twice the billions and billions of Taxpayer dollars, when 1 DGR suffices, and can be monitored all in one location forever, instead of 2 locations as presently proposed with commensurate twice the potential problems and twice the costs and twice the security issues and twice the profits to corporations such as SNC-Lavalin forever. b. Please raise your hand if after reading this email you are still in favour of the 2-Track 2-DGR
7/8/2016 Page 4 of4 'i~b boondoggle process. If you have raised your hand, you do not qualify to represent Citizens and Taxpayers. c. One word sums this up: UNBELIEVABLE! d. One answer unanimously sums this up: Immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags, and commence a proposed 1-Track 1-DGR process for all nuclear waste. We all have a solemn obligation and duty to get this done right and everyone must be meaningfully included in the process that requires no knee jerk urgency that ruined the Community of Carlsbad, New Mexico, when its WIPP DGR catastrophically failed within 15 years of a projected forever-safe-guarantee by so-called 11 "experts.~~ When so-called "expertsu tell us mere Citizens and Taxpayers that the DGR is not likelyu to cause adverse health or environmental effects, the so-called "expertsu are confirming that they have absolutely no idea, cannot predict the future even 5 minutes from now, and cannot guarantee the DGR will work- in other words unot likelyu means and is another way to say "likely.~~ 1/Not likelyu is a safety valve for the so-called "expertsu to fall back on when the inevitable DGR failure occurs and they are finally required to be held accountable. The so-called "experts11 will have received their 11Confirmation bias 11 retainer from OPG. Unfortunately it will be too late at that point and there is no 1/accountability/1 that can remedy the situation. Repayment of the "retainer11 fee is hardly a remedy. Just ask the Citizens of WIPP. Ask yourself this: "Is 'not likely' good enough for us, our friends, our family, our children, our future generations forever, and the 40,000,000 people who survive on the clean water of the Great Lakes11 ? While firms like embattled SNC-Lavalin make a fortune? You all signed up to be a PUBLIC SERVANT. It is now time to follow through on that role that you all have assumed. Respond! Do something! Citizens and Taxpayers should not have to resort to a Public and Judicial Inquiry to humiliate you into action.
3. Immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/8/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Saunders,Kurt [CEAA )"
I am currently out ofthe office, returning on Monday, August 15th. During my absence, inquiries should be directed to Colette Spagnuolo at '[email protected]' . thanks
Kurt Saunders
7/8/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Smith,Heather [CEAA]"
I am out of the office until July 11, 2016. If you need assistance please contact Steve Chapman at Steve. [email protected].
Je suis hors du bureaujusqu'au 11 juillet 2016. Pour l'aide immediate, veuillez contacter Steve Chapman: [email protected].
7/8/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * *
For further inquiries, please direct your online message through https :/I correspondence. premier. gov .on. calen/feedback/ default.aspx.
Confidentiality Warning: This email contains information intended only for the use of the individual named above. If you have received this email in error, we would appreciate it if you could advise us through the Premier's website at https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/en/feedback/default.aspx and destroy all copies of this message. Thank you. *******
Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi etje vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter 1'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de 1' Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re<;u a cette adresse. * * *
7/8/2016 Page 2 of2 b00 Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez faire parvenir votre message en ligne a l'adresse h!!ps://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/fr/feedback/default.aspx.
Avis sur la confidentialite: Ce courriel contient des renseignements qui s'adressent uniquement ala personne nommee ci-dessus. Si vous avez re<;:u ce courriel par erreur, nous vous saurions gre de nous en informer en utilisant le site Web de la premiere ministre a l'adresse suivante https://correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca/fr/feedback/default.aspx et de detruire toutes les copies de ce message. Nous vous remercions.
7/8/2016 Page 1 of 1 6o; John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/8/2016 1:25 PM
7/8/2016 Page 1 of 4
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 151 2016
Hi Minister McKenna} Prime Minister Trudeau} Jeffrey Lyash} CEO and President of OPG} Premier
Wynne1 and Ken Nash} President of NWMO:
OPG 1 S untenable DGR update to Citizens and Taxpayers confirms that the OPG DGR Application for clothes and rags must be dismissed.
1. On June 271 20161 [commencing at 50 minutes} 54 seconds of council webcast] OPG presented a DGR update to Saugeen Shores council and made the following untenable statement to Councilor Dave 1 Myette S thoughtful question related to 1 DGR for all nuclear waste:
OPG says two [2] DGRs are required because the proposed DGR shaft for low and intermediate nuclear waste cannot accommodate high level spent fuel.
In other words to require only 1 DGR all that has to be done is to design a shaft that can accommodate high level spent fuel [already designed for the DGR for spent fuel] which will then also accommodate
7119/2016 Page 2 of4 GraJ low and intermediate level nuclear waste. Instead OPG and our government are forcing Citizens and Taxpayers to spend extra Billions and Billions of precious Taxpayer dollars building 2 DGRs [with twice the problems and security issues and commensurate Taxpayer costs in the trillions and beyond FOREVER] when EVERYONE agrees 1 DGR can accommodate all levels of nuclear waste! In fact OPG and CNSC made it crystal clear at the JRP Public Hearings that if Kincardine council in the future requested that high level spent fuel be added to the OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste they would embark on the same DGR process and Public review presently underway over the past 10 years for the proposed OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste. The response to this absolute fraud on our Tax Dollars was a deafening silence from Saugeen Shores council! We can get to the Moon and back, and fly out of our solar system, but we can't figure out how to build a DGR with a proper shaft to accommodate all levels of nuclear waste? Really? The absurdity of it is analogous to building 2 skyscrapers side by side, one with elevators for people only, with a second skyscraper built so that it could have a freight elevator. One wonders why OPG does not propose 3 DGRs because all 3 levels of nuclear waste need different shafts. Furthermore, the absurdity of needing 2 DGRs is highlighted by the fact that had Kincardine council allowed spent fuel in the proposed OPG DGR only 1 DGR would be built. If it was impossible to build 1 DGR for all nuclear waste, there would have been no need to include the provision that spent fuel is prohibited in the hosting agreement signed by Kincardine and OPG.
2. The next OPG untenable statement:
OPG emphasized to Saugeen Shores council that the JRP has concluded that it was URGENT that the proposed OPG DGR for clothes and rags be built.
OPG failed to mention that spent fuel will remain on the surface with no urgency to get it underground -if ever! So much for urgency! And even if a Citizen and Taxpayer were to give any credibility to this "urgent" nonsense, each Citizen and Taxpayer deserve explanations from OPG and government as to why the nuclear waste was not immediately placed in a DGR over 50 years ago when it was first made. After all, Citizens and Taxpayers have apparently been misled to believe that the nuclear waste has been safely stored on the surface for the past 50 years. All of a sudden in 2016 there is urgency to get the clothes and rags underground or the Citizens and Taxpayers are going to suffer serious harm! And even assuming that to be true, what explanation does our Federal government for doing absolutely nothing related to finding a compelling willing Community for the first decade OPG pursued this fraud called OPG's DGR for clothes and rags. How does our government explain that while leaving us all in harms way? Something is terribly wrong! We cannot trust anything our government does or says about any DGR. We need new leadership and we need to start over. OPG owns all the waste. OPG created NWMO. OPG owns 95% of NWMO. OPG and NWMO have interchangeable employees. The Federal government was only concerned about the spent fuel, and not the clothes and rags and intermediate nuclear waste. Kincardine council was the only entity that suggested a DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste. The nuclear industry did not dream it up. The Federal government did not dream it up. The Ontario government did not dream it up. OPG did not dream it up. NWMO did not dream it up. No one but Kincardine dreamed up the DGR for clothes and rags. And now over 10 years later there is URGENCY to get the clothes and rags DGR built? REALLY? With the spent fuel remaining above ground and the spent fuel DGR process still in its infancy? Crazy does not come close to summing this up.
3. The next OPG untenable statement came in response to a challenging inquiry from Councilor Cheryl
7119/2016 Page 3 of 4
Grace:
OPG confirmed that if SON does not consent to the proposed OPG DGR it will not be built!
Can OPG and our government explain to the Citizens and Taxpayers how seemingly unlimited funds have been available, are available, and continue to be available and spent on the OPG DGR even after 10 years of absolute futility in obtaining SON's consent to the project. Wouldn't you think that maybe OPG should have obtained SON's consent prior to commencing this boondoggle DGR process over 10 years ago? If it takes more than 10 years to convince anyone that you have a good idea that should be supported, maybe that is a good indication that your idea isn't so good. What Citizen and Taxpayer thinks OPG and our government have been fiscally responsible with our Tax Dollars in this process? OPG and our government was required to obtain SON's support before the process started. After 10 years now OPG and our government have created a legacy of just throwing millions and millions of Taxpayer Dollars into the air, enough to fill a separate DGR, without anything to show for it. Shameful!
4. The next OPG untenable statement:
OPG notes to council that the clothes and rags to be buried are already on site.
This statement by itself guarantees failure for the spent fuel DGR that must now be dangerously transported off-site if and when a second DGR site is ever found.
5. The next OPG untenable statement, this time in response to a probing question by Councilor Cheryl Grace:
With extreme contempt for Minister McKenna's Order requiring ACTUAL alternate DGR site studies, OPG is arrogantly forging ahead with its sham 2 hypothetical rock models guaranteed to never pass DGR muster, and plowing forward despite having not received any response or reply from the Minister even though requested of her 3 months ago. All the while aimlessly and recklessly spending Citizen and Taxpayer dollars. Personal liability should attach for such reckless conduct. Furthermore, OPG maintains that Minister McKenna did not require OPG to find a compelling willing host. But 21 municipalities are seeking to be a DGR site for spent fuel and are being studied by NWMO. These are the actual DGR sites that are interested and must be included in Minister McKenna's Order. To properly conduct and satisfy Minister McKenna's Order, OPG will have to conduct at least 10 years of studies of actual DGR sites and not sham studies in a few months of hypothetical sham DGR sites that are pre-guaranteed to fail against the Kincardine DGR site previously acclaimed by OPG and CNSC and the JRP, without any required competition to distract from OPG's ultimate goal. Obviously, OPG and our government at all levels have a lot of explaining to do and must explain to all Citizens and Taxpayers why these 2 DGR processes are not combined into 1 DGR process for all nuclear waste. To just give unchallenged "confirmation bias" statements set forth above at Public forums that cannot withstand common sense scrutiny is unacceptable to every Citizen and Taxpayer paying for and exposed to this ongoing sham and boondoggle of all government boondoggles with commensurate waste of extreme Taxpayer Dollars. One word sums up OPG's continuing arrogant and untenable conduct toward all Citizens and Taxpayers: Despicable!
6. The next OPG untenable statement:
7119/2016 Page 4 of 4 &cJ~
OPG advised Saugeen Shores council that the Cobourg rock located in Kincardine was [miraculously what are the odds?] ideal for the DGR.
It is particularly noteworthy that OPG failed to mention that Saugeen Shores with the same "ideal" Cobourg rock was found to be unsafe for a DGR even though it was only a few short miles from the Kincardine DGR site. Trust issues skyrocket! In addition there was no mention about the Great Lakes recently being formed within the last 10,000 years, a fairly dramatic and significant event especially as it relates to geologic time that the DGR is guaranteed to survive without a hitch! Trust issues off the charts!
7. And OPG and all government officials continue their shameful non-response to Citizen and Taxpayer DGR questions and concerns and irresponsible reckless Taxpayer spending.
8. In other words, immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application. Stop the ongoing and continuing extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Let's get on with the 1 DGR process and allow every Citizen and Taxpayer to have the opportunity to MEANINGFULLY participate in what has heretofore been a closed and rigged process.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7119/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re<;:u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matiE~res radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
7/15/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 20, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President:
A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to investigate the alarming news released yesterday questioning the integrity of the CNSC in its role as Citizen and Taxpayer watchdog:
1. On July 19, 2016, the news media reported [2 links below] that CNSC staff alarmingly claim that CNSC management withheld critical information during licensing hearings for Bruce Power and Darlington. As a result Minister McKenna must be very concerned about CNSC's role in the OPG DGR process that is now tainted by these alarming reports questioning the integrity of the CNSC. A thorough, meaningful, and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in a Public and Judicial Inquiry.
7/20/2016 Page 2 of3 6 of 2. The 2 links set forth below raise concerns that the CNSC has become a cheerleader for the nuclear industry instead of a watchdog. This is very concerning to all Citizens and Taxpayers who rely on CNSC as their watchdog over the OPG DGR process. It has been crystal clear throughout this entire process that Michael Binder, the President ofthe CNSC, has been the leading cheerleader in favour of the DGR. Commencing with CNSC's participation in the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council from 2005 through 2012, and culminating with Michael Binder's infamous statement [over 7 years ago in 2009 at one of the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings] that he hoped to see all of the mayors of our Bruce County Community at the "ribbon cutting ceremony opening the DGR"! Is this a statement from a concerned watchdog or a supportive cheerleader? And made in secret, outside the hearing of any Citizen and Taxpayer and years before the Public Hearings commenced! Michael Binder apparently wants to assure that his name will be placed on the entryway of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags.
3. Throughout the OPG DGR Public Hearings CNSC was the leading cheerleader in favour of the OPG DGR. In fact the Record reflects that CNSC was more favourable about the OPG DGR than OPG. The Record clearly shows that CNSC never questioned anything about the OPG DGR. At no time did CNSC act as a watchdog on behalf of Citizens and Taxpayers. This is unacceptable.
4. The system is rigged in favour of approval of the OPG DGR Application. OPG and CNSC are good friends. They are twins in a journey of cheerleading for the final approval of the OPG DGR Application. No Citizen and Taxpayer can trust CNSC in light of the Record that has been presented. There is no way a Citizen and Taxpayer can find CNSC to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, and it is not safe to rely upon CNSC's oversight of the OPG DGR Application.
5. Similarly, as a result Minister McKenna cannot find CNSC to be credible, reliable/ and trustworthy, and Minister McKenna must conclude that it is not safe to rely upon CNSC's oversight ofthe OPG DGR Application.
6. A thorough, meaningful/ and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in a Public and Judicial Inquiry. Citizens and Taxpayers require it.
Letter Questions Integrity Of Nuclear Licensing Hearings http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07/19/letter questions-integrity-nuclear-licensing-hearings/
Whistleblowers claim Canada's nuclear watchdog withholding info that could prevent Fukushima-sized disaster deep-throats-claim-canadas-nuclear-watchdog-withholding-info-could-prevent-fukushima
7. And OPG and all government officials continue their shameful non-response to Citizen and Taxpayer DGR questions and concerns and irresponsible reckless Taxpayer spending.
8. In other words, immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application. Stop the ongoing and continuing extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Let's get on with the 1 DGR process and allow every Citizen and
7/20/2016 Page 3 of3 b or Taxpayer to meaningfully be included with a new CNSC that will actually conduct its proper role as watchdog.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/20/2016 Page 1 of 1 C;o John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sOrete nucleaire. Votre message a ete rec;:u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
7/20/2016 Page 1 of 1 ~I( John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/20/2016 2:00PM
7/22/2016 Page 1 of 4
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
Post Script
July 21, 2016
Oh and by the way Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, and Michael Binder:
I forgot to mention that pursuant to the Constitution of the Joint Review Panel [JRP]:
"3 .1. The JRP will consist of three members. Two members will be appointed by [Michael Binder] the President ofthe [Canadian Nuclear Safety] Commission [CNSC] with the approval ofthe Minister of the Environment [the Minister that Minister McKenna has recently replaced]."
"3.2. The Minister of the Environment [that Minister McKenna has recently replaced] will propose to [Michael Binder] the President of the Commission [CNSC] a candidate as a third member of the JRP who may also serve as a temporary member of the Commission [CNSC]."
7/21/2016 Page 2 of 4 ~ (5 "3 .4 .... The selected candidate will then be appointed by the Minister of the Environment [Minister McKenna's predecessor] as a member of the JRP."
"3 .5 The members of the JRP are to be unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project ...."
Add this to the alarming email sent yesterday and set forth below wherein the very integrity and trustworthiness of the watchdog CNSC is obliterated by CNSC's own staff. As a result, the following additional astonishing points are confirmed and have been confirmed throughout the JRP Record presented by Citizens and Taxpayers:
1. Michael Binder, President ofCNSC, handpicked all3 members ofthe JRP! So much for the CNSC handpicked JRP members being "unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project." As a result the JRP should have recused itself from the DGR proceedings when requested. There is no way the JRP could be an unbiased, neutral, and independent fact-finder in the process. Stop insulting Citizens and Taxpayers- Dismiss the OPG DGR Application immediately!- particularly in light of the blistering attack in the media on CNSC cheerleading rather than watchdogging!
2. The 3 JRP members are members of CNSC a key witness in the DGR proceedings and CNSC is forever tainted by the media attack this week set forth in the email following this one. Again the 3 JRP members are inexplicably tied to CNSC and not independent that is a cornerstone to the foundation of any neutral tribunal in our Free and Independent Democracy and meaningful Due Process.
3. Minister McKenna's predecessor as Minister of the Environment appointed the 3rd member of the JRP who was approved by Michael Binder, President ofCNSC! So much for Minister ofthe Environment McKenna being "unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project Review." There is probably an actual or inferred bias, but at the very least Citizens and Taxpayers are left with an "appearance of bias" or a "reasonable apprehension of bias" related to Minister McKenna's role as adjudicator reviewing the JRP recommendation to approve the OPG DGR Application! As a result stop insulting Citizens and Taxpayers- Dismiss the OPG DGR Application- or recuse yourself particularly in light of the blistering attack in the media on CNSC cheerleading rather than watchdogging!
4. Rod Serling could not make this stuff up. Fiction has never been this strange. It is embarrassing and humiliating. Yet none of you care, and there is nothing you will do about it, and there is nothing we Citizens and Taxpayers can do about it! Shameful and despicable.
5. And also don't forget that the JRP used the same lawyers as CNSC during this DGR process. Conflict of interest come to mind?
6. And also do not forget that the Chairperson ofthe JRP worked in the [critical] past for one ofthe key witnesses in the DGR process appearing before the JRP, and she also performed some work for OPG. Bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias come to mind in a reasonable Citizen and Taxpayer participating in the OPG DGR process?
7. Where have Public Servants gone? Where has Woodward and Bernstein gone? Stop the madness! We are better than this. Our Community deserves it and requires it. The World expects it. We must all step to the plate and stop this embarrassment that gets worse every day more obscene Taxpayer dollar waste is generated on this incompetent, inept, and incomprehensible OPG DGR boondoggle! Dismiss the OPG
7/21/2016 Page 3 of4 C!tf DGR Application now. Most Respectfully, John Mann, Citizen, Registered Participant, Saugeen Shores,
[See email sent yesterday which follows directly below:] From: John Mann Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 1:47 PM
Subject: A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to investigate the alarming news released yesterday questioning the integrity of the CNSC in its role as Citizen and Taxpayer watchdog. July 20, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President:
A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened to investigate the alarming news released yesterday questioning the integrity of the CNSC in its role as Citizen and Taxpayer watchdog:
1. On July 19, 2016, the news media reported [2 links below] that CNSC staff alarmingly claim that CNSC management withheld critical information during licensing hearings for Bruce Power and Darlington. As a result Minister McKenna must be very concerned about CNSC's role in the OPG DGR process that is now tainted by these alarming reports questioning the integrity of the CNSC. A thorough, meaningful, and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in a Public and Judicial Inquiry.
2. The 2 links set forth below raise concerns that the CNSC has become a cheerleader for the nuclear industry instead of a watchdog. This is very concerning to all Citizens and Taxpayers who rely on CNSC as their watchdog over the OPG DGR process. It has been crystal clear throughout this entire process that Michael Binder, the President of the CNSC, has been the leading cheerleader in favour of the DGR. Commencing with CNSC's participation in the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council from 2005 through 2012, and culminating with Michael Binder's infamous statement [over 7 years ago in 2009 at one of the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings] that he hoped to see all of the mayors of our Bruce County Community at the "ribbon cutting ceremony opening the DGR"! Is this a statement from a concerned watchdog or a supportive cheerleader? And made in secret, outside the hearing of any Citizen and Taxpayer and years before the Public Hearings commenced! Michael Binder apparently wants to assure that his name will be placed on the entryway of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags.
3. Throughout the OPG DGR Public Hearings CNSC was the leading cheerleader in favour of the OPG DGR. In fact the Record reflects that CNSC was more favourable about the OPG DGR than OPG. The Record clearly shows that CNSC never questioned anything about the OPG DGR. At no time did CNSC act as a watchdog on behalf of Citizens and Taxpayers. This is unacceptable.
4. The system is rigged in favour of approval of the OPG DGR Application. OPG and CNSC are good friends. They are twins in a journey of cheerleading for the final approval of the OPG DGR Application. No Citizen and Taxpayer can trust CNSC in light of the Record that has been presented. There is no way a Citizen and Taxpayer can find CNSC to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, and it is not safe to rely
7/2112016 Page 4 of 4 G;r upon CNSC's oversight of the OPG DGR Application.
5. Similarly, as a result Minister McKenna cannot find CNSC to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, and Minister McKenna must conclude that it is not safe to rely upon CNSC's oversight ofthe OPG DGR Application.
6. A thorough, meaningful, and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in a Public and Judicial Inquiry. Citizens and Taxpayers require it.
Letter Questions Integrity Of Nuclear Licensing Hearings http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07/19/letter questions-integrity-nuclear-licensing-hearings/
Whistleblowers claim Canada's nuclear watchdog withholding info that could prevent Fukushima-sized disaster deep-throats-claim-canadas-nuclear-watchdog-withholding-info-could-prevent-fukushima
7. And OPG and all government officials continue their shameful non-response to Citizen and Taxpayer DGR questions and concerns and irresponsible reckless Taxpayer spending.
8. In other words, immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application. Stop the ongoing and continuing extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Let's get on with the 1 DGR process and allow every Citizen and Taxpayer to meaningfully be included with a new CNSC that will actually conduct its proper role as watchdog.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/21/2016 December 2008 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel
"Proponent" means OPG Inc.
"Public Registry" means the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry established under section 55 of the CEAA, to facilitate public access to records relating to the environmental assessment of the Project;
"Responsible Authority" has the same meaning as set out in section 2 of the CEAA and for this Project is the Commission;
"Review" means the assessment by the Joint Review Panel of the environmental effects of the Project to be conducted pursuant to the CEAA and the consideration of the Licence Application under the NSCA to determine whether the Project will pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of persons, the environment and national security; and,
"SON" means the Chippewas ofNawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation who collectively identify themselves as the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, who have asserted claims in the area as represented by the Chiefs of the Chippewas ofNawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation.
2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JOINT REVIEW PANEL (JRP)
2.1 A process is hereby established to create a Joint Review Panel (JRP) that will: a) Constitute a review panel pursuant to sections 40, 41 and 42 of the CEAA for the purposes of carrying out an environmental assessment of the Project; and b) Constitute a panel of the Commission, created pursuant to section 22 of the NSCA, for the purposes of the review of the Licence Application pursuant to section 24 of the NSCA.
2.2 Nothing in this JRP Agreement shall be construed as limiting the ability of the JRP to have regard to all considerations that appear to be relevant pursuant to section 24 of the NSCA and to include a consideration of the factors set out in sections 16 and 16.1 ofthe CEAA.
3. CONSTITUTION OF THE JOINT REVIEW PANEL
3.1 The JRP will consist of three members. Two members will be appointed by the President of the Commission with the approval of the Minister of the Environment.
3.2 The Minister of the Environment will propose to the President of the Commission a candidate as a third member of the JRP who may also serve as a temporary member of the Commission.
-4- Gt7 December 2008 Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel
3.3 Upon approval by the President of the Commission of a candidate as a third member of the JRP who may also serve as a temporary member of the Commission, the President of the Commission will recommend to the Minister ofNatural Resources that the Minister ofNatural Resources recommend the proposed candidate to the Governor in Council for the appointment of that proposed candidate as a temporary member of Commission.
3.4 If appointed by the Governor in Council as a temporary member of Commission, the selected candidate will then be appointed by the Minister of the Environment as a member of the JRP.
3.5 The members of the JRP are to be unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project and are to have knowledge or experience relevant to the anticipated environmental effects of the Project.
4. CONDUCT OF THE REVIEW V'
4.1 The JRP shall conduct the Review in accordance with the Terms of Reference attached as an Appendix to this JRP Agreement in a manner that: a) Discharges the requirements set out in the CEAA; b) Permits it to obtain the information and evidence required for it to consider the Licence Application under the NSCA; and, c) Permits it to obtain infonnation and evidence about the adverse effects the project may have on potential or established Aboriginal rights, title or treaty rights as identified to the JRP by the SON and enables it to bring any such information and evidence to the attention ofthe Minister of the Environment and the Responsible Authorities for the Project in support of consultation between the Crown and the SON.
4.2 The JRP shall have all the powers and duties of a review panel described in section 3 5 of the CEAA.
4.3 As a panel of the Commission, the JRP shall also have the powers and duties of the Commission described in section 20 of the NSCA and the Rules of Procedure.
5. SECRETARIAT /
5.1 A Secretariat will be formed consisting of professional, scientific, technical or other Agency and Commission personnel necessary for the purposes of the Review.
5.2 The Secretariat will provide information to the JRP orally and in writing during the JRP Hearings.
- 5- Page 1 of 1 ~If John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete rec;:u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
7/22/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Conditions (CEAA/ACEE)"
Your message
To: Hon. Catherine McKenna; Conditions (CEAA/ACEE); Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Jeffrey Lyash; Premier Wynne; Ken Nash; Binder, Michael: CNSC Cc: Aimee Puthon; Amanda Pfeffer; barb; Bettyanne Cobean; Beverly Fernandez; Capitan my Capitan; Cheryl Grace; Dave Myette; David Akin; Demers,Manon [CEAA]; Don Matheson; Eugene Bourgeois; Frances Learment; fsteve finch; Smith,Heather [CEAA]; Jerry Keto; Jill Taylor; Jim Lynch; John Rich; Kristina Premachuk; Linda White; Luke Charbonneau; Mayor Buckle; Mayor Eadie; Mayor Eagleson; Mayor Inglis; Mayor Jackson; Mayor Mciver; Mayor Mike Smith; Mayor Weaver; Binder, Michael: CNSC; Mike Myatt; Mike Strobel; Mitch Twolan (Warden); MP Ben Lobb; MPP Lisa Thompson; Neil Menage; Pat Gibbons; [email protected]; Information (CNSC/CCSN); Rob Dobos; Santa Claus; Sarah Patterson-Snell; Sarah Roberts; Scott Berry; Senator Hopgood; Chapman,Steve [CEAA]; Kurt Saunders; Saunders,Kurt [CEAA]; Janice MacKay; Chris Adams; John Mann Subject: Post Script to bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias from cheerleading culture of CNSC handpicking the 3 members of the JRP for the OPG DGR Public Hearings. Sent: Thu, 21 Jul2016 12:29:57 -0400 was read on Thu, 21 Jul2016 12:59:55 -04000
7/22/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/21/2016 12:31 PM
7/22/2016 Page 1 of3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 26, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President:
Why does Minister McKenna refuse to respond to OPG's request for confirmation of OPG's understanding and response plan to Minister McKenna's Order of February 18, 2016, more than 5 months ago? And how can OPG proceed without confirmation and receiving the green light to proceed from Minister McKenna?
1. On July 4, 2016, Minister McKenna wrote a letter responding to a letter from Northwatch critical of the DGR and dated November 19, 2015. The Minister apologized for the delay of over 7 months to respond and made the following astonishing and inexplicable statement:
"On April15, 2016, Ontario Power Generation wrote to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
7/26/2016 Page 2 of3 ('L l_ ~~ Agency (the Agency) indicating its approach to responding to my request for additional information. Ontario Power Generation also noted it intends to file the requested information by the end of 2016. / This information will assist in planning subsequent procedural steps."
2. Astonishingly and inexplicably] Minister McKenna has no quarrel or disagreement with OPG 1 S approach to conduct 2 meaningless sham computer modeling DGR studies instead of conducting actual alternate DGR site studies that were always required [and ignored by OPG] from the very beginning of this process over 15 years ago!- And expressly Ordered by Minister McKenna by her letter directed to
OPG dated February 181 2016.
3. In addition, astonishingly and inexplicably] Minister McKenna has no intention of responding in any 1 way to OPG S express requests in the OPG letter dated April 151 20161 wherein OPG stated "Further] 1 this letter seeks confirmation that OPG S response plan will meet the objectives set out in the 1 1 Minister S request/ and "OPG seeks CEAA confirmation of OPG s understanding and response plan to address the Minister1 S request/] and "Further] OPG requests clarity regarding the post submission review and acceptance process." No documents have been provided to me from my Freedom of
Information request of June 301 20161 wherein I requested all documents related to Minister McKenna]s Order and any follow up from her Order.
1 4. More astonishing and inexplicable than that is the fact that rather than replying to OPG S contemptuous sham response to Minister McKenna]s Order1 Minister McKenna decided instead to respond to Northwatch and not even post her response for all to see on the DGR Registry] and she also failed to respond to my emails representing crucial questions and concerns by Citizens and Taxpayers related to OPG 1 S contemptuous sham response to the Ministe(s Order. How is this possible from our leadership in government? Citizens and Taxpayers deserve] expect] and require better. Something is terribly wrong!
5. Nonetheless] as a result of these astonishing and inexplicable letters without any meaningful discourse1 the OPG DGR process continues unabated and toward certain approval from a rigged non democratic system that is destined to certain failure when Citizens and Taxpayers ultimately prevail with a common sense DGR process for all nuclear waste rather than the present inept] incompetent] and incomprehensible 2-Track 2-DGR process boondoggle of all government boondoggles. How is this possible when OPG is still waiting to hear from Minister McKenna that she approves or disapproves of OPG 1 S understanding and response plan to Minister McKenna]s Order? Astonishingly and inexplicably] according to its recent Public DGR updates OPG says that it is proceeding with its 2 sham DGR site studies reflected in its April151 2016 response to Minister McKenna]s Order! Since the sham DGR site studies proposed by OPG are not what Minister McKenna Ordered] OPG is proceeding at its peril] but more importantly at Taxpayers] extreme waste. Obviously OPG knew it was proceeding in contravention of Minister McKenna]s Order when OPG requested confirmation of its proposed plan that it was hoping would some way satisfy the Minister even though it was contemptuous of a plain reading of her Order! Unfortunately, this is what Citizens and Taxpayers have come to expect in this failed OPG DGR process. Cut corners at every step so as to assure the success of OPG's pre-determined and anointed DGR site at Kincardine. All at the obscene expense of wasted Taxpayer dollars with a second rate process destined to approve Kincardine at any cost. Shameful and despicable is the best that can be said.
7/26/2016 Page 3 of3 {2.] 6. We are all still waiting for a meaningful and common sense and fiscally responsible response from our government officials that work for us.
7. In other words, immediately dismiss the OPG DGR Application. Stop the ongoing and continuing extreme fiscal irresponsibility. Let's get on with the 1 DGR process and allow every Citizen and Taxpayer to meaningfully be included with a new CNSC that will actually conduct its proper role as watchdog.
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/26/2016 Minister of the Environment Ministre de I'Environnement
Ottawa. Canada K1AOH3 FEB 1 8 2016
Ms. Laurie Swami Vice-President Nuclear Services Ontario Power Generation 889 Brock Road, 6th Floor Pickering ON L1W 3J2
Dear Ms. Swami:
After considering the Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report for the Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste Project (the Project), I am of the view that further information and/or studies are required before I make my environmental assessment decisions and issue my Decision Statement under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) for the Project.
Pursuant to subsection 47(2) of CEAA 2012, I, therefore, require Ontario Power Generation to collect the following information and undertake the following studies:
• A study that details the environmental effects of technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the Project, with specific reference to actual locations that would meet Ontario Power Generation's criteria for technical and economic feasibility. In conducting this study, Ontario Power Generation is to detail the thresholds for what is considered to be technically and economically feasible. In addition, Ontario Power Generation is to indicate what the incremental costs and risks would be for additional off-site transportation of the nuclear waste.
• An updated analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in light of the results from the Phase 1 Preliminary Assessments undertaken by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which identified three potential host communities that fall within the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation.
. . ./2
Canada -2-
• An updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effect under CEAA 2012. Ontario Power Generation shall identify out-dated or redundant commitments that were previously brought forward to the Panel.
I would ask that Ontario Power Generation inform the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, no later than April18, 2016, when it anticipates being in a position to submit the requested studies and additional information.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. Minister of Environment and Climate Change
c.c.: Mr. Ron Hallman, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Dr. Michael Binder, President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Minister of the Environment Ministre de I'Environnement
Ollawa, Canada K1A OH3
FEB 1 8 2016
Ms. Stella Swanson Joint Review Panel Chair Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel 280 Slater Street Ottawa ON K1 P 5S9
Dear Ms. Swanson:
I am writing to inform you that I have directed Ontario Power Generation to gather additional information and conduct additional studies in relation to the Deep Geologic Repository for Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste Project pursuant to my authority under subsection 47(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). I have attached a copy of this letter for your reference.
In my letter to Ontario Power Generation, you will note that I have asked that a schedule be provided indicating a timeline for the submission of the studies and additional information. Once I have received this schedule from Ontario Power Generation, I will contact you regarding the role of the Joint Review Panel in the review of these studies and additional information.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. Minister of Environment and Climate Change c.c.: Mr. Ron Hallman, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Dr. Michael Binder, President. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Canada bL 7 Laurie Swami Senior Vice President Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Management
·-----·----·---·-.. ·- 1340 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1VOC4 Tel.
Apri115, 2016
CD#: 00216-CORR-00521-00004
MR. RON HALLMAN President Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3
Dear Mr. Hallman,
OPG's Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project- Further Studies to Support Environmental Assessment Decision
Reference: 1. Minister of Environment and Climate Change letter, Honourable Catherine McKenna to L. Swami, "Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project," February 18, 2016, CD# 00216-CORR-00521-00003.
This letter is to inform the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) of Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) response plan and when OPG will be submitting the information requested in a recent letter from the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change [Reference 1]. Further, this letter seeks confirmation that OPG's response plan will meet the objectives set out in the Minister's request.
OPG will provide the additional information requested by year-end, 2016.
The following provides OPG's understanding and response plan for each of the three elements of the request:
1. Alternate Locations
OPG has interpreted this request as follows: OPG will assess the environmental effects of two technically and economically feasible geologic regions in Ontario for a new low and intermediate level waste (L&ILW) disposal facility. One assessment will consider a deep geologic repository located in a sedimentary rock formation located in southern Ontario. The second will consider a deep geologic repository located in a granite rock formation located in central to northern Ontario. This study will describe what is meant by technical and Mr. Ron Hallman Apri115, 2016 CD# 00216-CORR-00521-00004 '2? economic feasibility and document how those criteria were applied. It will also examine the incremental environmental effects, including impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and costs of acquiring lands and establishing these facilities in the two geologic regions in Ontario. As well, the assessment will examine the incremental costs and risks for repackaging and off-site transportation of the nuclear waste, this will include an assessment of conventional and radiological safety.
2. Cumulative Effects Analysis
The Nucl.ear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is leading a multi-year site selection process for a used fuel repository and is currently studying potential areas across Ontario. As such, there is no specific plan for a used fuel repository in southern Ontario at this time. However, for the purpose of responding to this request, OPG will assess the cumulative effects of a hypothetical used fuel repository on the L&ILW DGR, within the boundaries of the DGR study area for those communities that are active in the NWMO siting process and which lie within the Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON) traditional territory (i.e. Huron-Kinloss and South Bruce). The cumulative effects assessment will be based on the same identified residual effects for the L&ILW DGR as described in the 2011 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
OPG will continue to collaborate with the SON under existing OPG-SON protocols to determine how best to consider any potential cumulative effects within their traditional territory.
3. Mitigation Commitments
OPG will undertake a review of its mitigation commitments and mitigating actions for each identified adverse effect under CEAA 2012. Commitments that were previously brought forward to the Panel will be identified as well as any new ones identified in the reponses to this information request.
OPG seeks CEAA confirmation of OPG's understanding and response plan to address the Minister's request. Further, OPG requests clarity regarding the post submission review and acceptance process.
Sincerelv.
Laurie Swami Senior Vice President Decommissioning and Nuclear Waste Management
cc: Dr. Michael Binder - President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission R. Jammal - CNSC (Ottawa) D. Newland - CNSC (Ottawa)
2 Minister of the Environment Ministre de I'Environnement
JUL 0 4 2016 Ottawa, Canada K1A. OH3
Nuclear Waste Watch
Dear Nuclear Waste Watch:
Thank you for your correspondence of November 19, 2015, concerning the Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (the Project) proposed by Ontario Power Generation. I regret the delay in responding.
The Project has been the subject of a thorough environmental assessment by an independent Joint Review Panel composed of experts appointed by the former Minister of the Environment and the Chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The joint review panel process provided an opportunity for participants, including Indigenous Peoples, to make their views known on the Project in an open and transparent forum.
After considering the Joint Review Panel's Environmental Assessment Report, I requested that the proponent, Ontario Power Generation, provide additional information on three aspects of the environmental assessment: technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the Project, cumulative environmental effects of the Project, and an updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effect under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.
On April 15, 2016, Ontario Power Generation wrote to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) indicating its approach to responding to my request for additional information. Ontario Power Generation also noted it intends to file the requested information by the end of 2016. This information will assist in planning subsequent procedural steps.
Documentation related to the environmental assessment process is available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=17520.
Sincerely,
The Honourable Catherine McKenna, P.C., M.P. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Your message
To: Information (CNSC/CCSN) Subject: Why does Minister McKenna refuse to respond to OPG's request for confirmation of OPG's understanding and response plan to Minister McKenna's Order of February 18, 2016, more than 5 months ago? And how can OPG proceed without confirmation? Sent: Tuesday, July 26,2016 4:34:49 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
was read on Tuesday, July 26, 2016 4:36:03 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
7/26/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re~u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN {613-995-0479).
7/26/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario"
Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me.
Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Kathleen Wynne Premier
Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * *
Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire.
Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes colh~gues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel.
Meilleures salutations,
Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de !'Ontario
Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re<;u a cette adresse.
7/26/2016 Page 1 of 3
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 27, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President:
How does our government justify spending $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for spent fuel nuclear waste? How does our government justify the difference of some $22 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for clothes and rags at an obscene cost of $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars? Had Kincardine welcomed spent fuel in the Hosting Agreement signed by OPG and we were only dealing with 1 DGR, we would not even be dealing with this absolute nonsense! NWMO just released its Newsletter saying the DGR for spent fuel will cost an obscene $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars, while OPG told the Joint Review Panel that the DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste would cost an obscene $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars! How is this astonishing difference in building a hole to store waste possible? Particularly when $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars for clothes and rags was
7/30/2016 Page 2 of3 far too obscene to be justified in the first place! (3j
1. NWMO has just released the cost estimate for the high level spent fuel DGR- an obscene and wasteful $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars. The previous estimate was $16 Billion Taxpayer Dollars that NWMO presented as evidence at the recent Joint Review Panel Public Hearings in 2012 and 2013.
2. As a result there has been a stunning and obscene $6 Billion to $7 Billion Taxpayer Dollar cost INCREASE for the spent fuel DGR in a few short years. Why? How is this remotely possible?
3. Equally shocking, the evidence presented by OPG at the 2012-2013 Joint Review Panel Public Hearings was that the proposed OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste would cost an obscene and wasteful $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars.
4. The unreasonable $21 to $22 Billion Taxpayer Dollar difference in price between the 2 DGRs makes the OPG low and intermediate nuclear waste DGR analogous to a nuclear waste "Dollar Store" storage unit with drywall construction, while the NWMO [created by OPG and 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees] is building a spent fuel nuclear waste storage unit analogous to "Tiffany's" and paved in Gold with Diamond studded walls.
5. This irresponsible waste of Taxpayer Dollars cannot be justified. The shocking difference in Taxpayer waste between the 2 DGRs is impossible to comprehend even by government standards.
6. After all the DGR is nothing more than a gravesite for nuclear waste. It is nothing more than a hole in the ground with no beneficial function whatsoever.
7. Embattled SNC-Lavalin is on the NWMO letterhead related to past DGR Taxpayer cost estimates. How many Taxpayer Dollars has embattled SNC-Lavalin been given in this 2-Track 2-DGR process boondoggle, and how many Taxpayer Dollars is embattled SNC-Lavalin predicted to take from Citizens and Taxpayers in the future from this 2-Track 2-DGR process boondoggle?
8. Citizens and Taxpayers would rather have these huge Taxpayer Dollars directed to our Health, Education, and Legal Aid Budgets rather than the deep pockets of embattled SNC-Lavalin.
9. And to build this Taj Mahol grave for spent fuel, NWMO predicts operations could begin as "early" as between 2040 and 2045, having begun the process in 2000! Something is incomprehensibly wrong with a project that takes over 40 years to complete even factoring in the fact that government is running the DGR process. It is taking our government over 40 years to dig a grave, when it took less than 10 years to land a man on the moon. Can anyone explain this to anyone?
10. Can anyone explain how it was possible for OPG and/or NWMO to spend $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars related solely to talking with Canadians to obtain their views on storing nuclear waste!? Highway robbery! This was reported in the Toronto Star on March 13, 2013. The unlimited funds available for the DGRs is impossible to justify and must be the subject of a convened Public and Judicial Inquiry.
11. And can anyone explain why there is "urgency" in burying the clothes and rags with 2040 as the
7/30/2016 earliest date for spent fuel to find a home, with 30 years of spent fuel cooling on the surface prior to being placed in any DGR after 2040 at the earliest?
12. In the meantime, the Dollar Store OPG DGR for clothes and rags will be approved and built by government, with highly dangerous radioactive intermediate nuclear waste [similar to radioactive spent fuel] placed in a bargain basement, cutting cost, cheap OPG DGR modeled after the failed WIPP DGR in New Mexico.
13. The obscene Taxpayer Dollar waste and cost can never be justified. In light of the $6 to $7 Billion Taxpayer Dollar cost increase since 2012, one can only imagine what the ultimate cost will be up to 2045- and beyond to monitor it [security to environment and people and terrorism and natural elements, etc]., to fix it, to expand it, to deal with a WIPP-type catastrophe, etc. etc. etc. Ultimately the DGR process will cost Trillions and beyond of wasteful Taxpayer Dollars.
14. Instead of spending the obscene amount of Taxpayer Dollars in a positive and creative way by researching, developing, and creating energy from this nuclear waste, we are burying the radioactive problem out of sight! Who on the planet outside of OPG, NWMO, CNSC, JRP, and SNC-Lavalin thinks that burying our nuclear waste problems is a good idea?- at obscene Taxpayer Dollar waste!
15. The answer is simple: We must terminate the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle, and all meaningfully work toward an overall plan for ALL nuclear waste for the benefit of all Citizens and Taxpayers. A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened.
16. Minister McKenna has a solemn obligation and duty to respond to these serious questions and concerns from the Citizens and Taxpayers that she has the honour and privilege to work for. Unfortunately Minister McKenna remains silent. As does Premier Wynne, as does Prime Minister Trudeau, as does Jeffrey Lyash, as does Michael Binder, as does Ken Nash. Shameful!
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/30/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From:
Your message
To: McKenna, Catherine- M.P. Subject: How does our government justify spending $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for spent fuel? How does our government justify the difference of some $22 Billion to dig a hole for clothes and rags at an obscene cost of $1 Billion? Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 12:43:41 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Wednesday, July 27,2016 1:17:40 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
7/30/2016 Page 1 of2
John Mann
From: "John Mann"
July 29, 2016
Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President:
[Please read the 3 links below]
Finally there is a Journalist, reminiscent of Woodward and Bernstein investigative reporting, that seeks answers to the important questions posed by concerned Citizens and Taxpayers that have heretofore been ignored by all of our government officials responsible for the infamous and indefensible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle. [The 3rd link below is awaiting meaningful answers.] All Citizens and Taxpayers look forward to meaningful answers from Minister McKenna and the rest of our Public Servants. Common sense confirms that the clothes and rags DGR must finally be scrapped in favour of a 1-DGR process for spent fuel and ALL nuclear waste- with commensurate Citizen and Taxpayer costs savings in the Billions- while eliminating government's insulting fear mongering mantra that there is
7/30/2016 Page 2 of2 f??? "urgency" and "a need" to bury clothes and rags [previously worn without protection by nuclear workers] in a gravesite costing an outrageous $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars. Thank you Free Press, an essential Cornerstone to the Foundation of our Democracy in our Free and Democratic society. http:(/blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07/25/port-elgin man-wants-inquiry-canadas-nuclear-regulators/ http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07/27/concerned citizen-calls-opg-nuclear-waste-studies-sham/
J1ttp.J/blackburnnews.comj_mid~e_stern-ontarj_qf.!}'lid~~!ern-ont~_r..l9-nf!:yvsf.1Q1f?.l_Q?l28j_new document-lays-site-selection-process-nuclear-waste/
Most Respectfully,
John Mann
Citizen
Registered Participant
7/30/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)"
Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly.
If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479).
Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sO rete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re~u et sera traite en consequence.
Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de l'agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479).
7/30/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann GJ!
From: "John Mann"
This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna"
This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 7/30/2016 12:50 PM
7/30/2016 Page 1 of 1
John Mann
From: "Nash, Kenneth E."
Your message
To: Nash, Kenneth E. Subject: How does our government justify spending $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for spent fuel? How does our government justify the difference of some $22 Billion to dig a hole for clothes and rags at an obscene cost of$1 Billion? Sent: Wednesday, July 27,2016 12:43:41 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Wednesday, July 27, 2016 2:00:59 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
7/30/2016 f/::lUIL01ti l:llacKburnNews.com- 1-'ort l::lgm Man wants 1nqu1ry Into Ganada's Nuclear Kegulators 6 '/I Port Elgin Man Wants Inquiry Into Canada's Nuclear Regulators
BY JANICE MACKAY JULY 25, 2016 3:57PM
A midwestern Ontario man is calling on the Prime Minister to convene a Public and Judicial Inquiry after an anonymous letter questioned the integrity of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
Port Elgin Lawyer John Mann says a thorough and independent investigation is needed after an anonymous letter from CNSC staff alleged CNSC management withheld critical information during nuclear operator license hearings.
Mann says we need a meaningful probe which must culminate in a public and judicial inquiry.
Mann claims that the CNSC was the leading cheerleader for the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) nuclear waste burial project throughout the public hearings, and adds the system is rigged in favour of the application.
He says the application for the Deep Geologic Respository (DGR) should be dismissed in favour of a new process with a new Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that will act as an independent watchdog.
John Mann says billions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted in the search for a host site to bury high level nuclear waste, while there was no search for an alternative site for the Kincardine DGR.
He says the Environment Minister should wait for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to study alternative sites to bury spent nuclear fuel before deciding on the fate of the planned burial site in Kincardine for low and medium level nuclear waste.
The Environment Minister has delayed a decision on the DGR at Bruce Power until OPG looks at alternative sites.
Mann also questions why it's safe to bury nuclear waste in Kincardine, while Saugeen Shores was deemed unsuitable to bury spent nuclear fuel.
He says we should be spending the money on investigating ways to reuse the energy left in httn·//hl:: Mann says we all benefit from nuclear power, and perhaps the region should become a centre where world experts could search for a way to re-use spent fuel. Mann says burying the problem out of site in a Deep Geologic Repository right beside a major drinking water system doesn't make sense. He explains, "The OPG DGR was based upon the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico that only lasted 15 years before it fell apart, and it's still not open." Mann wonders why there is a need to spend billions on two separate nuclear waste repositories, when both low level and high level radioactive waste are currently stored together at the Bruce Power Site. He also suspects that when the time comes, regulators will decide it's better to bury the spent nuclear fuel in the planned repository for low and medium level waste in Kincardine, rather than trying to transport all of the waste elsewhere. Mann has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Environment Minister Katherine McKenna, and Premier Kathleen Wynne, along with the presidents of the CNSC, The Nuclear Waste Management organization, and Ontario Power Generation. Here is a copy of John Mann's Letter: Subject: A Public and Judicia/Inquiry must be convened to investigate the alarming news released yesterday questioning the integrity of the CNSC in its role as Citizen and Taxpayer watchdog. July 20, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President: A Public and Judicia/Inquiry must be convened to investigate the alarming news released yesterday questioning the integrity of the CNSC in its role as Citizen and Taxpayer watchdog: 1. On July 19, 2016, the news media reported [2/inks below] that CNSC staff alarmingly claim that CNSC management withheld critical information during licensing hearings for ?!<; 7/::SU/LU1!:i l::llackburnNews.com- 1-'ort l::lgm Man Wants 1nqu1ry Into canada's Nuclear Kegulators (;'I J Bruce Power and Darlington. As a result Minister McKenna must be very concerned about CNSC's role in the OPG DGR process that is now tainted by these alarming reports questioning the integrity of the CNSC. A thorough, meaningful, and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in a Public and Judicia/Inquiry. 2. The 2 links set forth below raise concerns that the CNSC has become a cheerleader for the nuclear industry instead of a watchdog. This is very concerning to all Citizens and Taxpayers who rely on CNSC as their watchdog over the OPG DGR process. It has been crystal clear throughout this entire process that Michael Binder, the President of the CNSC, has been the leading cheerleader in favour of the DGR. Commencing with CNSC's participation in the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings conducted by Bruce County Council from 2005 through 2012, and culminating with Michael Binder's infamous statement [over 7 years ago in 2009 at one of the unlawful closed secret DGR meetings] that he hoped to see all of the mayors of our Bruce County Community at the "ribbon cutting ceremony opening the DGR"! Is this a statement from a concerned watchdog or a supportive cheerleader? And made in secret, outside the hearing of any Citizen and Taxpayer and years before the Public Hearings commenced! Michael Binder apparently wants to assure that his name will be placed on the entryway of the OPG DGR for clothes and rags. 3. Throughout the OPG DGR Public Hearings CNSC was the leading cheerleader in favour of the OPG DGR. In fact the Record reflects that CNSC was more favourable about the OPG DGR than OPG. The Record clearly shows that CNSC never questioned anything about the OPG DGR. At no time did CNSC act as a watchdog on behalf of Citizens and Taxpayers. This is unacceptable. 4. The system is rigged in favour of approval of the OPG DGR Application. OPG and CNSC are good friends. They are twins in a journey of cheerleading for the final approval of the OPG DGR Application. No Citizen and Taxpayer can trust CNSC in light of the Record that has been presented. There is no way a Citizen and Taxpayer can find CNSC to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, and it is not safe to rely upon CNSC's oversight of the OPG DGR Application. 5. Similarly, as a result Minister McKenna cannot find CNSC to be credible, reliable, and trustworthy, and Minister McKenna must conclude that it is not safe to rely upon CNSC's oversight of the OPG DGR Application. 6. A thorough, meaningful, and independent investigation must be conducted, culminating in hltn·//hl::~r.kh••rnnAw<: r.nm /miriiiiiA<:IArn-nnt::~rin/m irMJP<:tPrn-nnt::~rin-nAw<:/?n1 R/n7/?F./nnri-Pini n-m ::~n-w::~nto::- i nn11irv- r.::~n:=~rl:.o::- n11r.IPAr -rPnlll :=~tnro::/ //JU!LU1o l::llackburnNews.com- 1-'ort 1::1g1n Man Wants 1nqu1ry Into t;anada"s Nuclear Kegulators a Public and Judicia/Inquiry. Citizens and Taxpayers require it. Oh and by the way Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, and Michael Binder: I forgot to mention that pursuant to the Constitution of the Joint Review Panel [JRP]: "3. 1. The JRP will consist of three members. Two members will be appointed by [Michael Binder] the President of the [Canadian Nuclear Safety] Commission [CNSC] with the approval of the Minister of the Environment [the Minister that Minister McKenna has recently replaced]." "3. 2. The Minister of the Environment [that Minister McKenna has recently replaced] will propose to [Michael Binder] the President of the Commission [CNSC] a candidate as a third member of the JRP who may also serve as a temporary member of the Commission [CNSC]." "3. 4 .... The selected candidate will then be appointed by the Minister of the Environment [Minister McKenna's predecessor] as a member of the JRP" "3.5 The members of the JRP are to be unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project .... " Add this to the alarming email sent yesterday and set forth below wherein the very integrity and trustworthiness of the watchdog CNSC is obliterated by CNSC's own staff. As a result, the following additional astonishing points are confirmed and have been confirmed throughout the JRP Record presented by Citizens and Taxpayers: 1. Michael Binder, President of CNSC, handpicked all 3 members of the JRP! So much for the CNSC handpicked JRP members being "unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project." As a result the JRP should have recused itself from the DGR proceedings when requested. There is no way the JRP could be an unbiased, neutral, and independent fact-finder in the process. Stop insulting Citizens and Taxpayers- Dismiss the OPG DGR Application immediately!- particularly in light of the blistering attack in the media on CNSC cheerleading rather than watchdogging! 2. The 3 JRP members are members of CNSC a key witness in the DGR proceedings and CNSC is forever tainted by the media attack this week set forth in the email following this httn·l/hl "r.kh11rnnPw~ r.nmlm irlwP~tArn-nnt"rin/mirlwA~IPrn-nnt"rin-nAw~/?01 R/07/?"i/nnrt-Pini n-m"n-w"nt~- i nn••irv-r."n"rl"~-nl!r.IP<>r-rPnlll"tnr~/ 4./"i f/::lU/lU1ti l::llackburnNews.com- f-'ort l::lgtn Man wants 1nqu1ry Into canada"s Nuclear Kegulators one. Again the 3 JRP members are inexplicably tied to CNSC and not independent that is a cornerstone to the foundation of any neutral tribunal in our Free and Independent Democracy and meaningful Due Process. 3. Minister McKenna's predecessor as Minister of the Environment appointed the 3rd member of the JRP who was approved by Michael Binder, President of CNSC! So much for Minister of the Environment McKenna being "unbiased and free of any conflict of interest in relation to the Project Review." There is probably an actual or inferred bias, but at the very least Citizens and Taxpayers are left with an "appearance of bias" or a "reasonable apprehension of bias" related to Minister McKenna's role as adjudicator reviewing the JRP recommendation to approve the OPG DGR Application! As a result stop insulting Citizens and Taxpayers- Dismiss the OPG DGR Application - or recuse yourself- particularly in light of the blistering attack in the media on CNSC cheerleading rather than watchdogging! 4. Rod Serling could not make this stuff up. Fiction has never been this strange. It is embarrassing and humiliating. Yet none of you care, and there is nothing you will do about it, and there is nothing we Citizens and Taxpayers can do about it! Shameful and despicable. 5. And also don't forget that the JRP used the same lawyers as CNSC during this DGR process. Conflict of interest come to mind? 6. And also do not forget that the Chairperson of the JRP worked in the [critical] past for one of the key witnesses in the DGR process appearing before the JRP, and she also performed some work for OPG. Bias, appearance of bias, or reasonable apprehension of bias come to mind in a reasonable Citizen and Taxpayer participating in the OPG DGR process? 7. Where have Public Servants gone? Where has Woodward and Bernstein gone? Stop the madness! We are better than this. Our Community deserves it and requires it. The World expects it. We must all step to the plate and stop this embarrassment that gets worse every day more obscene Taxpayer dollar waste is generated on this incompetent, inept, and incomprehensible OPG DGR boondoggle! Dismiss the OPG DGR Application now. Most Respectfully, John Mann, Citizen, Registered Participant, Saugeen Shores httn·//hl BY JANICE MACKAY JULY 27,2016 2:31PM A concerned participant in the process to build a deep Geologic Repository (DGR) at Bruce Power is amazed with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna's response to a plan by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to look at other sites for nuclear waste burial. In February, McKenna ordered OPG to look at alternate sites before burying low and medium level nuclear waste underground in Kincardine near Lake Huron. In April, OPG responded to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency with a plan to look at other sites through computer simulations, instead of through actual site studies. Port Elgin Lawyer John Mann says this month, McKenna told Northwatch OPG will file it's response to her request for additional information by the end of the year, and she will then plan the next step. Mann says it is astonishing and inexplicable that McKenna will not respond to OPG's express requests in April for confirmation that their plan will meet the Ministers Order. Mann adds computer simulations clearly do not meet the order, when Kincardine studies took ten years. Mann submitted a freedom of information request a month ago, and says no documents have been provided related to the Order or a follow up. Mann questions why McKenna responded to Northwatch rather than post a public response on the DGR registry. He adds none of his concerns as a citizen and registered participant are being made public either. He says OPG is moving ahead with an undemocratic process to create the Kincardine DGR with a plan that has no approval from the federal government and on the backs of taxpayers. He adds OPG will not do extensive studies to find other possible host sites, but instead will conduct what he calls "sham" investigation. "We are looking at geologic regions, we're not seeking additional or new host communities; 1/R mU/LU1ti tllackburnNews.com - Concerned C1t1zen Calls 01-'G Nuclear waste titud1es A tiham we're only considering it hypothetically from a geologic perspective," says Jerry Keto, the vice president of nuclear decommissioning for Ontario Power Generation. Mann says the studies seem to have a predetermined outcome, with OPG reporting it "maintains that a DGR is the right answer for Ontario's low and intermediate level waste, and that the Bruce site is the right location. An independent Federal JRP [Joint Review Panel] has recommended moving forward with the project. OPG is confident further studies will confirm this." In the meantime, other studies are being conducted in municipalities interested in hosting burial sites for high level nuclear waste like spent fuel. Mann says its time to dismiss the OPG DGR application, and move on with a process to build a single Repository for all of the nuclear waste, including high level spent fuel. Mann says the incomprehensible two-track two-DGR process will waste billions of dollars to separate nuclear waste currently stored all together at Bruce Power. "OPG has no intention of performing any legitimate and exhaustive studies Ordered by Minister McKenna," says Mann. "Minister McKenna has no response to OPG's contempt of her order. Minister McKenna has not responded even after two months. Thus, Minister McKenna must be content with OPG's proposed meaningless path forward regarding inexplicable and meaningless hypothetical studies [2] that OPG has already predetermined are not as good as the only proposed site studied in Kincardine where coincidentally the nuclear waste has already been stored for over 50 years above ground. It must be a miracle. It defies common sense to think that Minister McKenna was concerned about hypothetical studies when she made her thoughtful order. For our government officials to treat citizens and taxpayers with such disdain and contempt is despicable. What would the framer's of the Charter think of this conduct toward citizens and absolute waste of Taxpayer dollars? Is this the vision the Framer's anticipated? "Bruce Power is planning to rebuild reactors, beginning sometime after 2020 but near enough that date and to produce electricity at the site for at least another 40 years. Meanwhile, the last waste produced by the reactors in 2060-65 will need to sit in pools for at least another 15 years and then in dry storage for another period of time. That takes us to a time frame between 2080 and 2090, 75 years from now. Nuclear fuels wastes, the most deadly of all, will sit on this site at least until then. That gives us all at least 75 years before httn·//hl<~r.khlJrnnAw<> r.nm/mirlwA<>tArn-nnt<~rinlmirl\AJA<>tArn-nnt::.rin-nAw<>l?n1RJn71?7/r.nnr.ArnArl-r.iti7An-r.<~li<>-nrY1-nllr.IP::.r-w::.<>tA-<>h JrliA<>-<>h<~ml ?IR f/jU/LU1t:i t:llacKburnNews.com - (.;oncerned (.;ftlzen (.;ails Uf-'G Nuclear waste :::itud1es A :::iham any DGR at all is necessary, if, indeed, any DGR is necessary. OPG has stated during the l, '(j hearings that used fuel wastes can be permanently stored with low- and intermediate-level wastes, meaning that there is at present, as well as for the foreseeable future, any need for a DGR for mops and rags. Even these mops and rags are not what they seem because they are regularly incinerated to become ash. So we are dealing with ash that stored in metal containers which, in turn, is stored in simple buildings. Meanwhile, the first low and intermediate-level wastes produced by OPG will now be more than 100 years old, a period of time when it will become available for free-release to the environment, according to Jerry Keto of OPG. "[OPG's] current plan is to bury all of Ontario's nuclear wastes right here in lnverhuron underneath Lake Huron. For the moment they claim they will not include used fuel wastes but that is hardly a believable story. The Type 3 Intermediate-level wastes slated for this dump have exactly the same radiological characteristics as used fuel. The low-level wastes they plan to bury in this Taj Mahal of a dump (costing their estimate of $2.65-billion as opposed to $648-million for above ground storage that they claim can be safely stored this way for the long-term) will have lost approximately half of its radioactivity by the time the dump is built and the wastes that were first produced will have almost no radioactivity by the time nuclear operations are slated to be finished at this site. Every Deep Geologic Repository (as this is called- DGR) built to date on the planet has failed, with the longest lasting one failing after a mere 15 years. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC- the nuclear regulator) claim that it would make no difference to the safety of the drinking water for 40-million people if the entire radiological content of this deep cavern were to leak into the lake (which kind of begs the question as to why we need such a dump at all). In fact, this is the final plan for these wastes: only the time frame is in question. They claim it will take a million years Uust like WIPP in the US did before that failed after just 15 years) but every underground nuclear waste site OPG has built so far has leaked radioactivity into the groundwater, including immediately for their Radioactive Waste Operating Site 2. Please join us all in opposing this plan. These wastes, because of the inclusion of long-lasting intermediate level wastes, will continue to be radioactive for millions of years, and dangerously so for hundreds of thousands. Innocent people should not have this outrageous situation forced on them." Mann wrote a letter to the environment Minister today calling for an end to the obscene waste of money. It can be read below: httn·//hl<'lr.kh11rnnPw<:: r.nm/m irlwP<::IPrn-nnl<'lrinlm irlwP<::IPrn-nnl<'~rin-nPw<::/?01 f'.in7/?71r.nnr.PrnPrl-r.ili7Pn-r.<'lll <::-nnn-mlr.IP<'lr-w<'l<::IP...<:h 1rlir><::-<::h<'lm I ~If'. T/::SU/~016 l::!lacKburnNews.com- c.;oncerned (.;itlzen c.; ails UI-'G Nuclear waste Studies A Sham Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President: fo Y7 How does our government justify spending $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for spent fuel nuclear waste? How does our government justify the difference of some $22 Billion Taxpayer Dollars to dig a hole for clothes and rags at an obscene cost of $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars? Had Kincardine welcomed spent fuel in the Hosting Agreement signed by OPG and we were only dealing with 1 DGR, we would not even be dealing with this absolute nonsense! NWMO just released its Newsletter saying the DGR for spent fuel will cost an obscene $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars, while OPG told the Joint Review Panel that the DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste would cost an obscene $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars! How is this astonishing difference in building a hole to store waste possible? Particularly when $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars for clothes and rags was far too obscene to be justified in the first place! 1. NWMO has just released the cost estimate for the high level spent fuel DGR- an obscene and wasteful $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars. The previous estimate was $16 Billion Taxpayer Dollars that NWMO presented as evidence at the recent Joint Review Panel Public Hearings in 2012 and 2013. 2. As a result there has been a stunning and obscene $6 Billion to $7 Billion Taxpayer Dollar cost INCREASE for the spent fuel DGR in a few short years. Why? How is this remotely possible? 3. Equally shocking, the evidence presented by OPG at the 2012-2013 Joint Review Panel Public Hearings was that the proposed OPG DGR for low and intermediate nuclear waste would cost an obscene and wasteful $1 Billion Taxpayer Dollars. 4. The unreasonable $21 to $22 Billion Taxpayer Dollar difference in price between the 2 DGRs makes the OPG low and intermediate nuclear waste DGR analogous to a nuclear waste "Dollar Store" storage unit with drywall construction, while the NWMO [created by OPG and 95% owned by OPG, with interchangeable employees] is building a spent fuel nuclear waste storage unit analogous to "Tiffany's" and paved in Gold with Diamond studded walls. 5. This irresponsible waste of Taxpayer Dollars cannot be justified. The shocking difference in Taxpayer waste between the 2 DGRs is impossible to comprehend even by government httn·//hl::~r.khllrnnpw,:: r.nm/mirlwp,::tArn-nnt::~rin/mirlwA,::tprn-nnt::~rin-nAw,::/?01R/07/?7/r.nnr.Arm>rl-r.iti7An-r.::~ll,::-nnn-m•r.IA::~r-w::~<>tP..<>h •riiA!':-<>h::~m/ 4/R 7/:ID/LU1ti tllackburnNews.com - Concerned Citizen Calls Uf-'G Nuclear waste ::itudJes A ::iham standards. 6. After all the DGR is nothing more than a gravesite for nuclear waste. It is nothing more than a hole in the ground with no beneficial function whatsoever. 7. Embattled SNC-Lavalin is on the NWMO letterhead related to past DGR Taxpayer cost estimates. How many Taxpayer Dollars has embattled SNC-Lavalin been given in this 2- Track 2-DGR process boondoggle, and how many Taxpayer Dollars is embattled SNC Lavalin predicted to take from Citizens and Taxpayers in the future from this 2-Track 2-DGR process boondoggle? 8. Citizens and Taxpayers would rather have these huge Taxpayer Dollars directed to our Health, Education, and Legal Aid Budgets rather than the deep pockets of embattled SNC Lava/in. 9. And to build this Taj Maho/ grave for spent fuel, NWMO predicts operations could begin as "early" as between 2040 and 2045, having begun the process in 2000! Something is incomprehensibly wrong with a project that takes over 40 years to complete even factoring in the fact that government is running the DGR process. It is taking our government over 40 years to dig a grave, when it took less than 10 years to land a man on the moon. Can anyone explain this to anyone? 10. Can anyone explain how it was possible for OPG and/or NWMO to spend $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars related solely to talking with Canadians to obtain their views on storing nuclear waste!? Highway robbery! This was reported in the Toronto Star on March 13, 2013. The unlimited funds available for the DGRs is impossible to justify and must be the subject of a convened Public and Judicia/Inquiry. 11. And can anyone explain why there is "urgency" in burying the clothes and rags with 2040 as the earliest date for spent fuel to find a home, with 30 years of spent fuel cooling on the surface prior to being placed in any DGR after 2040 at the earliest? 12. In the meantime, the Dollar Store OPG DGR for clothes and rags will be approved and built by government, with highly dangerous radioactive intermediate nuclear waste [similar to radioactive spent fuel] placed in a bargain basement, cutting cost, cheap OPG DGR modeled after the failed WIPP DGR in New Mexico. 13. The obscene Taxpayer Dollar waste and cost can never be justified. In light of the $6 to httn·//hl ::.r.kh11rnnpw,:: r.nm/m irlwP!':tPrn-nnt::.rin/m irlwP!':tPrn-nnt::.rin-npw,::/?01 R/07/?7/r.nnr.PrnPrl-r.i ti7Pn-r.::.ll c:-nnn-n11r.l P::.r-w::.,::tp..,::h 1rli P!':-!':h::.m/ f /::lU/ 14. Instead of spending the obscene amount of Taxpayer Dollars in a positive and creative way by researching, developing, and creating energy from this nuclear waste, we are burying the radioactive problem out of sight! Who on the planet outside of OPG, NWMO, CNSC, JRP, and SNC-Lavalin thinks that burying our nuclear waste problems is a good idea?- at obscene Taxpayer Dollar waste! 15. The answer is simple: We must terminate the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle, and all meaningfully work toward an overall plan for ALL nuclear waste for the benefit of all Citizens and Taxpayers. A Public and Judicial Inquiry must be convened. 16. Minister McKenna has a solemn obligation and duty to respond to these serious questions and concerns from the Citizens and Taxpayers that she has the honour and privilege to work for. Unfortunately Minister McKenna remains silent. As does Premier Wynne, as does Prime Minister Trudeau, as does Jeffrey Lyash, as does Michael Binder, as does Ken Nash. Shameful! Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen Registered Participant R/R 1/0U/~U1ti 1:31ackburnNews.com- New uocument Lays Out 1he ~ite ~e1ect1on t-'rocess l-or Nuclear waste New Document Lays Out The Site Selection Process For Nuclear Waste ~s 2- BY JANICE MACKAY JULY 28, 2016 3:43PM The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is looking for public comment on its draft plan of action for the next five years. The NWMO is planning to spend nearly $23-billion to stash high level nuclear waste underground in a deep geologic repository. The organization has narrowed down a list of possible sites from 21 to nine, including South Bruce, Huron Kinless, and Central Huron. The "Implementing Adaptive Phased Management 2017 to 2021 Draft" lays out the next five years of work. The organization will spend the next five years building relationships with willing communities to find a safe location. It will continue to test an engineered barrier system to ensure it can contain the radiation for the very long term. It will also ensure funds are available to pay for long term nuclear waste management. "One focus of the 2017 to 2021 period will be on siting and working with potentially interested communities as they move through the preliminary assessments step in the siting process," the report says. "Activities will support community learning and engagement, as well as site evaluation." The budget in the latest document is up $7 -billion from the last estimate a few years ago. The cost of a second nuclear storage repository in Bruce County is estimated at $1-billion. In the meantime, OPG is conducting some hypothetical computer simulations on two unidentified sites to satisfy Ministry of Environment orders to look at alternatives to the other planned nuclear waste repository at the Bruce Power site. OPG has offered to complete the studies by the end of the year. The studies for the Kincardine site took ten years to complete. httn·//hl«r.khllrnnAw~ r.nm/mirlw~tArn-nnt«rin/mirlwA~tArn-nnt:.rin-nAw~/?f11R/f17/?RinAw-rlnr.llmAnl-1«11~-~itA-~AIAr.tinn-nrnr.A~~-n••r.IA«r-w«~tAi 1/? 7/::lU/LU1ti l::llackburnNews.com- New Uocument Lays Uut 1he ::::iite ::;election 1-'rocess l-or Nuclear Waste There are questions as to urgency for a repository for low and medium level nuclear waste in Kincardine when a a site for a repository for high level nuclear waste will not even be b5'3 selected until about 2023. Another question is why there is a need for two repositories. Blackburn News (CKNX News) is waiting for the Ministry of Environment to respond to some of those questions. The NWMO draft document can be found here Here are some links to related stories. http://black burnnews. com/midwes tern-ontario/midwes tern-ontarlo-news/20 16/07/27/concerned-citiz en-cal!s opg-nuclear-waste-studies-sharn/ http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07/25/port-elgin-man-wants inquiry-canadas-nuclear-regulators/ http://blackburnnews. com/midwes tern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2016/07 /20/bruce-power-engaged external-experts-safety-assessment! http://blackburnnews. com/midwestern-ontario/rnidwes tern-ontario-news/20 16/07/19/letter-ques tlons-integrity nuclear-licensing-hearings/ http://blackburnnews.com/rnidwestern-ontario/rnidwestern-ontario-news/2016/04/13/huron-kinloss-residents can-!earn-rnore-about-hosting-a-nuclear -waste-storage-site/ http://blackburnnews.com/rnidwestern-ontario/rnidwestern-ontario-news/2016/03/16/bruce-power-claims-some credit-for-cleaner-air/ http://black burn news. com/rnidwestern-ontario/midwes tern-ontario-news/20 16/03/1 0/bruce-power-safety changes-5-years-after-fukushima/ httn·//hl<'l~kh••rnnAw<: ~nm /m irlwA<:tArn-nnl<'lrin/mirlwA<:IArn-nnt<'lrin-nAw<:/?01 R/07/?P./nA\M-rlnr.llm Ant-I <'~v<:-<:itA-<:AIAdinn- nrnrA<:<:-n11r.l A<'~r-W<'~"'-IA/ ?I? Page 1 of 4 John Mann From: "John Mann" August 1, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario: NWMO must explain and document to Citizens and Taxpayers how it inexplicably spent $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars to talk to 18,000 Canadians about their views related to the DGR [amounting to $5,555 for every Canadian spoken to]! 1. On March 13, 2013, the Toronto Star reported "Nuclear Waste: Are two storage sites one too many?", stating: https://www.thestar.com/business/2013/03/13/nuclear waste are two storage sites one too many.html "Canada is on its way to building a pair of billion-dollar sites for storing nuclear waste. Saugeen Shores resident John Mann, who lives only a few kilometres from one proposed site at the Bruce nuclear station, thinks a single storage site could do the job .... As Canada heads down a two-track strategy for handling waste from its nuclear power plants .... it will be a very expensive, costing $16 to $24 billion to build and operate. The two track strategy is one Mann can't understand, given the expense. 'No person in their right mind would build two,' he told the Star .... In his view, it's a mistake to proceed first with the site for low- and intermediate-level waste 8/1/2016 Page 2 of 4 without having a firm plan for what to do with the used fuel." 2. This is the inexplicable response from OPG and NWMO, and reported by the Star: "The proponents [OPG and NWMO] of the two different approaches insist it's not so simple. The high-level waste site process is years behind that for the low-level site. While the low and intermediate waste site has been selected and is undergoing scrutiny, 21 communities are still candidates for a high-level storage area. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization [NWMO] has been working for a decade on high-level waste storage, said spokesman Mike Krizanc. In that time, he says, it has spent about $100 million talking to [18,000] Canadians, finding their views. 'Our public engagement, our plan, was approved on the basis that it was for used nuclear fuel,' he said. Low and intermediate waste storage hasn't been part of its mandate, Krizanc said. To include a new type of waste would mean starting all over again to look for a community willing to host the project. A combined site would have to be bigger and that would rule out some areas, he noted. Moreover, he said, it would delay the project for years. 'Canadians are very clear that this generation has to take responsibility now for the used fuel that we've created,' he said. Ontario Power Generation [OPG] is also committed to the two-track process, says chief executive Tom Mitchell [who was paid almost $2 million Taxpayer dollars a year for this type of leadership]. 'Our total focus is to create that long-term solution for low and intermediate waste from our facilities."' 3. The reply in the Star to these incomprehensible comments: "Mann argues there's time to take a new look at the overall problem, even if it adds years to the process. The material is sitting safely on the surface today [for over 40 years], he said, and there's no rush to entomb it. 'In another 40 years, hopefully we've got a lot better knowledge on how to reprocess and do other things with this stuff instead of burying it,' he said. That sentiment may have received a boost from Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive of Bruce Power. Speaking at a community open house, Hawthorne also urged a go-slow approach, according to a report in the Kincardine News. Hawthorne said he had written to the NWMO telling them: 'You've confused the whole community. We're looking at something that's 125 years from now. Go away for a decade."' 4. The Star points our the real reason between the 2-Track 2-DGR process: "Confusing the issue is the status of the town of Kincardine, whose boundary includes the Bruce nuclear site. Kincardine [council, no referendum] volunteered to host the low and intermediate waste site on condition that it would not get the high-level waste site. [no tender to any other municipality!] .... But many of Kincardine's neighbours are among the 21 communities in Canada that have expressed initial interest- though not a firm commitment -to take the high-level waste site. Kincardine could end up with the low and intermediate site, while a high-level waste site is built a few kilometres away in a nearby municipality. Or the high-level site could end up thousands of kilometres away, in Saskatchewan or Northern Ontario." Or, spent fuel may never find a compelling willing host or a DGR site for spent fuel and remain on the surface while low and intermediate nuclear waste is buried in a Taj Mahal DGR! And every expert and witness at the JRP proceedings confirmed that it is dangerous to transport nuclear waste off-site. And all of this could have been avoided by Kincardine Council if it had allowed spent fuel in its hosting agreement signed with OPG for its DGR! And this after having spent fuel stored safely in Kincardine for over 50 years- Crazy! No need for the clothes and rags DGR, no need for 2 DGRs at double Taxpayer costs, and no urgency! Answer us! 5. As a result it is undisputed that the 2-Track 2-DGR process is a complete waste of time and the most costly boondoggle of all government boondoggles. The 1 DGR process must replace it before another Taxpayer dollar is unnecessarily wasted. How can anyone support the infamous and indefensible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle to 8/1/2016 Page 3 of 4 b~? any Citizen, Taxpayer, and Canadian that rely on all government officials and government leaders to lead with common sense fiscal responsibility in the best interests of us all? Explain that to the ultimate Public Inquiry related to this disastrous DGR process that is the largest government process of all time, for all time. The Ontario 2-gas plant fiasco pales by comparison and is mere chump change in comparable waste! This requires the urgent attention of everyone in Canada! 6. It is important to remember that OPG owns and is responsible for all levels of nuclear waste. OPG created NWMO to handle the spent fuel and now to handle the clothes and rags and intermediate levels of nuclear waste. OPG owns 95% of NWMO and has interchangeable employees. To continue on the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle is inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible leadership at the very highest. 7. Citizens and Taxpayers are hopeful that our Free Press will press all of our government officials and so-called leaders for answers to these crucial questions and concerns that are conceded by OPG and NWMO, and that requires immediately terminating the 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle while replacing it with the 1-DGR process for all levels of nuclear waste with meaningful input and participation from everyone in the World that wants to find a proper and best solution for all of the nuclear waste that is the solemn obligation and duty of all of us. 8. In addition, the RCMP and the Auditor General and a Public and Judicial Inquiry must investigate the inexplicable obscene waste of Taxpayer Dollars in the 2-Track 2-DGR process, including by NWMO wherein NWMO spent an inexplicable "$100 Million [Taxpayer Dollars] talking to [18,000] Canadians, finding their views" [conceded by NWMO in the Star article above]. Let's think about that for a moment: a. "$100 Million [Taxpayer Dollars] talking to [18,000] Canadians, finding their views." Say that again: "100 Million [Taxpayer Dollars] talking to [18,000] Canadians, finding their views." Really? b. That means that it cost Taxpayers $5,555 per NWMO talk with each and every one of the 18,000 Canadians. Citizens and Taxpayers and all Canadians require answers from all of our government officials and leaders as to how this is remotely possible. Something is terribly wrong. This irresponsible obscene Taxpayer spending can never be justified. Citizens and Taxpayers and all Canadians require all our government officials and leaders to be held accountable for this absolute irresponsible folly and we should have new leadership and new government officials moving forward with a 1 DGR process. c. Could our starving health care, education, and Legal Aid budgets have used those wasted $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars? A full investigation must be conducted. d. In light of this contemptible waste of Taxpayer Dollars leads to the inescapable conclusion that OPG and NWMO are simply not capable of leading or being involved with any solution related to nuclear waste. e. In light of OPG and NWMO spending $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars talking to 18,000 Canadians [$5,555 per capita], OPG and NWMO have proven that they are inept, incompetent, and simply not trustworthy to continue being involved in any way with the solution for nuclear waste. Having initially spent $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars on a survey that was biased toward a rigged foregone conclusion wherein OPG and NWMO would follow this inept, incompetent, and incomprehensible government boondoggle known as the 2-Track 2- DGR process with a CNSC acting as cheerleader instead of watchdog for all Citizens and Taxpayers and Canadians. The incomprehensible waste of Taxpayer Dollars requires RCMP, Auditor General, and other Public and Judicial Inquiry's and Investigations to explain the inexplicable 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle that has a history heretofore of secrecy, unaccountability, and irresponsibility. Particularly since SNC-Lavalin, charged and embattled in other parts of the World, has had such a lead role in the DGR process as well as other nuclear processes in Chalk River, Ontario, White Shell, Manitoba, and Darlington, Ontario, and SNC-Lavalin also purchased Atomic Energy of Canada at a bargain basement price. A thorough Public Inquiry and Investigation 8/1/2016 Page 4 of 4 b~t:f must be conducted to answer the heretofore ignored questions and concerns raised by Citizens and Taxpayer and Canadians. f. I have asked OPG and NWMO how it was possible to spend such an obscene amount of money [$100 Million] to survey 18,000 people [available in my DGR Record]. I received no response whatsoever. g. I also asked for an itemized summary of how this $100 Million was dispersed. I received no response whatsoever. h. Consider this to be my Freedom of Information request for all documentation related to this obscene $100 Million expenditure. [I also ask for a response to this email and all of my other emails throughout this DGR process] i. We have yet to receive what survey was conducted and what responses from 18,000 Canadians created the 2-Track 2-DGR process boondoggle. 9. OPG and NWMO have stated that the costs for the spent fuel DGR have increased by $6 to $7 Billion in the last 5 years, currently estimated at $22.8 Billion Taxpayer Dollars! And this for merely digging a hole to bury the spent fuel. And costing $21 Billion more than the obscene and outrageous $1 Billion price-tag estimated for the clothes and rags and intermediate DGR hole! These obscene and outrageous estimates make sense when you factor in that it cost Taxpayers $100 Million for OPG and NWMO to merely "talk to 18,000 Canadians." OPG and NWMO can never explain this and will never again gain anyone's trust in any DGR process! Shameful and despicable! 10. And think about this, would you not think that nuclear experts would be the ones to be consulted by OPG and NWMO. After all our extraordinary Duncan Hawthorne, the leader in our nuclear industry, does not favour the DGR process as it is presently. Why would anyone merely talk to Citizens to obtain their views about a DGR process when presumably the Citizens have no expertise or knowledge related to nuclear waste. And who are these 18,000 Canadians, where do they live, what is their background, what "talking" did NWMO do with each of the 18,000 at $5,555 Taxpayer Dollars per capita, and why do these 18,000 Canadians speak for 30,000,000 Canadians [a meaningless survey of less than 1% of Canadians for such a critical process and at indescribable cost of $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars]? Our government officials and leaders must meaningfully answer all of these questions and concerns from Citizens and Taxpayers and Canadians. 11. All Citizens and All Taxpayers and All Canadians look forward to our Public Servants answering all of our questions and concerns related to the DGR process that will now be investigated by our Free Press in our Free and Democratic Society, ultimately culminating in a full RCMP investigation, Auditor General investigation, Ministry of Environment investigation, Ministry of Natural Resources investigation, and every level of government investigation, to finally obtain accountability and responsibility into this government boondoggle to end all government boondoggles. Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores 8/1/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)" Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly. If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479). Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de surete nucleaire. Votre message a ete rec;:u et sera traite en consequence. Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479). 8/1/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario" Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me. Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days. Thanks again for contacting me. Kathleen Wynne Premier Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi etje vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire. Toutes les lett reset to us les courriels que je re~ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sa chez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re~ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en Ia matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel. Meilleures salutations, Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de !'Ontario Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re~u a cette adresse. 811/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "John Mann" This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna" This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/1/2016 4:19PM 8/1/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Christine Pedias" Your message To: Christine Pedias Subject: NWMO must explain and document to Citizens and Taxpayers how it inexplicably spent $100 Million Taxpayer Dollars to talk to 18,000 Canadians about their views related to the DGR [amounting to $5,555 for every Canadian spoken to]! Sent: Monday, August 1, 2016 4:14:52 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Monday, August 1, 2016 7:19:45 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 8/2/2016 Page 1 of2 John Mann From: "John Mann" August 2, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario: The fact that there is no need and no urgency to build the OPG DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at Kincardine is confirmed and proven by simply asking the following question: "Would any of the 21 municipalities that are being considered for the DGR site for high level spent fuel nuclear waste mind if OPG also threw the low and intermediate level nuclear waste into the same hole?" Most Respectfully, 8/2/2016 Page 2 of2 John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores 8/2/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)" Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly. If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479). Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sOrete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re!;u et sera traite en consequence. Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479). 8/2/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario" Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me. Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days. Thanks again for contacting me. Kathleen Wynne Premier Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire. Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je reyois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je reyois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter l'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite avotre courriel. Meilleures salutations, Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de 1' Ontario Veuillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre reyu a cette adresse. 8/2/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Your message To: McKenna, Catherine- M.P. Subject: Finally a Journalist seeks answers to the important questions posed by concerned Citizens and Taxpayers that have heretofore been ignored by all of our government officials responsible for the infamous and indefensible 2-Track 2-DGR boondoggle! Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 3:45:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, August 2, 2016 1 :00:28 PM (UTC-05 :00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 8/2/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: Your message To: McKenna, Catherine- M.P. Subject: "Would any of the 21 municipalities that are being considered for the DGR site for high level spent fuel nuclear waste mind if OPG also threw the low and intermediate level nuclear waste into the same hole?" Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 12:30:10 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Tuesday, August 2, 2016 12:47:55 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 8/2/2016 Page 1 of2 John Mann From: "John Mann" August 3, 2016 Hi Minister McKenna, Prime Minister Trudeau, Jeffrey Lyash, CEO and President of OPG, Premier Wynne, Ken Nash, President of NWMO, and Michael Binder, CNSC President, Minister Jim Carr, Minister of Natural Resources, Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada, and Bonnie Lysyk, Auditor General of Ontario: Question 2: The fact that there is no need and no urgency to build the OPG DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at Kincardine is also confirmed and proven by simply asking the following question: "lfthe remaining 7 [while a stunning 14 out of the 21 original municipalities have already been found to be unsafe for a DGR] municipalities still being considered to host a spent fuel DGR eventually also fail to qualify as a safe site or as a compelling willing Community to store spent fuel in a DGR, why 8/3/2016 Page 2 of2 {1tJ then is there any need and why is there any urgency to build the proposed OPG DGR in Kincardine to store low and intermediate level nuclear waste?" Most Respectfully, John Mann Citizen and Registered DGR Participant Saugeen Shores 8/3/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Information (CNSC/CCSN)" Thank you for your email to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's Info account. Your message has been received and will be actioned accordingly. If you are reporting an EMERGENCY involving a nuclear facility or radioactive materials, please call the CNSC Duty Officer EMERGENCY telephone line (613-995-0479). Merci d'avoir envoye un message au compte Info de Ia Commission canadienne de sOrete nucleaire. Votre message a ete re~u et sera traite en consequence. Pour signaler une URGENCE concernant une installation nucleaire ou des matieres radioactives, veuillez composer le numero de telephone d'URGENCE de I' agent de service de Ia CCSN (613-995-0479). 8/3/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Premier of Ontario I Premiere ministre de !'Ontario" Thanks for your email. I value your input and appreciate your taking the time to get in touch with me. Every email and letter I receive is carefully read and reviewed. Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and because I may need to share your message with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days. Thanks again for contacting me. Kathleen Wynne Premier Please note that we are not able to receive replies at this email address, so please do not respond directly to this email. * * * Je vous remercie de votre courriel. Votre avis est important pour moi et je vous suis reconnaissante d'avoir pris le temps de m'ecrire. Toutes les lettres et tousles courriels que je re<;ois sont Ius attentivement, un par un. Sachez, cependant, qu'en raison du volume important de correspondance que je re<;ois et parce qu'il se peut que j'aie a consulter 1'un de mes collegues du Conseil des ministres ou un fonctionnaire competent en la matiere, il pourrait s'ecouler plusieurs jours avant que je puisse donner suite a votre courriel. Meilleures salutations, Kathleen Wynne Premiere ministre de l'Ontario V euillez ne pas repondre directement a ce courriel, car aucun courriel ne peut etre re<;u a cette adresse. 8/3/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "John Mann" This is a receipt for the email message you sent to "Hon. Catherine McKenna" This receipt verifies that the message has been displayed on the recipient's computer at 8/3/2016 11 :26 AM 8/3/2016 Page 1 of 1 John Mann From: "Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN)" Your message To: Binder, Michael (CNSC/CCSN) Subject: "If the remaining 7 [out of 21] municipalities still being considered to host a spent fuel DGR also fail to qualify as a safe site or as a compelling willing Community, why is there any need or urgency to build the proposed OPG DGR?" Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:24:57 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) was read on Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:29:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 8/3/2016 tl/4/~U1ti !:llackburnNews.com -t:nvtronment Minister Asked lo Merge lwo 1-'roposed Nuclear Waste !:lunal ::itt' ~~ Environment Minister Asked To Merge Two Proposed Nuclear Waste Burial Sites BY JANICE MACKAY AUGUST 3, 2016 2:43PM A Port Elgin man who opposes two separate nuclear waste burial facilities wonders why low and medium level nuclear waste cannot go into the site for high level nuclear waste. John Mann is asking why one of the sites under consideration for a Deep Geologic Repository(DGR) for high level nuclear waste cannot also accept low and medium level waste. Mann has written to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna multiple times over what his sees as the obscene waste of money to build two burial sites. He says all the nuclear waste is currently stored together at Bruce Power. South Bruce, Central Huron and Huron Kinloss are all interested in hosting the site for high level waste like spent nuclear fuel. "The fact that there is no need and no urgency to build the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) DGR for low and intermediate level nuclear waste at Kincardine is confirmed and proven by simply asking the following question: Would any of the 21 municipalities that are being considered for the DGR site for high level spent fuel nuclear waste mind if OPG also threw the low and intermediate level nuclear waste into the same hole?" says Mann. Mann also questions the extreme costs to consult with the public on the proposed DGR. He says the Nuclear Waste Management Organization spent $1 00-million in taxpayer dollars to talk to 18,000 Canadians about their views related to the DGR. Mann says that amounts to $5,555. per person. Mann says the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is wasting time and money searching for a site for high level waste when Ontario Power Generation has stated unconditionally is a letter to the Environment Minister that the Kincardine site is the right location for low and intermediate nuclear waste. No other alternate sites to Kincardine were studied but OPG promises some computer simulations in response to a federal order to look at other sites. The costoLa nuclear storage repository in Bruce County is estimated at $1-billion. httn·//hl::tr.l Blackburn News (CKNX News) is still waiting for a response from Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. ?I?