A Lot to be Angry About ... Proposed DGR is a Head Shaker

I’m happy, and I’m angry.  I’m happy to see the volume and weight of thoughtful comments against the proposed DGR for Canada’s high-level radioactive nuclear waste.  

I’m angry and dumbfounded that transportation has been purposefully excluded from the proposal.  The problem of what to do with high-level radioactive nuclear waste cannot be separated from its transportation.  In my career, if I had ever proposed to get a project approved by presenting only half the story, I would have been told it was a stupid, career-ending move.

I’m angry that the proposal has reached the commenting stage with so few people aware of it.  Up to now, public engagement has been superficial and locally-focused, at best. 

I’m angry that the majority of First Nations people who are impacted by this proposed project, in consideration of watersheds, traditional lands, transportation through First Nations, treaty holders, etc., have not been consulted.  And I’m doubly angry that NWMO has financially influenced and paid for consent from local First Nations people for the support of their proposal.   

I’m angry to learn from the comments that the Ignace hosting agreement (and probably the WLON agreement) has penalty clauses to financially penalize them if they choose to not proceed.  Not exactly a fair playing field for thoughtful, objective decision-making.

I’m angry that all communities, people, and rights holders along possible transportation routes have not been engaged.  Disrespectful.  Especially for those living on the routes, or owning businesses, or working, or riding bikes in bike lanes, or riding their horse & buggy on the shoulder, or using parks/playgrounds, or attending school, all within feet of highways, roads and rail.  Insidious.

I’m angry that the industry and the government made decisions decades ago without adequately considering the long term.  Does anyone really, truly believe that nuclear power is clean and the lowest-cost option?  A simple long-term analysis shows it’s neither clean nor low-cost.  There are no good alternatives for the situation we’re in.  This is on the backs of many past decision-makers, but it’s now being amplified by today’s decision-makers.  Burying and forgetting it in Northwestern Ontario is not the answer.   

I’m angry that I’ve been a consumer of nuclear power without truly understanding the situation it has put us/me in.  It’s raised my interest in alternative energy and off-grid living.  It’s caused me to wonder how decisions to proceed with nuclear power in the first place could have been so short-sighted.  Kicking the can down the road was a bad strategy.

I’m angry with the notion of a 160-year project.  During this time, and beyond, high-level radioactive nuclear waste from traditional reactors will continue to be created, plus more from SMRs and (likely) future technology.  Feels like a 160-year project is just the start.  Expect project extensions.  During this time, and beyond, Northwestern Ontario risks becoming a dumping ground for high-level radioactive nuclear waste from the US.  (Garbage, including hazardous waste, already flows into Canada.)  Expect project expansion – which will, no doubt, be driven by those willing to pay large amounts to rid themselves of their high-level radioactive nuclear waste.  Forget the notion of a 160-year project.  Think forever.  Forget today’s project description. Think opportunism.  (Definition:  “The taking of opportunities as and when they arise, regardless of planning or principle.”)  Head-shaking.  I don’t think there can be any doubt that the proposed plan for the DGR will extend and expand.  

I’m angry that “forever” can excite some people who believe this will bring sustained economic prosperity to their community.  Think again.  If the site is shut down in 160 years, they’ll be baby-sitting a fence.  If the site remains active longer due to extension and expansion (both likely regardless of what is said and written today), automation and standard economic decisions will shift the operations toward low-cost efficiency.  Forget long-term prosperity.  

I’m angry that so many people, especially in nearby communities, are making short-term, irreversible decisions.  This is treason against the land, treason against future generations, and treason against all those who don’t have a voice in this, notably on transportation routes and who value the beauty and benefits of living in Northwestern Ontario.

I’m angry that, as one commenter pointed out, this project is being treated like a mining operation.  But, even in mining, transportation is a significant part of the decision-making process.  Of course.

I’m angry that this project is based on unproven concepts.  What could possibly go wrong? 

I’m angry from reading about the deficiencies in the geological assessment of the area.  Expediency over excellence.

I’m angry that honest questions and sincere concerns get discounted.  Unconscionable.  Immoral.  And, ridiculing and taunting responses are funded by the electricity rates we pay.  Unethical.

I’m angry that I can’t get transportation issues out of my head when thinking about this.  Beyond the known (but apparently ignored) risk of accidents, what about terrorism?  With 40,000 truckloads (or more with extension and expansion) over 50++ years, the risk that high-level radioactive nuclear waste is intentionally diverted and used for ransom or other nefarious reasons suddenly increases exponentially.  Every kilometre of every route is at risk.

I’m angry with simple math.  40,000 truckloads travelling 2500km from Pt Lepreau or 1600km from Ontario plants means about 80,000,000 miles of transit (and at rest in communities) of high-level radioactive nuclear waste over 50 years.  Again, what could possibly go wrong?

I’m angry that there has been a shift over the decades from how to solve the problem of Canada’s high-level radioactive nuclear waste to “bury and forget it”.  This isn’t a solution.  It’s an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach.  This isn’t waste management; this is “responsibility neglect”.  Shift did indeed hit the fan.

I’m angry with the lack of transparency.  Ignace’s agreement is public.  Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation’s agreement is not.  In whose universe does this make sense, and why?

I’m angry that Northwestern Ontario is being treated as a dumping ground for something that has been of limited benefit to its people.  Some say Northwestern Ontario does not consume nuclear power; others say it does at certain times.  Regardless, Northwestern Ontario is being sacrificed to address a long-standing problem with high-level radioactive nuclear waste that originates elsewhere.

I’m angry that people living near nuclear plants that store their high-level radioactive nuclear waste have a terrible dilemma. While most have chosen to live there knowing that they are near a nuclear plant, they may not know the quantity of high-level radioactive nuclear waste. (That said, they do get free iodine pills in the event of a nuclear accident.)  They need a long-term solution, but it should not be to use Northwestern Ontario as a dumping ground. 

I’m angry that a 160-year “bury and forget” proposal is not a plan to “manage” high-level radioactive nuclear waste.  Abandonment is not accountable management.  (Exactly who is it that will be accountable in tens or hundreds or thousands of years?)

I’m angry that the proposed DGR is more than a deep-ground storage facility.  It also looks like it may be a shallow-underground storage site for high-level radioactive waste before it’s buried in the DGR (while waiting for the DGR to be built).   On-site, the DGR is also a processing facility that creates more radioactive waste.  It is also a treatment facility that releases treated contaminated water (surface water, precipitation that came into contact with surface facilities and used shipping containers, and water from dewatering activities within the DGR) and treated contaminated air into the environment.  How much contamination will remain before release?  “The NWMO plans to use the best available, and economically achievable, technologies for treatment.”  In other words, they don’t know yet.

I’m angry that “precipitation and surface runoff that comes into contact with surface facilities can be collected in ditches and collection ponds … for treatment prior to release to the environment.” (Released to the environment!?)  Water, as is common knowledge, is insidious and will leak whenever possible.  Nothing is watertight forever.  So, NWMO is now a waste producer as well.   

I’m angry that this proposal attempts to absolve the originators of high-level nuclear waste issues by passing it to another entity … who is likely to pass it to another entity (yet to be created) to operate the DGR. Ah, nothing like a few corporate veils to solve a problem.  Except that the problem is never truly solved.  Just buried and abandoned (unless the DGR is extended and expanded).   So, the proposal is either “bury and forget” or “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” … but it’s certainly not a waste management solution.

I’m angry that we don’t learn from the past.  If this proposal proceeds, what will the archeologists, anthropologists, and historians of tomorrow say about us?  We know there will NOT be zero incidents over 160 (+?) years, so much of their commentary will be about incidents and outcomes.  They will reflect on the economic and human costs.  They will shake their heads:  “Can you believe they thought nuclear was safe and low cost?”  More importantly, what will future generations say?  Some clues:  What do you remember (hint:  it’s all negative) about the Titanic?  What do you remember about Chernobyl?  About the Hindenburg?   Lac-Megantic train derailment?  DDT?  Thalidomide?  The Pinto?  Asbestos?  Lead-based paint?  Your toilet? (which is not supposed to clog)  “We” do make mistakes. Let’s avoid a big one here.

I’m angry.  This proposal should not proceed (with or without transportation).

But I’m hopeful that the weight of reasons not to proceed prevails.