Comments on the Initial Project Description on the proposed NWMO Deep Geological Repository in NW Ontario

Comments on the Initial Project Description on the proposed NWMO Deep Geological Repository in NW Ontario (Ignace, Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation)

Pre-ramble:

My comments are made based on my lived experience a resident of Durham Region which houses about half of the used nuclear fuel in Ontario and significant quantities of low and intermediate level radioactive (RA) waste. I have followed the activities of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) since its inception. I also worked on energy and nuclear policy as it affects host municipalities for over 20 years. In that role, I observed how the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) largely ignores any local concerns about the ongoing, growing, so-called “interim” storage of used fuel and other RA wastes at the two nuclear generating sites in Durham. Somehow such comments are always deemed out of scope. So, this initial section is intended to raise the consciousness of the public, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the potential host communities of the fine points and pitfalls that never appear in the cut and pasted, consultant-produced formal process documents like this initial project description (IPD). It's a segmented check list approach that does not connect the dots across the various processes or time spans involved in the project.

As a resident of a community that seemingly stands to benefit from the creation of the NWMO’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR), I should be unreservedly in favour of the project that would finally remove the waste from my community. However, I doubt that I will live to see a single used fuel bundle moved from Durham to this DGR. In the context of my life, “interim storage” in my home Region has been “permanent storage”. Prospective future nuclear host communities such as Wesleyville (Port Hope) should prepare to be saddled with the resulting burden of nuclear waste indefinitely. They should demand a time-limited definition of “interim” after which a monetary penalty per bundle on site is applied!

Why? Because the federal government and CNSC continue to allow nuclear generators to pretend they have a solution for long-term management of nuclear waste. It's true that much work has been done but 20 years have passed and we are still just planning for a DGR. Despite the fact that no used fuel has left an existing nuclear station in Ontario (perhaps all of Canada), the feds and CNSC, backed by the brain trust at Queen's Park, are now entertaining applications for new and refurbished reactors at Bruce, Pickering and Wesleyville.

The DGR described in this IPD was never proposed as a home for the new waste that will be generated if Ontario’s nuclear ambitions are fulfilled but I suspect most Ontarians are unaware of that. Do they know that the NWMO has just launched a process to site a second DGR? That should only take a decade or two assuming they can find a willing host. Or will they just reconsider second place South Bruce where consent was lacking?

In the meantime, nuclear generators (who in fact constitute the NWMO) in their new licence applications will point to the ongoing “process” of siting this second DGR as if the solution is right around the corner. The CNSC will say “that’s fantastic, you have a plan, go ahead!”  For me, this consistent unsupported result from CNSC hearings on new nuclear facilities has completely undermined their credibility as regulator. It suggests a very cozy relationship with the industry rather than “independent” regulator.

I hope that Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation are aware of the history of waste storage at the current nuclear stations. At these sites, municipal property tax collected on generation facilities is governed by a statutory rate that hasn’t changed since 1968. This means that the property taxes paid fall further and further behind over time. Hopefully a DGR facility will have a property tax unhindered by such regulation. The generators will tell you that “property taxes are a provincial matter; so take it up with them”. But, in Ontario, municipalities “get no respect” from the province. So, host community, if you decide to accept a DGR, check the tax treatment and make sure you get a long-term, indexed and increasing financial contribution included your community benefits agreement. Put some of that money in a reserve annually to soften the blow of the end of operations of the DGR and diversify your economic opportunities in advance.

Every few years at the nuclear plant sites in Durham, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) adds another waste storage building or two, a stone’s throw from Lake Ontario (the source of drinking water for millions of Canadians and Americans). Some of the buildings are for used fuel and some are for low and intermediate level waste (LILW) created by maintenance, upgrading, replacement and refurbishment of reactor equipment. The structures are given vague names like “component storage facility” and may be added via a very low key "hearing in writing". In the case of Pickering, which began operating in the 1970’s, in 50 years no used fuel has been moved out of “interim storage” where it lives safely (for the moment) in large dry storage containers housed in six warehouses. If the Pickering reactors 5 to 8 are refurbished to operate another 30 years OPG will need to build more and more of these storage buildings.

Undoubtedly, the NWMO is reassuring the IAAC that the potential DGR host communities will continue to be involved in decision-making processes related to the proposed DGR and the related surface facilities. I hope the host communities are aware of the considerable time, attention, legal, policy and scientific effort and expertise they will need to invest to monitor and participate in the various regulatory processes…for the next 160 years at least! As a mitigation to this impact, the IAA process should ensure that community benefits agreements include conditions to protect the fiscal capacity and ongoing technical ability of those communities to have meaningful input and effect on those regulatory processes.

The IPD states that expansion of facilities to deal with additional waste will undergo a consent-based process. What is the definition of “additional waste”? Is waste resulting from decommissioning of equipment “additional”. Is only used fuel included? And whose consent will be needed? No host community should sign on until these details have been specified.

Potential host communities should be aware that lately, the CNSC sees regular requests by generators to reduce the number and frequency of these hearings and reviews by consolidation of licences, make the duration of the licence increasingly long (used to be 5 years, then 10, and OPG is now asking for 30-year licences). All of this reduces the minimal leverage a host community has over the on-site activities. Some hearings now, to expand waste storage (most recently at Pickering), are not in person, but held as hearing in writing.  This is all done quietly, probably in the name of efficiency and undoubtedly cost-savings.  So, does this initial project description come clean on what the ultimate site plan will look like? Does it show the size and location of the additional waste structures (buildings or perhaps mounds) that will be needed at the point of decommissioning to hold the non-fuel radioactive wastes the plant created over its 160-year lifespan?  If not, then the host communities are being asked to commit themselves to an unknown future facility. I hope they have built into their host community agreements iron-clad protections and compensation for these eventualities which will continue long after operations of the DGR cease.

A key function of the IAAC process should be to apply conditions to the project to protect the long-term health, safety and wellbeing of communities and regions most affected as well as those working on the project itself. So ends the ramble.

Specific deficiencies of this Initial Project Description (IPD) include the following.

1. The 30-day consultation period is insufficient for citizens and affected communities to review and analyze the full 1200+ page IPD document. I have only read the summary document.
2. The IPD wants to limit the scope of the IAA process to the geographic site and technical aspects of this particular project. This is fundamentally dishonest and not acceptable. The physical and psychological impact on the surrounding communities, as well as effects on surrounding landscapes, vegetation, wildlife, soil, air and water must be considered. For example, the existence of a worker accommodation camp has a range of social and economic impacts, many negative, that will spill over to near-by communities. How will the local availability of health care, the affordability of housing, and access to addiction services be affected? Will human trafficking become a problem? Such impacts have arisen in other remote communities with large resource projects and should be considered here.
3. Further to point 2, exclusion of offsite transportation from the scope is unacceptable. Without transportation of the used fuel to the site, there is no project. If the purpose of the project is to “safely manage nuclear fuel”, that includes moving it from place to place, monitoring and maintaining secure custody and control of the radioactive materials no matter where it is. The used fuel will be coming from multiple distant locations via a highway network in Southern Ontario that regularly is reduced in capacity or closed down due to construction, accidents, and weather. In Northern Ontario, the TransCanada Highway is often winding, two lanes, through the centre of small communities, traversing significant relief and rock cuts in often-terrible winter weather. Both rail and road transportation can be affected by extreme weather and wildfires. There is a significant road and bridge infrastructure deficit in Canada (meaning we have not been investing in upkeep and improvement). When will the condition of the infrastructure along a proposed route be assessed? What if the cost to bring it to an acceptable standard is simply too high? What is the scope of the other regulatory processes referred to as covering the transportation impacts? Do they consider the long-term safety and sustainability of the route, as is done for the DGR site? Do they demand public education, notification and engagement along the entire route? Will there be consultation with municipal Councils, staff and residents of the affected communities across Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick as part of the “approvals” process? Are there any net benefits for communities on the transportation route? The exclusion of the transportation aspect of the project from the IPD and related IAA process suggests an assumption that approval of a means and route is a formality. Asking communities for informed consent to the proposed route after the DGR is already being built indicates that a transportation route engagement process is a meaningless, pro forma exercise. If building confidence and trust in the DGR project is part of the reason that an impact assessment is done, separating the transportation component undermines that effort.
4. How are financial implications of the transportation route and related facilities being accounted for? What about the GHG emissions from transportation? Why would these impacts and costs not be considered an integral part of the project? Possibly to make it look less costly? Will Provinces and municipalities be expected to pay for infrastructure and emergency response improvements to support this project? Who will be funding that and when will it happen? These communities need to know what’s coming at them. These costs are part of the project and should be assessed with the IA.
5. Expansion of the waste storage at the DGR site beyond the proposed 5.9 million bundles and to accommodate additional non-fuel RA waste. This is a huge issue for the potential host communities. Once a facility is established there, the environmental baseline changes forever. The CNSC will in future declare that there are no significant adverse effects from the addition of storage of any type that is already occurring onsite. If nothing terrible has happened so far then the NWMO undoubtedly will be declared as qualified to operate an expanded similar facility. Unless the host community has written into their contractual agreement with the NWMO (and its successors) that the community can veto additional storage and disposal facilities from being built there, they will have no leverage to prevent it. Even then, the Province could declare the place a Special Economic Zone and find a way to exempt their generator from complying.
6. Long-term safety and regulatory longevity are not guaranteed. To me, the idea that the NWMO and CNSC might still exist in 160 years to warn people about the dangers associated with purposely or inadvertently breaching the DGR is the height of arrogance. The speed of change in our world is accelerating and the reliability of our governing systems is in freefall. Even within Canada we are seeing the impact of government cost-cutting and efficiency measures, with cutting of expert staff and rolling back of environmental regulations. In a single decade, we have seen the safety and protection of our environment undermined at every turn in Ontario, across Canada and especially in the United States. Can we rely on our institutions to safely regulate this waste for even the next 60 years no less centuries? Some assurance on this front is critical to the credibility of the project.

Conclusion: There must be a full impact assessment of the whole project including transportation, with public hearings not just in the DGR host region or Ottawa, but in all regions that will be affected by the impacts of this project.