Our Priorities

A new council has the opportunity to strengthen transparency, protect residents’ interests, and plan responsibly for Dryden’s future.

Liability

We Dryden residents have the right to pursue and protect our self interest just like every other Canadian. During NWMO’s site selection process for the deep geological repository (DGR) to store high-level radioactive nuclear waste just east of Dryden, there has been very little done to protect the interests of Dryden residents.

How do I know that we have not had our interests represented? Perhaps a current example, a comparison, being reported on in the media would be helpful:  In the United States, small towns all over the country are being approached to accept the construction of big tech data centers in their towns and municipalities. “Super Scalers” as they are known, are attempting to negotiate terms for the construction of massive facilities that will, by virtue of their size, effect the availability of water, power and quality of life. The Super Scalers target small rural towns with little or no economic development. You may have heard about the push back against this effort. The companies are cast as “goliaths” intimidating and overwhelming the resources of the small towns. They are accused of being “bullies”. The question being asked in the media is; ”What is any home worth if it close to a colossal data center, with it’s attending noise, consumption of resources and unknown risk?”

The answer to the question of a home’s value to this point is, less.

Resistance is forming. In so doing, the effected municipalities are being accused of being anti-development. They are facing the stigma of being uninformed “hay seeds”.  All of this sounds familiar.

As reported on CNBC, over the last two weeks the Super Scalers and their contractors have been accused of “blowing” negotiations, as they have not been effective informing the town residents of the benefits of the purposed project. It has been reported that a new approach has been taken, including new concessions:

1. All water used will be minimized, recycled and put back
2. Confirmation that electricity prices will not go up. Recent news indicates that new projects will include surplus electric generation and selling it to locals at lower prices.
3. The carriage of liability insurance against any accident at all which could negatively effect neighbourhoods.
4. Sharing of profits from the enterprise, and incentive to continue living in place by paying the tax bills on behalf of the residence.

What are my concerns about the risks of the DGR project?

• First is that the project is novel. No operating DGR exists anywhere in the world, so there is no proven track record related to performance and the ability to avoid potential effects, accidents or failures.  The project is being led by NWMO, a non-profit organization that has never managed nuclear waste – today the waste is managed by the nuclear waste producers and AECL at the nuclear reactor sites.  Based on their incomplete project description, NWMO has developed a high-level plan that is missing details and specifications.  The Township of Ignace has commented in the Impact Assessment that NWMO is describing this as a mining project, and they are lacking a “Nuclear Safety Culture” that exists in other nuclear facilities.   NWMO has handed the public an itinerary without a map.
• My second concern is the Transportation risk to Dryden residents and anyone living along the transportation routes from southern Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick (an average trip of 1,700 km.  The NWMO intends to ship 5.9 million used nuclear fuel bundles over a 50-year period on a daily basis by road and or by rail. Until now, nuclear waste has been safely stored at the site of its production. I advocate for “The Proximity Principle”, as it is known, which states that waste should be disposed of as close to its place of production as possible.
• My third concern is the contamination risks that exist in the Used Fuel Packaging Plant (UFPP), where shipping containers will be “disassembled in a hot cell (exposing the contained used fuel) and the used fuel is transferred to the UFC” (used fuel containers). The UFCs will be welded shut and packed in.   The decontamination of transportation packages, UFPP areas and UFCs is expected to generate both liquid and solid radioactive waste. Solid waste is planned to be stored on the surface in the interim LLW storage facility until the end of the project.  Liquid waste will also be collected on the surface in a Process Water Settling Pond and released into surface water at a “controlled rate”.   The release of contaminants in the repackaging process, raises issues of local air and water safety.   Again, the project description for the UFPP is incomplete, missing design details and operational descriptions with specifications.
• My fourth concern is the risk during the operation of the DGR. Public monitoring of the waste site is crucial. Local citizens must be involved in on-going monitoring of the DGR and emergency response. Citizens need to know immediately when failures or accidents take place on site so that quick response and evacuation can take place. Citizens also need to know how close the mine is getting to saturation. Not mentioned in the plan.
• The fifth risk of concern is the location of the nuclear DGR within our area watersheds. The Wabigoon system of lakes is the source of water for many local residents. They are the head waters of Grassy Narrows and the Winnipeg River system through to Lake Winnipeg all the way to Hudson Bay. The project exporting risk and potentially nuclear contamination into area watersheds and another province is just wrong.

What considerations should be taken to protect citizens of Dryden and their property?

In the first place environment law and environmental justice must be considered:

• The nuclear waste should be disposed of near where it was generated (the Proximity Principle).
• “Each district, region or jurisdiction should possess the necessary facilities to treat and dispose of its own waste” (Self Sufficiency Principle)
• Environmental justice requires that the communities who have least benefited from an industrial project should not be disproportionately burdened with the environmental risks or toxic burdens.

Second, the nuclear waste generated within the province should stay in the province with no chance of polluting a neighbouring province.

Third, in the case that nuclear waste is to be buried in Northwestern Ontario and Dryden is the main service center, then the City of Dryden should receive enough funds to update infrastructure as required and the citizens of Dryden should be compensated for the risk. A large bond or surety (money) should be supplied by the NWMO, into a trust, to be used when an accident or malfunction takes place at the DGR. Imagine an inventory being completed with in which every piece of real estate and business in Dryden is captured. Once the inventory is gathered, a complete evaluation of all properties is done. On the occasion of an accident, the residents could be given the option of staying or leaving. In the case of a choice to leave, Dryden residents would be paid out in full, an amount equal to the valuation of the property at the time of inventory (adjusted for inflation). Inventories, would be scheduled every three years.  While in bond, the money would generate interest. Those proceeds should be of a sufficient size to allow residents of Dryden to reside in the Municipality tax free. Tax free living in Dryden would maintain property values despite the risk, and may encourage families and business to stay in the area

Fourth, the DGR site in Northwestern Ontario that receives nuclear waste should be guaranteed that the shipping container can safely house the storage container, so the risks associated with repackaging releases at the UFPP are mitigated for the host communities and communities in the region.  In any case the waste should be repackaged at the source. The containers upon arrival should be in a condition for immediate burial.

I have read the letter that our present mayor has sent to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC). As a practical matter, it is a good thing that the mayor is asking for money to improve Dryden’s infrastructure. The NWMO and the province have a duty to improve our city in the face of possible growth during construction of the nuclear DGR. The mayor’s letter does not include any mention of compensation to the residents of Dryden in the case of an accident at the mine. It does not address the risk that the citizens of Dryden face and is therefore lacking.

Is there any reason why we as Canadians should ask for less compensation than our American neighbours, when facing a far greater threat than that posed by big tech data centers?