1 week ago
34
To the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the experience of referenda conducted by two Ontario municipalities over plans for a nuclear waste dump offer salutary lessons to British campaigners opposed to a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).
The NFLAs has helped facilitate several online meetings between British and Canadian activists campaigning against plans to create subterranean repositories for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste on either side of the Atlantic.
Canada’s radioactive waste has been accumulating since the 1970’s. More than 50,000 tonnes of nuclear waste are currently stored in temporary facilities at operating or former nuclear power plants in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the nuclear industry equivalent of the British-taxpayer-funded Nuclear Waste Services, is charged by the Canadian federal government with delegated responsibility for managing this nuclear waste, with deep geological disposal its preferred long-term solution.
The NWMO has conducted a 15-year investigation to identify a site for an underground Deep Geological Repository (DGR). Only two municipalities remain under consideration, Ignace and South Bruce, both in Ontario. The sites under consideration are Revell Lake in the Kenora District, 34 kms from Ignace, and Teeswater in South Bruce, which lies near Lake Huron and the border with the United States.
Once the eventual site is identified, a decision expected before the end of the year, the current plan is to begin construction by 2033, with the facility becoming operational in the early 2040’s. The waste will be transported hundreds of miles by truck through rural hinterland to be stored some 600 metres below ground for Revell Lake, but a much shorter distance for the Teeswater site. The NWMO estimated in 2021 that the project would cost $26 billion[i] over its 138 year operating life.
As in Britain, without a waste repository, the industry is struggling to secure public and political acceptance for a major expansion of nuclear power.
In March and May 2024 respectively, Ignace and South Bruce Councils signed ‘hosting agreements’ with the NWMO. These agreements pledged the NWMO to provide significant sums of money to either municipality if it agreed to host a DGR.
The Ignace agreement lasts for 81 years and provides a financial benefit of $170 million, whilst that for South Bruce covers a period of 138 years and comes with a promise of $418 million.
As in Britain, deep geological disposal is predicated on the assumption that the NWMO can find a ‘willing community’. In both municipalities, campaigners successfully lobbied their Councils to hold local polls on their ‘willingness’ to participate in the DGR project. However, the Municipal Elections Act 1996 permits electronic voting via telephone and internet and unfortunately, in both cases, the demand made by campaigners that the ballots be held in person rather than online was frustrated.
In late April, residents in Ignace were asked to participate in an online ballot. 77.3% (495 votes) of those who voted were in favour of becoming a willing community as opposed to 20.8% (133 votes) of those against. 1.9% (12 votes) abstained. Interestingly however only 640 persons out of 1,035 of those eligible participated[ii]. As turnout was only 64%, this meant that in reality only a minority of electors gave the plan their backing (48%). Nonetheless, on July 10, Ignace Council passed a special resolution confirming to the NWMO that they are a ‘willing community’.
On 28 October, an online by-election for a referendum was held in South Bruce. In the ballot, 51.2 percent of voters (1,604 votes) said yes to the DGR and 48.8 percent (1,526 votes) no. 8 participants did not specify a preference. 3,130 people cast a ballot which was a turnout of 69.3 percent[iii]. With only a very slim majority of those voting backing the plan, this meant that only a minority of the total electorate actually supported it (35%). On 12 November, South Bruce Council approved a by-law confirming to the NWMO that they are a ‘willing community’.
Prior to the ballots, campaigners remained hopeful and active in agitating for a no vote, delivering leaflets extensively and holding online and in-person meetings giving an alternate view.
Under the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act 1996, a municipal council must pass a by-law to submit a question for consideration in a referendum. The question must be clearly worded to enable an elector to respond yes or no, for example at South Bruce, the question was: Are you in favour of the Municipality of South Bruce declaring South Bruce to be a willing host for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR)?
As both elections involved over 50% of voters, the results will be legally binding, but campaigners remain convinced that these results are both indecisive and divisive.
Speaking of the South Bruce result, Anja van der Vlies, ‘Protecting Our Waterways’ Co-chair, told the local media: “I’m just a little baffled by it all, how it all came about and how close the results are, and how that can be considered a compelling, willing host community. Like, those numbers are too tight.” In correspondence with the NFLAs, Bill Noll, ‘Protecting Our Waterways’ Co-chair, said of that result: “Fifty percent of the eligible voters approving the project is not a compelling endorsement of the project; it should be at least two thirds or more. You must get this as a commitment for approving the project. What we now have in South Bruce is a split in the voting and this will result in the community remaining divided for decades.”
In our own analysis, the NFLAs identified that the declaration of victory in a British Test of Public Support in circumstances where a majority of those voting in a referendum saying yes to a GDF represent a minority of the total eligible voters would leave a toxic legacy – in this case societal, rather than radioactive – in the ‘host community’:
‘To avoid the bitterness engendered by the Brexit referendum, in which a decision for Britain to leave the European Union was taken on the basis of a slender percentage majority on only a two-thirds turnout, there should be thresholds established, both in terms of the minimum percentage of the electorate who must vote and the percentage of voters who must vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ for the result for it to be deemed binding, with a commitment to rerun the ballot should these conditions not be met’.[iv]
At least in the UK, voting in a referendum must be in person, by post or via a proxy, with online and telephone balloting not permissible. However it is currently unclear whether a Test of Public Support in the UK would follow these requirements. Whilst it is the Relevant Principal Local Authorities (Cumberland Council for Mid and South Copeland and Lincolnshire County Council / East Lindsey District Council for Theddlethorpe) which determine when the Test will be held, it is the Community Partnerships which determines the nature and procedure of the Test.
Bill Noll, Co-chair, ‘Protect our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste’ who was heavily involved with the South Bruce campaign kindly sent the NFLAs: ‘some thoughts for your consideration regarding lessons learnt’:
- Although we were not successful in getting a no vote for South Bruce several reporters noted that we did an incredible job given the opposition we were up against. Our team of volunteers number less than 20 people and we were self funded. The opposition we faced were the NWMO with millions of $ at their disposal, the South Bruce Council, Bruce Power , and the municipality staff. The lesson is that a small group of people can make a difference.
- You [the NFLAs] are right to ensure that a 50% of the eligible voters approving the project is not a compelling endorsement of the project. Should be at least two thirds or more. Get this as a commitment for approving the project. What we now have in South Bruce is a split in the voting and this will result in the community remaining divided for decades.
- You must push for a paper ballot referendum as polls are to open for subjective conclusions.
- Although a lot of effort is expended by an opposition group over time, it is only during the voting period that people actually get opinionated. If you have a referendum, make sure you have a live ‘townhall’ [public] meeting near the end of the voting period. What you need at that point is some famous people attending and supporting your objective at this meeting, whether a well known entertainer or other celebrity, who will attract people to your live event.
- People will not read long reports by the opposition or the proponent. Your messages have to be short and to the point
- There is no alterative to a face to face meeting.
- Facebook ,YouTube and other social media is more effective than printed matter or a website. You need some eye catching images with your messages to capture your audience.
- You must work on destroying your opponent’s credibility.
In Ontario, in signifying to the NWMO that they are ‘willing communities’, Ignace and South Bruce have now accepted their ‘hosting agreements’ as binding. The stringent conditions these impose have been described as ‘extraordinary’ by campaigners of ‘We the Nuclear Free North’.
The agreements signed by Ignace and South Bruce state that:
- Future municipal councils are bound to the obligations made by the present elected officials;
- Officials from present and future councils are required to appear before meetings, forums and hearings at the request of NWMO and speak in support of the project, regardless of Council and public sentiment at the time;
- It imposes confidentiality clauses, limiting access to scientific and technical information to a very few;
- Communications from the municipality to its residents must be approved by the NWMO;
- NWMO are permitted to ‘modify the scope’ of the project at any time in the future. This might include providing for the disposal of additional wastes and types of waste, and for the establishment of other nuclear projects.[v]
However, DGR projects at either site cannot be progressed without the endorsement of First Nations Indigenous people in both communities. As part of Treaty 3, Queen Victoria’s Government granted to the First Nations a veto over certain developments conducted in their territories. And as historic and spiritual custodians of the land, the local First Nations – the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation in Ignace and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation in South Bruce – have so far been less than enthusiastic passing resolutions and holding protests against the plan.
Campaigners in Canada and the UK will therefore continue to monitor the situation and the NFLAs will offer an update on the First Nations referenda when we have the results.
[i] All the quoted figures are in Canadian Dollars. 1 Canadian Dollar = 56 UK Pence as of 12 Nov. 2024. https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=CAD&To=GBP
[ii] https://www.ignace.ca/images/FINAL_PRESS_RELEASE_-_TOWNSHIP_OF_IGNACE_-_WILLINGNESS_DECISION_DAY_-_JULY_10_2024.pdf
[iii] https://www.southbruce.ca/en/A-PDF-Forms/Clerks-forms/original-signed-Declaration-of-Results—Form-EL33R.pdf
[iv] Page 5, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/briefings/nfla-policy-briefing-285-challenging-questions-concerning-the-gdf-test-of-public-support/
[v] https://www.ignace.ca/images/Ignace_Hosting_Agreement_Execution_Copy88.pdf
Prior to holding the referendum, the South Bruce Council conducted a Willingness Study amongst the electorate to determine their preference in the method through which they could express their ‘willingness’. The different methods considered may be of interest to readers. The NFLAs favour a referendum amongst the electors of the ‘host community’ as the preferred method for the Test of Public Support.
Bill Noll, Co-Chair, ‘Protect Our Waterways, No Nuclear Waste’, has kindly supplied a link to You Tube footage of a DGR Information Event hosted by ‘No DGR South Bruce’ on 6 October 2024. The following speakers appeared: Dr David Suzuki, Dr Gordon Edwards, Dr Dale Dewar, Brennain Lloyd, and Theresa McClenaghan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdeOZOpwViM
Bill also supplied a copy of a letter that he sent to the local press; many of the points made will resonance with British anti-GDF campaigners:
Nuclear waste plan: on a wing, a prayer, and misinformation.
In 2021 NWMO CEO Laurie Swami wrote a letter to the Globe and Mail and stated “the deep geological repository is safe and protects the environment”. At the time, no DGR for high level nuclear waste existed anywhere in the world. And today, while there is one in Finland that is still under construction, there aren’t any DGR in operation anywhere. Yet while the quoted letter remains on the NWMO’s website and its own technical reports on safety and environmental protection all conclude that there is much more research and planning to be done, Swami and her Pied Piper group of NWMO supporters continue to proclaim with misinformation statement of “is safe” when no DGR’s exist (like parents telling their children that Santa Claus is real), Swami revealed the reason for her organization’s hyperbole. At the annual Canadian Nuclear Association conference in February, she told her fellow worshippers of all things atomic, “the nuclear renaissance has arrived in Canada, and we need to seize that moment”.
It’s unfortunate that all the NWMO has seized to date is the control two municipal councils in rural Ontario. Its method – cash (buckets of it), a coverall planning that embraces the fact that no one knows truly how to build and operate a DGR (called an Adaptive Management Plan), and misinformation delivered under the dual banners of “nuclear scientists know better than you” and “trust us”. The NWMO continues to treat the public as children at Christmas, telling them that yes, the jolly fat man is real, has thousands of happy elves working tireless at the North Pole to manufacture toys for good boys and girls (and not bad ones, he’s watching), and as proof here is a load of presents today with promises of much more to come.
The only promise that the NWMO has kept since it first walked into South Bruce is that its cheques clear. No matter how big they are or how often they write them. But as far as their technical ability to own, operate, and maintain the safety of all of Canada’s nuclear waste – its most important promise – it’s sales pitch to South Bruce residents is we have a well full of money that is deeper than any DGR we’d hope to build … and since we’ve never had a nuclear accident in Canada … you can trust that we know what we’re doing.
Worse, though … based on Swami’s repeated “is safe” statement over the promise of “will be safe”, is that the nuclear industry believes what they say to be true. That doesn’t make it not a lie. That doesn’t make it not misinformation. And repetition of the “is safe” statements by the councillors in charge of South Bruce and pro-DGR activists … only makes the misinformation seem true.
Swami has declared that “thinking about the future is part of the NWMO’s DNA” – and I would tend to agree with her. The organization appears to be rolling over the present with promises of money and safety, with only the former being anything the NWMO can be confident in today.
If you ask the NWMO today for specific details of their storage plans and how the nuclear waste will be processed, shipped, and packaged for burial, as I have, you will receive polite nods and varying responses based on the theme “let me get back to you on that one” (and never doing).
If you ask them how they intend to manage the significant increases in nuclear waste volume, dramatic changes in the nature of that waste, and the lack of planning into waste management for the dozens of small nuclear reactors proposed in Canada (again, on theme, never built one, ever) – they will tell you that “they will be prepared” (I am guess that falls into the “adaptive management idea”).
South Bruce residents are voting for to host an organization that portrays itself has having the belt and suspenders discipline of nuclear scientists. But they are not a legion of Einsteins and Oppenheimers (who respected the dangers of nuclear energy and our own limitations on managing it).
It is time we came to appreciate the NWMO’s is working on a wing and prayer and using the reputation of nuclear science to design and build their concept of nuclear waste story. The problem is that reputation has become arrogance. I, like some, will not let them continue to tell me that Santa Claus is real.
