MD 22 Residents Sacrificed for Nuclear Project

[Oscar]

MD 22 Residents Sacrificed for Nuclear Project

Formal Complaint

This is a formal complaint to Alberta’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Alberta’s Ministry of Justice and to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission concerning the fraudulent actions of Municipal District 22 (MD 22) Council, Bruce Power Ontario and Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight.

MD 22 Council, Bruce Power Ontario and Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight are complicit in one or more of the following:

a) Lying to MD 22 residents about the risks, costs and health effects of the nuclear industry

b) Refusing to educate the community about all aspects of the nuclear industry

c) Defying the will of the majority of residents of the community who do not want the project here.

d) Not fulfilling their mandates and stated objectives

e) Endangering the health and well-being of the community by forcing the project upon us.

Summary

Municipal District 22 (MD 22) is the location for the proposed nuclear reactors in the Peace River Region of Alberta. Our community has been designated as the sacrifice zone to allow Bruce Power Ontario to generate electricity for sale to the United States.

MD 22 Council issued a Letter of Support for the nuclear project in July 2007. The letter was issued before any research or due diligence was done. Without knowing a thing about the project, MD 22 Council committed itself to helping to secure the land, the zoning and land use for a nuclear plant.

MD 22 Council has never provided education to the community as mandated in their Letter of Support.

MD 22 Council refused to survey the community as mandated by the Letter of Support. Further, they refuse to accept the survey conducted by residents showing 88% of people opposed to the project.

Bruce Power has provided false and incomplete nuclear information to the community starting on April 14, 2008 at their presentation in Fairview. Bruce Power has continued to misrepresent the full spectrum of issues concerning the nuclear fuel cycle in the intervening 14 months.

Bruce Power has contravened its promise to answer all the community’s questions. Several of the questions they have answered have been blatantly contradicted by other parties.

Mel Knight’s Expert Nuclear Panel Report is fraudulent, incomplete and biased. The report does not tell the truth about the dangers, health effects and costs associated with the nuclear fuel cycle.

None of the three levels of government are protecting MD 22 residents from the lies and misrepresentations of Bruce Power, MD 22 Council and Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight.

Letter of Support

MD 22 Council issued a Letter of Support to Energy Alberta on July 25, 2007, concerning their proposal to build nuclear reactors in the Peace River Region. The Letter of Support was in response to a request from Peace River CAO, Kelly Bunn on behalf of Energy Alberta. Theresa Van Oort, CAO for MD 22 claims that no meetings or other correspondence concerning the nuclear project took place prior to the letter being sent out.

The letter of support includes the following: (A copy of the Letter of Support will be included in the hard copy version of these complaints that will be sent out to all concerned)

Motion 399/24/07/07 Moved that the Municipal District of Northern Lights No. 22 supports the proposal by Energy Alberta Corporation to build a nuclear power plants utilizing CANDU technology, subject to the following conditions:

A) Once Energy Alberta Corporation and the town, Municipal Districts and Counties have agreed to a site location, there is a commitment from the Municipal District to work with the participating municipalities to secure said site and the appropriate zoning and land use for a nuclear power plant.

B) The Municipal District agrees to work with the participating municipalities to make available the site to Energy Alberta Corporation once all appropriate approvals and zoning requirements are fulfilled.

C) The site must meet all regulatory requirements from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Nuclear Safety and Control Act as well as all requirements from an independent environmental assessment.

D) The Municipal District commits to on-going periodic information sessions and dialogue with all citizens of the Municipal District and participating municipalities. This will include gauging levels of support from time to time.

No Due Diligence

MD 22 CAO Van Oort admitted that no due diligence took place before the letter was issued. It is ludicrous for a governing body to give full support to a project of this magnitude, complexity and contentiousness before investigating or understanding a single component of it.

If any due diligence had taken place, MD 22 Council would have learned that the owners of Energy Alberta, Wayne Henuset and Hank Swartout, had absolutely no knowledge and experience with nuclear reactors. This was borne out shortly after the Letter of Support was sent out when Energy Alberta announced Lac Cardinal would be the proposed site for the reactors.

The Lac Cardinal site was completely inappropriate as it would sit above the Grimshaw Aquifer and the Peace River Arch. The former is the source of water for 7500 farms and families while the latter is the most active geological fault in the entire province.As soon as the site was announced, the community was turned upside down. Many people were in a state of shock. Many people made up their minds that they would leave if the reactors were built there. Divisions occurred among formerly close neighbours. On September 20, 2007, Mayor Allen from Grimshaw wrote Premier Stelmach telling him of the infighting and disruption to his community because of the raging nuclear debate.

Change of Ownership

In November 2007, Energy Alberta Corporation was purchased by Bruce Power. Once Bruce Power took over, they made it clear they would not be restricted to using CANDU technology.

The original Letter of Support was given specifically to Energy Alberta Corporation and it stated it was to use CANDU technology. The fundamental assumptions of the Letter of Support were abrogated with the change of ownership and technology to be used.

No Information Sessions or Community Survey

MD 22 Council did not fulfill their responsibilities to their constituents as outlined in the Letter of Support. MD 22 Council stated: "The Municipal District commits to on-going periodic information sessions and dialogue with all citizens of the Municipal District and participating municipalities. This will include gauging levels of support from time to time.

In the two years since the Letter of Support was issued, MD 22 council has not held a single information session nor have they ever consulted the public to ascertain the level of support for the project as the document said they would.

Further, Bruce Power has not lived up to its responsibilities as far as making nuclear power understandable to the community. MD 22 councillor Frith was quoted during the June 9, 2009 council meeting stating: "Bruce Power hasn’t been doing a good job of educating the public".

In the June 3, 2009 issue of the Mile Zero News, Bruce Power spokesman, Albert Cooper stated: "It’s too early for us to make up our minds. Most of us in the area do not understand nuclear." On April 20, 2009, Reeve Tupper said her council felt the public wasn’t informed enough to make a decision on the nuclear issue. Yet neither Bruce Power or MD 22 took any steps to educate our community.

At the April 20, 2009 Coffee With The Councillors, Reeve Tupper and councillors Anderson and Frith all said that it was up to individuals in the community to educate themselves on nuclear issues. When asked where residents could find appropriate material, councillor Frith could not name a single source, author or website for the required information. It was obvious she had done no research on nuclear issues at all. All of our conversations that day were tape recorded.

Community Must Support Project

In their November 29, 2007 press release, Duncan Hawthorne from Bruce Power stated: "Any decision we make will rely heavily upon having a willing host community."

On April 20, 2009, MD 22 Reeve Tupper was recorded saying: "if the community doesn't want the nuclear reactors, they will not be built."

In a Record-gazette article from March 2008, Duncan Hawthorne said: "Why would we spend $6 million in a community that doesn't want us?" he asked, adding that if public support in the region was overwhelmingly against the plant we'd invest elsewhere.

Peace River Mayor Callioux said: "I personally support the plan, but it has to be supported by the community as well." (Kristjanna Grimmelt, PRRG, January 22, 2008)

Everyone says the same thing: it’s up to the community to decide whether the nuclear project goes ahead or not. Unfortunately, MD 22 Council, the town of Peace River and Bruce Power have refused to ask the community what it wants.

They have avoided conducting a survey out of fear they would not get the level of support they required to justify the continued pursuit of this project.

MD of Peace Nuclear Survey The MD of Peace, on the other hand, mailed out 1,155 nuclear surveys to ratepayers in early 2008. 377 responses were returned for a return rate of 32.6%. 70% of decided voters opposed to nuclear development. 17% of respondents still didn’t have their minds made up. MD of Peace subsequently rescinded their letter of support for the project.

MD 22 Survey

The residents living near the site of the proposed reactors in Weberville got tired of waiting for MD 22 Council to do their job. They raised the money and mailed a nuclear survey to all people living in MD 22. A total of 2200 surveys were sent out asking five questions. The following are the results from the first 400 responses:

1) 88.75% are opposed to building nuclear reactors in the Peace Region.
2) 89.25% are opposed to reprocessing spent reactor fuel and storing the waste in Alberta.
3) 88% would not buy food grown within 5 km. of a nuclear reactor.
4) 87.75% do not want nuclear reactors built in Alberta.
5) 74.25% are not satisfied with the way MD 22 council dealt with the nuclear issue.

The residents of MD 22 have spoken. They do not want nuclear reactors in their community. They do not want them built anywhere in Alberta.

Lorraine Jensen, Brent Reese and Pat McNamara made a 30 minute presentation to MD 22 council on June 9, 2009 on the results of the survey conducted by the community. They asked council to rescind their letter of support as the survey clearly showed the community was against the project.

As it was just before lunchtime, Reeve Tupper said council would wait until after lunch to discuss the issue and that we were welcome to return to hear the discussion. The council chamber was packed solid with people who unanimously opposed the project. At that point, everyone from the gallery went outside. Less than five minutes later, the editor of the Mile Zero News (Jason Glabik) came running outside and told us Council started discussing the issue as soon as we left the council chamber. We all headed back inside. As soon as council saw us returning, they changed topic immediately.

We returned at one o’clock. Council started off by discussing the nuclear conference they attended the previous week that was sponsored by the nuclear industry. They finally admitted after two years that they had to take steps to educate the community. Next, they put forward a motion to uphold their letter of support. They voted to uphold the letter of support without having a seconder for the motion.

Pat McNamara asked them how they could uphold a letter of support for a project they knew nothing about. He was held in contempt by Reeve Tupper and told to leave the chamber. About twenty other people came forward to voice their displeasure with council. After a couple of minutes, everybody left the chamber and started going outside. It was very obvious that our council was dismissing the concerns of its constituents in favour of the interests of the nuclear industry.

Survey Results

No one disputes the results of either of the above surveys. The only critical comment is the low response rate. However, this problem isn’t restricted to survey responses. Only 41% of Albertans voted in the last provincial election. The results in this riding were even worse with only 26% of eligible voters bothering to cast a ballot. MLA Oberle was elected to office by only 17% of eligible voters. Only 30% voted during the last municipal election in Peace River.

The results from both these elections were upheld despite the low voter turnout. Why should the results from these surveys be treated any different? The province’s nuclear survey only received about 3000 responses from three and a half million people. This works out to about one tenth of one per cent.

75% of the respondents are not satisfied with the way MD 22 council has handled the nuclear issue. MD 22 ratepayers have voiced their opposition to nuclear reactors at the Coffee With The Councillors, during presentations to MD 22 Council and through the survey of MD 22 residents. This council still refuses to follow the will of their constituents. This council is more concerned with Bruce Power’s needs than they are with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve.

MD 22 Councillors Lying to Constituents

MD 22 Council sent out a "visioning" survey to all MD residents. Conspicuous by its absence, was any reference to nuclear reactors. There was no question on the survey at all about the largest project in MD 22's history. How can their "visioning survey have any credibility when a project of this magnitude is not included?

We tape recorded conversations with Reeve Tupper from MD 22 and three of her councillors at a public meeting they held in Ward 1of MD 22 on April 20, 2009. Reeve Tupper was asked how many councillors voted against having a nuclear question on the visioning survey. Reeve Tupper responded: "It was six to one against asking the question." A subsequent search of the minutes of the meeting when the vote was held showed the vote was tied three to three which defeated the motion. Reeve Tupper lied to us about the level of support for excluding the nuclear question from their survey

Stan Jensen called councillor Anderson on the morning of June 8, 2009 and asked her if she was considering voting to rescind their Letter of Support. Councillor Anderson replied: "If we rescind the Letter of Support, the province will come in and fire the whole Council." This was an outright lie as the province would do no such thing. The MD of Peace rescinded their Letter of Support last year and the province did not intervene. There was a witness listening to the conversation on another phone.

Brent Reese and a witness asked Councillor Vandermark if he would accept the results of the nuclear survey conducted and paid for by MD 22 residents. He said he would accept the survey results and that if the community didn’t want the reactors, he would vote to rescind their Letter of Support. Despite survey results showing 88% of responses opposed to the nuclear reactors, councillor Vandemark voted to uphold the Letter of Support. Councillor Vandemark lied to his constituents.

Ward 2 councillor Dumas told Connie Russell that he would not accept our survey because he did not know how his ward voted. He said he would accept the results if she went door to door and collected signatures, which she did. Councillor Dumas did not attend council when the results were brought forward. The letter on the following page is from Ms. Russell to Mr. Dumas and copied to our MLA and MP. As the letter points out, Mr. Dumas didn’t have the courage to show up at council.

Connie Russell Letter to Councillor Allan Dumas

Allan Dumas,

I have tried to phone you as well as I have left messages for you to call me either on my home phone or on my cell that I take with me. You have not tried to call me back and it has now been 2 days. I have talked to others here in our community that you have taken the time to call them in these last 2 days, so I am assuming that you are trying to avoid me. I sure hope this is not the case as there is no reason to be afraid to talk to me.

Since you did not call me back I had to present my survey to Council before I was able to give it to you. I would have liked to have at least talked to you about it first before having to do it this way.

I'm sure you are aware of the results of the petition. But, in case your aren't I will tell you.

Undecided: 62 In Agreement: 35 Not In Agreement: 147

Now when we talked last Sunday morning on the phone you told me that you were not willing to go with the results of the last survey because there were people who did not receive it and there was a low return rate. I agreed with you that yes I too believe that going with that survey would not have been fair to any one either. Then I asked you if I was to personally do a survey of going door to door in your MD area if you would take the results from that and go with what the majority of the people wanted. You said you would.

It took me a total of 24 hours of driving around our community over 2 days to get the results that I did because I did my best to catch people at home by going to every ones house at least twice if they were not home the first time. I also told people that they should tell their spouse or other family members (over the age of 18) living in their home that were not home at the time I was there to please go to C&C General Store and fill out the petition.

I had many people from the pro nuclear side, and the against the nuclear plant side thank me for what I was doing because they felt that at least this way they were able to have their input.

I was also very sad to see how many people were scared to voice their true opinion of being against the building of this Nuclear Plant, and felt they needed to sign the undecided because of fears of job losses resulting from the wrong person seeing where their name was. This is a true tragedy that this has come to this in our community! We live in a Country that we are suppose to be able to voice our own opinions. It is a Country that our laws, and Country are suppose to be based on the majority rule. That is what our Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers fought and died for.

I am going to hold you to your word that you would go with what the majority of the people in your MD area wanted. I will be at the next MD Council meeting to make sure you make a motion to have your support of the proposed nuclear plant being built in the Northern Lights MD #22 area rescinded, and acknowledge the petition that was taken in your MD area as proof of their wishes. The people who took the time to sign this petition deserve to have their voices heard.

Yours truly,

Connie Russell
-----------------

Questions From The Community

Four separate employees from Bruce Power have promised MD 22 residents that they would answer any questions they might have concerning the proposed nuclear project in their community.

- Bruce Power president Duncan Hawthorne promised multiple times to answer any question residents of the region may have. Bruce Power also promised to put out regular newsletters which they haven’t done to this point in time.

- Doug Boreham, Bruce Power’s nuclear chemist, told people at the information sessions in March 2009 that we should submit as many questions as we felt were necessary to Bruce Power and they would all be answered.

- Bruce Power spokesman Albert Cooper promised that all questions submitted to him would be answered in a timely manner.

- Judi Chambers from Bruce Power in Ontario promised to answer all our questions a month ago but has not done so.

Residents of Weberville (MD 22) submitted a list of 100 questions to Albert Cooper on March 26 at the Peace River information session put on by Bruce Power. On March 30, Lorraine Jensen asked Albert Cooper when he would have some answers. He responded that he hadn’t got to them yet. Ms. Jensen went back to Albert Cooper’s office on May 4 and asked if the answers were ready. He replied that he had sent them away to Bruce Power to be answered.

When Ms. Jensen returned home, she contacted Judi Chambers from Bruce Power in Ontario. Judi Chambers e-mailed Ms. Jensen the following day and told her she could find no trace of the questions with anyone at Bruce Power in Ontario. She asked Ms. Jensen to re-send the questions.

Ms. Jensen received answers to twenty questions on May 11. Despite several promises from Judi Chambers, she has received no further answers in the past month.

Despite numerous assurances from Bruce Power employees over the past eighteen months, our questions are not being answered. Nuclear energy is a very complex and contentious topic. It’s very difficult for the average person to comprehend all the different parts of it. It would be so much easier if Bruce Power acted in a responsible manner and answered our questions as they said they would. It is very hard for the community to have any confidence in this company when they break their word in the information stage of this process.

MD 22 bears some responsibility for this situation as well. They have not held Bruce Power accountable. MD 22 should be ensuring that Bruce Power answers all our questions as they said they would. Neither MD 22 nor Bruce Power have fulfilled their responsibilities to educating this community. Sadly, we have to turn to the province to hold these two organizations accountable.

Lies From Bruce Power

The few answers we’ve received from Bruce Power Ontario have contradicted information we’ve received from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight. Bruce Power Ontario even gave us different answers than we received from their representative in Alberta, Albert Cooper.

We asked who would be responsible for cost overruns for reactor construction. Mel Knight "vowed that his province would not be putting public money at risk. This is a market decision. The risk is borne by investors". (Edmonton Sun, June 24, 2007, Alan Findlay). However, when asked who would be responsible for cost overruns, Bruce Power Ontario responded that: "The Alberta Government will examine this issue, should it apply." So the question remains, who is responsible for cost overruns on reactor construction?

If former Minister of Natural Resources Canada Gary Lunn is to be believed, Canadian taxpayers will not be on the hook for cost overruns in Alberta. Mr. Lunn stated:"The federal government will not go so far as subsidizing or providing a financial backstop for any AECL projects. We don’t intend to do that. We’ve made that very clear". (June 24, 2007, Edm. Sun, Alan Findlay) However, documents leaked from Natural Resources Canada Minister Lisa Raitt states AECL is expecting large cost overruns for the reactors they plan on building in Ontario.

Recently, the Government of Ontario received the price bids from the three companies that want to build two new nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station. According to the Globe and Mail, Energy Minister George Smitherman had "sticker shock" when he saw the prices being quoted.

As a result, the McGuinty Government is now asking the federal government to subsidize the construction of new reactors for Ontario. All Canadians will pay for Ontario’s reactors.

Bruce Power did not tell Albertans the truth about the cost of the reactors they propose to build in Alberta. In their financial impact statement from August 2008, Bruce Power said the four reactors would cost $12 billion. Yet, the average construction costs for the same reactors in the United States is $7.65 billion US or $8.6 billion Cdn. per reactor. As such, the four 1000 megawatt reactors Bruce Power wants to build will cost $34 billion Cdn. This would leave taxpayers on the hook for $22 billion.

Bruce Power was asked: "Which regulatory body has certified each of the reactors you are considering?" Bruce Power responded "The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)." The CNSC was asked: "Does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission certify each of the reactors they (Bruce Power) are considering?" The CNSC responded: "Please be informed that the CNSC does not certify reactors." One of them isn’t telling the truth.

Considering Bruce Power's advertisements all state they will be developing wind and solar energy projects in addition to nuclear energy in the Peace River region, we asked: "what specific wind and solar projects they were planning?" Albert Cooper stated: "As we do the EA (environmental assessment) it will help us decide what the capacity for wind and solar are in this area. Once we have this information, we will be able to plan accordingly." Bruce Power responded: "We are supportive of the potential of wind and solar. However, when we begin our Environmental Assessment, it will be for nuclear technology only."

Mel Knight, Bruce Power, Albert Cooper and the CNSC are giving contradictory answers to the questions we have submitted. Who is telling the truth and who is lying?

Comments on Mel Knight's Nuclear Power Report

In May 2008, Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight announced the formation of "An Expert Nuclear Panel" to investigate whether nuclear energy is appropriate for Alberta. The panel was set up to help the province answer questions on environmental, health, safety and waste management issues surrounding nuclear energy.

The report released by Mel Knight last week did not answer any of these questions. Instead, the report was little more than a nuclear industry advertisement on behalf of nuclear reactors and the merits of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Considering its purported mandate, the Expert Nuclear Panel Report is fraudulent, incomplete and biased.

In reality, we couldn't expect anything else considering the makeup of the panel. Harvie Andre was appointed to chair the committee despite having no expertise in environmental, health, safety or radioactive waste related issues. There were no environmental experts, medical doctors, nuclear opponents or health experts on the panel at all.

The balance of the panel consisted of two business professors from Alberta universities and a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The panel was advised on nuclear issues by the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory from the United States. Even by Mel Knight's dubious standards, this report is a slap in the face of democracy and the people he was elected to serve.

Reactors

The report says new reactor designs are safer, more efficient and easier to control and operate. Yet the report makes no mention that two of the three reactor types being considered in Canada have not even been completely designed yet, much less gone through the regulatory process to determine their level of safety.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that design approval for the Westinghouse AP-1000 will not come until 2012 at the earliest. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s ACR-1000 is an even more dubious reactor. It is based on AECL’s aborted ACR-700 reactor which the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined did not operate as AECL claimed. The ACR-1000 is still on the drawing board and is years away from licensing. How can the "Expert Nuclear Panel" say these reactors are safer and more efficient if the nuclear regulators haven't determined if they work yet?

The only Generation 3 reactors being built are by Areva. They started building their first EPR reactor in Finland in 2005. The project is currently three and a half years behind schedule and 55% over budget because of poor welding, flaws in piping and mistakes with concrete pouring. The nuclear regulator in Finland had issued over 2000 citations to Areva for work deficiencies. Siemens, the German engineering firm is pulling out of the project which will cost Areva $2 billion. Further, the Finnish government has started a $4 billion legal action against Areva to cover replacement electricity and Green-credit costs as a result of the project being so far behind schedule.

Areva started building the second EPR reactor at Flamanville France in December 2007. The French Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) shut down the project six months after it started (May 21, 2008) after finding cracks in the slab beneath the reactor building and non-conformities in steel re-enforcing for the concrete among many other deficiencies. A quarter of the welds were not up to standards. The entire reactor site was shut down for a month before work was allowed to resume.

On page 42, the report states that nuclear reactors are designed to safely withstand man-made and natural destructive forces, including earthquakes. However, the report makes no mention of the seven reactors in Japan that were damaged and shut down as the result of an earthquake two years ago. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is the largest complex in the world. As with Alberta's "Expert Panel", the Japanese experts assured the Japanese public that earthquakes could not harm the reactors.

None of this information was included in the "Expert Nuclear Panel's Report".

Neutron Radiation

On page 37, the report discusses the relative dangers of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. But no mention is made of neutron radiation which is the most dangerous form.

"Neutrons readily pass through most material, but interact enough to cause biological damage. Due to the high kinetic energy of neutrons, this radiation is considered to be the most severe and dangerous radiation available. Another, sometimes more severe, hazard of neutron radiation is neutron activation, the ability of neutron radiation to induce radioactivity in most substances it encounters, including the body tissues of the workers themselves." (Wikipedia)

Neutron radiation is present at the reactors and during processing of UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) in Port Hope.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste

The report's brief discussion of low-level radioactive waste states that the radiation levels in this material are very low. This is simply not true. The term "low-level" denotes the origin of the material, not the level of radiation. Low-level radioactive waste can be very highly radioactive. Several sites are briefly discussed but no mention is made of the massive quantities of low-level radioactive waste in Port Hope, Pinawa and Chalk River.

The report makes no mention of about 400 million tons of radioactive mine tailings at the uranium mines in Ontario, Saskatchewan and the North West Territories. For instance, at Serpent River Ontario, the tailings from 12 mines were dumped into ten lakes near the mines. The radioactive tailings killed all ten lakes and 55 miles of the Serpent River. The Serpent River is literally a river of poison from the dead lakes to Lake Huron.

Radiation Hormesis

The only discussion of health impacts from the nuclear industry concerned the impact of low levels of radiation on people. The report put forward the belief among many in the nuclear industry that small amounts of radiation are good for you, which is called "radiation hormesis". No mention was made of the findings of the BEIR 7 Report from the United States National Academy of Sciences which states that there is no safe level of radiation. The BEIR 7 Report further states that there is no scientific evidence to support the industry's belief in radiation hormesis.

There is no mention of any of the reports which show elevated rates of cancers and leukemia in people living close to reactors.

Environmental Impacts

According to the report: "Environmental impacts arise from periodic blow down discharge of water containing chlorine and other chemicals used to control corrosion and the accumulation of microbes and minerals." There is no discussion in the report about the nature of these "other chemicals" or of the environmental impact they have. There are no other environmental consequences of the nuclear fuel cycle spoken to in the report.

Water Usage

The report states that 17 million cubic metres of water per year would evaporate from the cooling tower of an 800 megawatt reactor or 21,250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt. Bruce Power estimates that 113 million cubic metres of water will evaporate from the cooling towers for four 1000 megawatt reactors or 28250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt.

Bruce Power's estimate of water usage is 33% higher per megawatt than the figure cited in the report. Why is there such a large discrepancy? Who is right?

Community Education

The report states: "there is a need for the citizens of Alberta to have a reasonable understanding of the issues and concerns associated with nuclear power plants."

I completely agree. However, after reading this report and attending Bruce Power's open houses in the Peace River region March 23-26, it is very clear that the Alberta government, Mel Knight and Bruce Power cannot be relied on to give both sides of the nuclear debate. Funding must be provided by the Alberta government and Bruce Power to allow nuclear opponents to give the other side.

Reprocessing Spent Reactor Fuel

There are multiple references throughout the report touting the benefits of recycling high-level waste from spent reactor fuel. However, there is no mention anywhere in the report that reprocessing has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried.

The process involves chopping up the highly radioactive spent fuel bundles and dissolving them in boiling nitric acid. The process causes the release of radioactive gases and the contamination of the nitric acid which has to be dealt with as high-level radioactive waste. The plutonium is separated from other radioactive products to be used to manufacture Mox (Mixed Oxide) Fuel for breeder reactors.

United States - Nuclear Fuel Services built and operated a reprocessing facility in West Valley, New York from 1966-1972. The facility processed 640 metric tonnes of spent reactor fuel while in operation and generated 660,000 US gallons (2,500 tonnes) of highly radioactive liquid waste. The waste must be stored in an underground carbon-steel tank for around 200,000 years before it loses its radioactive potency, There was four times as much radioactive waste after reprocessing as there was before. The State of New York commissioned a study on the West Valley site and found out it would cost between $9-$27 billion to clean it up. This runs contrary to the Expert Nuclear Panel Report that claims the amount of radioactive waste is reduced through reprocessing.

In 1971, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (US) was estimated to cost $400 million. When it was finally cancelled in 1983, $8 billion had been spent on it.

France - "A July 2000 report commissioned by the French government concluded that reprocessing was uneconomical - costing about $25 billion more than a "once through" fuel cycle - and will do little to reduce the amount of long-lived radionuclides in the waste." (Public Citizen - Nuclear Waste Reprocessing) Reprocessing in France has severely polluted the English Channel.

The Superphenix Breeder reactor was started in 1981 and was shut down in 1997. It produced very little electricity during its final ten years because of breakdowns. By 1996, it was estimated the reactor cost more than 9 billion Euros.

England - It appears as if Britain is going to close the Sellafield Mox Plant after ten years of troubled operation. The Mox production plant cost almost a billion dollars to build when it opened in 1999 and has never worked properly. Further, it was hit by scandal concerning quality control and falsification of documents from the start. They were never able to regain business from the Japanese they lost as a result.

"These discharges go into the sea, the surrounding countryside, the air and into us. Sellafield's waste discharges have made the Irish Sea the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and its waste has been washed up on shores as far away as Greenland. Sellafield's pollution is found in the sea spray, soil, vegetation and bodies of animals and in people's homes. There are areas around Sellafield that are as radioactive as the land in the 'exclusion' zone around the stricken Chernobyl nuclear reactor." (Greenpeace, UK)

Japan - In March 2009, Japan Nuclear Fuels Limited (JNFL) announced the 16th delay in completing its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant which was originally scheduled to open in 1997. The $20 billion price tag for the project is about three times as was estimated when the project started in 1993. Japan's Monju fast breeder reactor has been shut down since 1995 because of severe safety concerns.

Reprocessing has caused massive contamination of the Irish Sea from Sellafield, the English channel off the French coast from the La Hague reprocessing plant and in West Valley New York. Reprocessing is not economical and you end up with several times as much waste as you started with. The fact that most of it is liquid waste further adds to the challenges of containment.

Missing Information

No mention was made of the demise of the plan to dispose of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain in the United States. There is no site designated in Canada either.

No mention was made that Canadian taxpayers would be responsible for 99.9% of up to one trillion dollars in damages in the event of a major accident.

No mention was made of a site to dispose of decommissioned reactors, nor a time frame for doing so.

No mention was made of reactors costs or who would be responsible for cost overruns.

No mention was made of the billions of dollars in costs and liabilities Canadians are responsible for from the last round of reactor construction in Canada.

No mention was made of the health studies showing elevated rates of leukemia and cancers around nuclear reactors.

No mention was made about reprocessing contamination or that all breeder reactors built to date have been shut down for safety issues and high costs.

No mention was made of elevated tritium levels if CANDU technology was chosen.

No mention was made as to which regulatory body would deem these new reactors safe to operate. The CNSC does not have the regulatory statutes in place nor the technical expertise to determine whether a reactor is safe to operate.

No mention was made of any of the negative aspects of nuclear energy.

Blatant Hypocrisy and Bias

The Report states: "This report is intended to be an unbiased compilation of scientifically accepted information underpinning the issues associated with nuclear power." How can this aim be met when only pro-nuclear advocates are present on the panel?

The hypocrisy and bias of this panel was clearly shown when Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the world’s foremost experts on the health consequences of exposure to radiation, offered to meet with the panel on a recent visit to Canada from Australia. Harvie Andre refused her offer because she is a "biased advocate". The panel then announced that it "had unanimously agreed it won't "entertain requests from proponents or opponents of nuclear power." This came from a panel which includes a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and consultants from the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory in the United States.

The Expert Nuclear Panel Report has little credibility because of the biased and inadequate information it contains, the exclusion of health and environmental considerations and in some cases, false information. This report from Mel Knight is further confirmation of his disregard for the well-being and rights of Albertans in his support of large corporations.

Recommendations

That Bruce Power and the province provide resources to grass-roots organizations to develop and present information to the public about nuclear power concerns not brought forward by nuclear proponents

That the CNSC establish a presence or a direct liaison to concerned community members. The concerns in the community must be addressed as they arise.

That the current impacts of the proposal on the immediate community be tabulated, assessed and dealt with by Bruce Power.

Analysis of Bruce Power Information Sheets

The following is an analysis of 15 of Bruce Powers’ information sheets they gave to the community. This analysis was compiled and presented to MD 22 Council on April 28, 2009.

The paper points out false information, missing information and also raises pertinent questions about each of the individual topics. None of the councillors have acknowledged reading it.

# 1 Tritium Fact Sheet

- Has Bruce Power been able to maintain tritium levels below 100 Beq/L at all the water treatment plants near its facilities?
- Bruce Power neglects to mention that tritium is also used in atomic weapons to "boost" the yield from the fissionable material.
- Bruce Power estimates there is only 25 Kg of tritium in the world at any one time yet the United States Department of energy has 75 kgs on hand. How much is at Pembroke?
- Though the radiation from tritium cannot penetrate human skin, the tritium itself can be absorbed through the skin. Once through the skin, tritium is a very dangerous carcinogen.

#2 Introduction
- Power generated in a nuclear reactor is not "emission-free". All Bruce Power's reactors give off tritium.

- With respect to meeting future energy demands, no mention is made of the potential contribution of energy-efficiency and conservation. Californians reduced their consumption of electricity by 25% after the state put financial incentives in place to reduce consumption.

- Concerning increase demand, no mention is made that much of the increase in demand will come from oilsands companies which install their own dedicated co-generation power sources to meet their own needs.

#3 Radioactive Waste
- If there is no radiation given off by the reactors, how do these cleaning materials get contaminated at all and become low-level radioactive waste?

- Why is there no discussion of the other waste created in the nuclear fuel cycle without which the reactors couldn't operate?

- Used nuclear fuel is high-level waste. Bruce Power should call it by its appropriate name instead of a term derived to minimize its apparent danger.

- How fast does the radiation level of fuel bundles decrease?

- The analogy of the coke can should specify that they are only referring to high-level waste. This does not include any of the other waste that is created in all other parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.

- If radioactive waste isn't dangerous, why are we so concerned about it? Why is the lack of disposal capabilities holding back nuclear development in some jurisdictions?

- The discussion should not be about the "management of radioactive waste but rather, its disposal. No country on earth has been able to dispose of any high-level radioactive waste.

#4 Management of Used Fuel
- No national repository for the disposal of high-level waste has been designated yet nor has any community come forward to host such a facility. Yucca Mountain in the United States was proposed as their repository for high-level waste in 1982. Twenty seven years and $20 billion later, the project was cancelled because leakage from the containers could have contaminated ground water in as little as thirty years.

#5 Safety
- This paper says that nuclear reactors are safe for people in surrounding communities yet there is an ever-growing list of health studies which show elevated levels of cancer and leukemia close to nuclear reactors.

- Bruce Power says that reactors are designed to withstand earthquakes. Yet there is no mention of the seven Japanese reactors which were damaged in an earthquake two years ago.

#6 Water Use
- 85 million gallons of water per day will evaporate from the cooling towers. There is no discussion concerning the effect this massive amount of humidity will have on the surrounding area in the heat of summer and the cold of winter.

- There is no discussion about the water intake's impact on animals or biota.

#7 Reactors Being Considered

- Bruce Power says that the Generation 3 reactors are safer, more efficient and easier to build. Of the four reactors Bruce Power is considering, only Areva's is currently being built.

- Areva started building their first Generation 3 reactor in Finland in 2005. It was to be completed in 2009 at a cost of $6 billion. At the start of 2009, it was three and a half years behind schedule and more than 55% over budget. The project has received over 2000 citations from the Finnish nuclear regulators for construction and supervisory deficiencies. Siemens, the massive engineering company, is threatening to pull out of the project and Finland has started legal proceedings against Areva for almost $4 billion for cost overruns and replacement power.

- The fiasco in Finland disproves Bruce Power's assertion that these reactors are easier to build. Further, as none of the reactors are operating or built yet, there is no way to determine if they are safer and more efficient.

#8 Socio-Economics
- Why hasn't Bruce Power ascertained the impact of their project to date on the affected communities.

- There is no discussion of the upgrades to infrastructure that will be needed for a project of this size.

- There is virtually a zero vacancy rate in Peace River. Where will the workers be put?

#9 Environmental Assessment Process
- Once the license is taken out, the EA is triggered.

#10 Project Update - Site Selection
- The information sheet says the proposed Whitemud site is 30 km from Peace River when in reality, it's only 20 km. The project should have been called the Weberville site as it is in the middle of Weberville not the Whitemud.

#11 Areva's EPR Reactor
- The information Bruce Power gave out on the Areva EPR reactor did not include any of the difficulties that Areva is experiencing building their first two Generation 3 reactors. Areva (France) started building the first EPR in Finland in 2005. It is currently three and a half years behind schedule and 55% over budget because of poor welding, flaws in piping and mistakes with concrete pouring. Costs expected to rise further before the project is complete. Many of the problems are being blamed on a work force that is not suitably trained for the work they are doing. Finland has started legal proceedings against Areva for $4 billion for replacement power and the costs of green credits.

- Areva started building the second EPR reactor at Flamanville France in December 2007. The French Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) shut down the project six months after it started (May 21, 2008) after finding cracks in the slab beneath the reactor building and non-conformities in steel re-enforcing for the concrete among many other deficiencies. A quarter of the welds were not up to standards. The entire reactor site was shut down for a month before work was allowed to resume.

#12 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
- The flyer from AECL about their ACR-1000 reactor makes no mention that they have not finished designing the reactor yet. There is no mention that the ACR-1000 is based on the ACR- 700 which failed a review by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No mention was made that AECL failed in their efforts to design the Maple reactor after $600 million and 19 years of trying.

#13 Westinghouse AP1000
- The first Generation 3 Westinghouse reactor was started in China in February 2008.in China in February.

#14 Schematic of CANDU PHW Reactor
- As the drawing shows, the Vacuum Building is one of the three main components of the CANDU reactors and one of the main safety features. No mention is made by Bruce Power or AECL that the ACR-1000 will not have a vacuum building to capture radioactive emissions in the event of an accident. The vacuum building was a victim of cost-cutting measures for the Generation 3 reactors.

#15 Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)

- This is not a plan to deal with waste. It is a plan to put the problem on to future generations. In short, they have no plan in place to deal with high-level radioactive waste. No country in the world has devised a safe method of disposing of high-level waste. The summary says it will take many decades to implement whatever plan is decided on.

- The NWMO did not explore all the alternatives at their disposal. They refused to even consider the most common suggestion made by the people it interviewed; don't make any more high-level waste until you figure out what to do with the two million spent fuel bundles they have now.

- The NWMO summary states: "We intend to seek an informed willing host community." There is no discussion that all efforts to find a community in Canada willing to take radioactive waste have been completely futile for the past thirty years. This situation will not change. Port Hope agreed to have low-level radioactive waste placed in a storage facility in the town because the Canadian government threatened to leave the 3.5 million cubic metres of waste in place if they didn't agree to accept it.

- The NWMO summary does not tell us how fast the radiation decreases in a fuel bundle nor do they tell us how long the bundles are dangerous for.

- The NWMO summary states: "The plan needs to have a definitive outcome, but also needs to provide flexibility along the way for future generations to make their own decisions." This is an oxymoron.

- The NWMO Summary states: "Our study process and evaluation of options were intended neither to promote nor penalize Canada's decisions regarding the future of nuclear power." The easiest way to solve the waste disposal issue is to quit making any more of it, but this option was not even discussed. Failure to consider this option is tantamount to promoting the continuation and expansion of nuclear generated electricity.

- The NWMO Summary states: "The key weakness (of the deep geological disposal option), however, is its lack of adaptability. Considering the failure of the Yucca Mountain high-level waste disposal site, the key weakness to deep geological disposal is that it is not safe to do it. At Yucca Mountain, they estimated that any leakage from waste buried at 3000 feet would take 3000 years to work its way to the surface. However, when they drilled 3000 feet down into the mountain, they found traces of radioactive fallout from weapons testing that occurred only thirty years before.

- The NWMO Summary states: There is some uncertainty about how the system will perform over the very long term because we cannot obtain advance proof of factual performance over thousands of years." As they state, there is no guarantee that their proposed system of disposal will work.

- The NWMO Summary states that: "A total of $770 million has been deposited by the waste owners to date". Tne NWMO estimates it will cost $25 billion to deal with our current volume of high-level waste yet they have less than a billion set aside after reactors operating for 38 years in Canada. Where will the other $24 billion come from?

Peace River Council Controls the Project

As incompetent and/or as corrupt as MD 22 has been throughout this nuclear process, it must be remembered that the Peace River council has been in control of this project from the very start. Energy Alberta infiltrated this area with the assistance of Peace River CAO, Kelly Bunn in early 2007.

It was Kelly Bunn who requested the Letters of Support from all the surrounding municipalities. The letter stated that if MD 22 did not provide a Letter of Support for the project, they would not receive any of the benefits from the project. They were left with little choice but to cooperate.

MD 22 has maintained its secondary status to the Peace River Council throughout this process. This situation is asinine considering the proposed location for the reactors is located in MD 22. Peace River council announced the change in ownership in November 2007 when Bruce Power bought Energy Alberta Corporation. Bruce Power didn’t even have the decency to contact MD 22 after they acquired Energy Alberta Corporation.

This is attested to by the fact that on February 11, 2008, councillor Kamieniecki from MD 22 wrote a letter to Bruce Power president Duncan Hawthorne stating MD 22's concern that they had not been contacted yet. There is no further correspondence between MD 22 and Bruce Power until October 25, 2008, when Reeve Tupper wrote to Duncan Hawthorne requesting an update.

Finally, on December 9, 2008, Bruce Power spokesman Albert Cooper made a presentation to MD 22 Council; more than a year after Bruce Power took over the project. To add insult to injury, this was six months after Bruce Power made an 80 minute presentation to the Town of Manning which had no involvement with the project.

Peace River Mayor Caillioux was present for the full MD 22 Council meeting when we made our presentation concerning the survey we conducted. She went to lunch with MD 22 council when the discussion concerning the letter of support took place. The decision to maintain the Letter of Support was already made when MD 22 council returned to the council chamber when they returned from lunch. The discussion on the Letter of Support had already taken place as evidenced by the complete paucity of discussion when the motion was raised to maintain the Letter of Support.

Bruce Power invited the mayors of Peace River and Grimshaw to the press conference announcing the new site in Weberville for the proposed reactors. Both mayors were invited to speak at the event. The Reeve of MD 22 was not even invited to the event despite the fact the reactors would be located in her jurisdiction.

The Peace River Environmental Society initiated a Freedom of Information request to all the local municipalities who were in any way involved in the nuclear proposal. The town of Peace River was the only municipality that spent money booking facilities for Energy Alberta Corporation presentations, their promotional material and for rooms for Energy Alberta Corporation staff.

As with MD 22, the Peace River Council has done nothing to educate the community nor have they taken any steps to quantify the level of support in the community. This is unacceptable as their community stands to reap the greatest benefits from this project.

Peace River Council must disclose its full involvement with Bruce Power and bear responsibility for the upheaval they have cause in our community.

Conclusion

Twenty five MD 22 residents are going door to door to get signatures on one of three petitions concerning the nuclear project; those for the project, those against the project and those who are undecided.

The results of the door to door survey are mirroring the results we received from the mailed-out survey among decided voters. 85% of respondent do not want the project to proceed.

The only difference between the two surveys is that the door to door survey is compiling the undecided vote. However, as Connie Russell’s attached letter shows, many of the people who are marking down undecided are against the nuclear project. They mark themselves down as undecided out of fear of retribution in the community. All of the people out canvassing are reporting the same thing.

The majority of Albertans do not know what we are facing in this area. The local media, with the partial exception of the Mile Zero News, has been remiss in reporting the full range of effects and public opinion this project has caused.

The media coverage from provincial and national sources has been poor to say the least. We know we are off the "beaten track", but that is no excuse for the miserable coverage the community concerns have received over the past two years.

The first complaint about Bruce Power lying to the public was after its information session held at Fairview on April 14, 2008. The complaint went to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission , the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and others. The only response I received was from Peter Sylvester, the president of CEAA who stated:

"Thank you for your email message of May 7, requesting further clarification regarding federal responsibilities in relation to public comments made by private sector proponents, such as nuclear fuel cycle companies.

While the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency advocates an open and transparent environmental assessment (EA) process, it is not within the federal government’s legislative authority to control the public consultation activities of a private sector proponent."

In other words, there are no regulations in place to force Bruce Power or anyone else to tell the truth to the public. There is no regulatory body we can appeal to that will force them to quit lying to an unsuspecting public.

Mel Knight and his minions are just as guilty as Bruce Power for not telling Albertans the truth about the full range of costs, dangers and health effects from exposure to the nuclear industry. His Ministry’s manipulation of the consultation process, which is based on its fraudulent and incomplete "Expert Nuclear Panel Report"is a corruption of democracy and morality. Then again, given Mel Knight’s track record the past couple of years, we have come to expect little else from him.

Our concern must be investigated and dealt with. Our community is being torn apart by a company from Ontario that wants to sell electricity to the United States with the full approval of the provincial government. Mel Knight and his cronies have screwed up enough of Alberta. We will not let them screw up our homes in the Peace Country as well; regardless of the number of bills they pass.

This complaint has been put together on behalf of the people living around the proposed reactor site in Weberville, just north of Peace River. Their names will be attached to the hard copy version of this complaint that will be mailed to all responsible authorities.

Thank You,

Pat McNamara and Lorraine Jensen

For further information: H: 780-624-2364 C:780-618-3970

Other Contact Numbers from MD 22
Reeve Teresa Tupper- 780-981-3928
CAO- Theresa Van Oort- 780-836-4211
Cheryl Anderson- 780-624-8660
Ken Foster- 780-332-4390
Allen Dumas- 780-971-3973
Darlene Frith- 780-836-2150
Ed Kamieniecki- 780-836-2351
Gale Vandemark- 780-836-2129