Nuclear Waste Series: Polarizing community views about nuclear waste plan as vote nears

A sign urging South Bruce residents to vote in upcoming referendum on proposed nuclear waste project near Teeswater, Ont. in October, 2024. (Scott Miller/CTV News London)

Michelle Stein knows exactly how she'll be voting on Oct. 28 — "Definitely, no," said the South Bruce farmer.

Sheila Whytock also knows what box she'll be ticking later this month.

"Oh, I'm voting yes. Absolutely no doubt about it. I'm voting yes," said the Teeswater resident.

Such are the extreme views, leading up to a community referendum, where South Bruce residents will decide whether or not they want to become the permanent home to Canada's most radioactive nuclear waste, forever.

The proposed plan would see 5.6 million used nuclear fuel bundles housed in a 1,500 acre underground facility, north of Teeswater.

For those in favour, it's a $26-billion-dollar plan that would see hundreds of jobs created for a rural area that relies almost exclusively on agriculture.

"That money can create high paying, high tech jobs for our children and our grandchildren and a lot of spinoff money into our local businesses," said DGR supporter and South Bruce resident, Tony Zettel.

He said it's the kind of opportunity that only comes along once in a lifetime, and unlike recently announced billion-dollar battery plants, requires no government subsidies to make it happen.

"It's not contingent on foreign investment. It's not contingent on huge government subsidies. It's paid for by the electric utilities. They have to fund this according to Canadian law. The money to pay for it, is almost all already in the bank," said Zettel, who works in Ontario's nuclear industry, but lives near Mildmay.

Sheila Whytock lives in Teeswater but works at Bruce Power where a large portion of Ontario's used nuclear fuel is currently stored. She said she'd love to see that waste stored near her town, and the jobs that would come with it.

"For me, it's about my kids. I want them to be able to, if they choose, have really great jobs, really close to home. I know myself, I hate driving through snow squalls to work. So it would be really nice if I didn't have to drive 40 minutes to work every day, and have the same kind of benefits and payment plan and pension and all of that kind of thing," she said.

Stein, a local farmer, said she's thinking about her families legacy too, when she votes against the project, in two weeks time.

"It's surrounding our farm. Honestly, we don't know what we're going to do if it does come here. We've already been told that, some of our processors won't accept the product that we produce here anymore," she said.

Her neighbour, Anja Van der Vlies, said she expects people to leave the community if South Bruce votes yes.

"There will be people leaving. People that have the chance to sell their house and move. I can see people do that. Yes. And I, I'm considering it too at times," said the local farmer.

Both Stein and Van der Vlies feel the 138 years, $418-million-dollar hosting agreement signed by South Bruce council earlier this summer, that only kicks in if South Bruce votes yes, is unfairly influencing people, leading up to the vote.

"it's just an experiment and it's not fair to put it on a small community like that and dangling money in front of them. It's wrong. It's just ethically wrong as far as I'm concerned," said Van der Vlies.

In Part two of our Nuclear Waste series, we'll focus on the safety case for the Deep Geological Repository. A proposed project the Nuclear Waste Management Organization has spent more than two decades studying in Canada, and other countries are already building, to try and isolate the remnants of nuclear power production, from people.