Critical comments from former AECL officials and scientists on CNL Disposal projects

See also:

NSDF Licensed Inventory

National Observer: Waste headed for Ontario site is a radioactive ‘mishmash’: nuclear industry veterans

Update ~ July 5, 2023

Three recent submissions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by Dr. J.R. Walker, Canada’s foremost expert on the Government of Canada’s legacy radioactive wastes and how to properly manage them can be accessed  here and here. (Backup source in case CNSC website not working)

According to his Linked In, Dr. Walker was the Director of Safety Engineering and Licensing at AECL when he retired before the multinational consortium took over management of Chalk River Laboratories. He was identified as “champion” on behalf of AECL in this CNSC protocol for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program. He states very clearly in his submissions to the CNSC that the wastes proposed for disposal in the NSDF are “intermediate level wastes” that require underground disposal. He says the dump would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years and that radiation doses from the facility would exceed allowable levels.

Here are some excerpts from Dr. Walker’s final submission to the CNSC dated May 30, 2023: (emphases added)

No inventory management system is in place to comprehensively verify that waste packages and unpackaged waste accepted for emplacement comply with the radiological parameters of the stated waste acceptance criteria; 

“The waste acceptance criteria are insufficiently protective for the material permitted to be emplaced in the proposed Engineered Containment Mound to qualify as low level waste — the radionuclides do not decay to an acceptable level during the time that institutional controls can be relied upon. Consequently, the emplaced material is intermediate level radioactive waste that should not be emplaced in a near surface facility because it requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near surface disposal; 

“Using the waste acceptance criteria credited in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement, it possible to calculate when the constituent radionuclides of the stated inventory would decay sufficiently to meet Canada’s regulatory criteria for disposal. This calculation reveals that many radionuclides would not decay sufficiently to meet Canada’s disposal criteria for many thousands of years and, in some cases, for many millions of years. This means that the safety of humans and nonhuman biota would be dependent upon institutional controls in perpetuity.

The proposal is non-compliant with International Safety Standards, for example, no verification of the radioactive content of emplaced waste and reliance on institutional controls to ensure long-term safety. Canada is bound by international treaty to have due regard to internationally endorsed criteria and standards concerning radioactive waste management. Consequently, giving approval to the proposed ECM would appear to place Canada in contravention of its international treaty obligations.

Original post ~ April 2019

Fifteen former AECL officials and scientists have submitted critical comments on the CNL nuclear waste disposal projects. These people point out many serious flaws in the proposals and the environmental impact statements.

These comments were all submitted to CNSC/CEAA. Links are to the CEAA pages for the environmental assessments for the disposal projects
Most of these former AECL employees identify themselves as “residents of Deep River” or “residents of Pinawa” and do not refer to their employment at AECL in their submissions (but see Michael Stephens’ second NSDF submission).   All are retired, but their former job titles or responsibilities – found through internet searching – are shown in parentheses, below.

Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the Near Surface Disposal Facility Project:

Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

Michael Stephens (2nd submission)

William Turner (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

William Turner (2nd submission)

William Turner (3rd submission)

William Turner (4th submission)

William Turner (5th submission)

John Hilborn (Nuclear physicist, AECL)

J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

J.R. Walker (2nd submission)

J.R. Walker (3rd submission)

Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord (all retired AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employees)

Pravin Shah (Manager, Site Landlord Services, AECL)

Greg Csullog (Manager, Waste Identification Program, AECL)

Greg Csullog (2nd submission)

David J. Winfield (30 years’ experience, research reactors and nuclear facilities, AECL)

Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project:

William Turner  (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

William Turner (2nd submission)

William Turner (3rd submission)

Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the In Situ Decommissioning of the Whiteshell  Reactor #1 Project

William Turner  (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

William Turner (2nd submission)

William Turner (3rd submission)

Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

Michael Stephens (2nd submission)

Peter Baumgartner (AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employee)

Peter Baumgartner (2nd submission)

Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord (all retired AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employees)

Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord  (2ndsubmission)

Leonard Simpson (Director of Reactor Safety Research, AECL)

J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

14 thoughts on “Critical comments from former AECL officials and scientists on CNL Disposal projects

  1. […] The endorsing organizations stand behind every point raised in their joint statement. Any one of those concerns provides enough reason for the prime minister, Parliament and the federal government to change the current approach to the handling of long-lived radioactive wastes in Canada—a toxic liability estimated at $7.9-billion by the auditor general. Each concern is legitimate, well-founded and echoed by many others: independent scientists, municipalities and concerned citizens, including fifteen former AECL managers and scientists. […]

    Like

  2. […] The endorsing organizations stand behind every point raised in their joint statement. Any one of those concerns provides enough reason for the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Federal Government to change the current approach to the handling of long-lived radioactive wastes in Canada – a toxic liability estimated at $7.9 billion by the Auditor General. Each concern is legitimate, well-founded and echoed by many others: independent scientists, municipalities and concerned citizens, including fifteen former AECL managers and scientists.  […]

    Like

  3. […] A former senior manager at AECL told the CNSC that the waste would not decay to unconditional clearance levels for thousands of years. The design life of the facility is only 550 years. He also said that “the emplaced material is intermediate level radioactive waste that should not be emplaced in a near surface facility because it requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near surface disposal.” (emphasis added) (more info) […]

    Like