May 17, 2024. (version française ici)

House of Commons e-Petition 4676 requesting an IAEA ARTEMIS review of precedent-setting nuclear waste disposal projects in Canada received more than 3000 signatures between December 11, 2023 and January 10, 2024. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada’s response did not provide any clear reasons why it would not request an IAEA ARTEMIS review. Rather, the response reads like a promotional message from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, replete with platitudes, inaccuracies and unwarranted assurances.

For the record, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area have prepared the following rebuttal to the response to share with Ministerial staff in hopes that they will reconsider the request for an ARTEMIS review in order to ensure that federal radioactive waste is properly managed for the good of current and future generations of Canadians.

House of Commons e-Petition 4676 including the Government’s response is here.

BLACK TEXT is the Government Response. 

RED TEXT is the Ralliement and CCRCA response to the Government’s response

“The Government of Canada is committed to the safe, effective, and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste. Advancing reconciliation and protecting the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is the government’s top priority when it comes to nuclear energy and radioactive waste.”  

If this is the case, why is the Government allowing a multinational consortium to promote radioactive waste projects like the Near Surface Disposal Facility (“NSDF”) project that fail to meet International Safety Standards?

• CNL has not specified all substances to be disposed of in the NSDF. The Waste Acceptance Criteria, Reference Inventory Report, Safety Case, Safety Analysis Report, and Post-Closure Safety Assessment documents only provide partial lists. 
• The Waste Acceptance Criteria document has a section entitled “Infrequently Performed Operations” that allows waste that does not meet the acceptance criteria to be placed in the NSDF. This effectively nullifies any guarantees about what may be placed in the NSDF.
• After institutional control ends, the public would be exposed to radiation doses that exceed the limit of 10 µSv/y prescribed by Canadian regulations and international standards;
• There was no assessment of the cumulative effects of all related nuclear projects, since CNL did not provide information about  many of them.
• Disused, highly radioactive (9.06×10E+16 Bq) commercial cobalt-60 sources would be placed in the NSDF even though International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards specify that cobalt-60 sources can go into near surface disposal only if they are below a certain concentration of radioactivity. This restriction was ignored by CNL. The Waste Acceptance Criteria document was never revised accordingly despite public requests. 

“In addition, the Government of Canada recognizes the unique status and rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada and is committed to upholding these rights and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the UN Declaration) in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, with regard to radioactive waste management and decommissioning.”

Why then, is the Government of Canada allowing the NSDF to be licensed when 10 of 11 Algonquin First Nations, on whose unceded territory the facility would be built, say they do not consent.

“The development, production, and use of nuclear energy and materials are regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Canada’s independent nuclear regulator, which comprises the Commission and CNSC staff.” 

CNSC is not an independent nuclear regulator. It was noted by the Expert Panel on Environmental Assessment in 2017 that the CNSC is widely viewed to be a captured regulator that promotes the projects it is supposed to regulate.

“All nuclear projects, including the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) proposed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and other proposed legacy radioactive waste projects, require the Commission’s authorization, under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), and they may also require an environmental assessment or an impact assessment.” 

The Environmental Assessment of the NSDF conducted by the CNSC took seven years to complete and was replete with flaws and errors. 

If it is not known what nuclear waste would be accepted in the NSDF, how is it possible to do an environmental assessment? Even during the final hearing for the NSDF license, the Waste Acceptance Criteria document was not finalized.  

The failure to address the inability of an above-ground mound to contain “long-lived radionuclides” for the duration of their hazard is a critical omission. The mound is designed to last only 550 years before eroding and releasing its contents to the environment.

“Pursuant to its mandate and responsibilities set out in the NSCA, the Commission is as an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that makes science and evidence-based decisions and solicits information from interested Canadians and Indigenous Peoples through public engagement and hearings.” 

Civil society groups identified many critical flaws, errors and omissions in the CNSC’s Environmental Assessment Report for the NSDF, and noted that it contained no references whatsoever, making it a very un-scientific document.

“Federal departments, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Natural Resources Canada, as well as other levels of government, participate in and contribute to environmental assessments, where applicable, for proposed major nuclear projects based on their expertise and knowledge. Along with public participation and input, including from Indigenous Peoples, this ensures an open, balanced process that strengthens the quality and credibility of a project’s review.” 

The CNSC ignored serious concerns about destruction of habitat for species at risk, noted by ECCC reviewers of the NSDF Environmental Impact Statement. Inputs from Indigenous Peoples and members of the public have been downplayed or ignored by the CNSC and its Commission throughout the environmental assessment and licensing processes.

“The Commission approves projects under the NSCA if it concludes that they will be safe for the public and the environment, both now and into the future, that Canadians have been engaged, and that Indigenous Peoples have been sufficiently and appropriately consulted.” 

The NSDF is expected to leak radioactive contaminants such as plutonium into the Ottawa River as documented in the Environmental Impact Statement. There is no safe level of exposure to these releases of radioactive substances into the environment. The CNSC allows such releases based on the premise that there is some benefit to society that justifies exposing people to these substances. So no, they do not conclude these projects are safe, only that the risks are “reasonable”.

If the Commission concluded that Indigenous Peoples had been sufficiently and appropriately consulted with respect to the NSDF, it was badly mistaken. The Algonquin People strongly disagree.

“The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has no role in the Commission’s independent licensing decisions under the NSCA and did not participate in the environmental assessment decision of the NSDF project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012).

The Commission ensures that all decisions it carries out under federal legislation uphold the honour of the Crown and that consultations with Indigenous Peoples and groups are undertaken whenever the Commission’s decisions or conduct may have a potential impact on Aboriginal or treaty rights protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As Canada’s nuclear regulator, the CNSC is committed to long-term relationship building and to enabling meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and groups in Commission proceedings and CNSC regulatory processes.”

Again, the Algonquin First Nations, on whose unceded ancestral homeland the NSDF would be built, say they do not consent and have not been adequately consulted.

“On June 21, 2021, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UN Declaration Act) received Royal Assent and came into force. This Act requires the Government of Canada, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples to: take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws (including regulations) of Canada are consistent with the Declaration (section 5); prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the Declaration’s objectives (section 6); and, table an annual report on progress to align the laws of Canada with the UN Declaration Act and on the action plan (section 7). The Action Plan was released in June 2023 and provides a roadmap of actions Canada needs to take in partnership with Indigenous peoples to implement the principles and rights set out in the UN Declaration and to further advance reconciliation in a tangible way.”  

Decisions on Nuclear waste projects in the Ottawa Valley are a perfect starting point for the Government of Canada to implement the principles set out in the UN Declaration. 

“Canada’s nuclear regulatory framework, including for radioactive waste management and decommissioning, is aligned with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards that are internationally well-regarded, as confirmed by peer reviews of international nuclear experts.”

“In 2019, an IAEA Integrated Regulatory Review Services (IRRS) Mission to Canada was requested by the Government of Canada. The purpose of the 2019 IRRS Mission was to perform a peer review of Canada’s regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety against IAEA Safety Standards, with a focus on radioactive waste management and decommissioning. The scope was more comprehensive than an IAEA Integrated Review Service for Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Decommissioning and Remediation (ARTEMIS) review.” 

The IAEA offers various types of international peer reviews to member states. IRRS reviews are general and focus on the nuclear regulatory infrastructure. ARTEMIS reviews are specific to radioactive waste and include technical experts who assess the suitability of waste management proposals. ARTEMIS is the review that is relevant to the case of the three radioactive radioactive waste projects referred to in the petition. 

Many ways in which Canada’s nuclear regulatory framework does NOT align with IAEA standards are noted in the final report of the 2019 IRRS mission to Canada. Problems found by the international peer review team are summarized here: International peer review finds deficiencies in Canada’s nuclear safety framework. Nuclear industry veterans have noted that the precedent setting radioactive waste disposal projects referred to in Petition 4676 do not align with IAEA guidance and safety standards.

“The Mission concluded that Canada has a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety covering current facilities and activities.”

The IRRS Mission found numerous deficiencies in Canada’s nuclear safety framework, as noted above and summarized here.  For example, the Mission noted that a systematic evaluation of justification for the various practices involving radiation sources in the licensing process was lacking in Canada’s framework, and recommended that a process be established for this. The Government of Canada’s response to the IRRS recommendations notes that this recommendation was “not accepted.” (module 1 IAEA suggestion 1)

“It also recommended that the Government should enhance the existing policy and establish the associated strategy to give effect to the principles stated in Canada’s former Radioactive Waste Policy Framework (1996). “

“A follow-up IRRS Mission will occur in June 2024, to review Canada’s progress on meeting the recommendations of the 2019 Mission. In 2022, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) found that Canada does a good job of managing low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste.”

“In 2023, the Government of Canada released a modernized Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning and accepted the Integrated Strategy for Radioactive Waste developed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and associated partners. Both reflect international best practices and enhance Canada’s framework so that radioactive waste management and disposal are carried out in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, and integrated manner, now and for generations to come.”

The Government of Canada’s “modernization” process for its radioactive waste policy, prompted by the 2019 IRRS mission received a failing grade from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and many other NGOs in Canada.

The Government of Canada has been widely criticized for entrusting the development of radioactive waste strategy to a nuclear industry group, the NWMO. This is contrary to IAEA guidance and the way things are done in many other countries with more robust nuclear governance regimes that include independent waste management agencies. Waste from “Small Nuclear Reactors” was not addressed in the strategy.  Reactor decommissioning was not addressed. This is not acceptable.

“Canada’s commitment to nuclear safety is further reinforced through participation and leadership in the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management (the Joint Convention). The Joint Convention is the first legally binding international treaty governing all aspects of spent fuel and radioactive waste management.” 

Article 11 of the Joint Convention states that parties shall “ensure that the generation of radioactive waste is kept to the minimum practicable.”This reflects the fact that radioactive waste is dangerous, poses risks to all living things and must be kept out of the biosphere for as long as it poses a radioactive hazard. Many people are unaware that Canada’s vaunted “CANDU” nuclear reactors produce five to ten times more radioactive waste per unit of electricity than other reactors. Also, Canada seemingly makes no effort to minimize the generation of radioactive waste.  Provincial and federal governments are currently seeking to expand nuclear electricity generation, even though conservation and renewable energy could meet the same needs without creating radioactive waste.

“Under the Joint Convention, delegates, including from Canada, participate in review meetings every three years to review the work of their peers to fulfill their obligations under the Convention.”  

Canada regularly receives tough questions from its peers at Joint Convention meetings. In the document Joint Convention 6th Review Meeting – Canada’s Responses to Questions raised from Peer Review 3 (2013-04-03), a Japanese contracting party outlined the following deficiencies. 

• Question 31: In Canada, there is no difference of management practice for low level radioactive waste (LLW) and the management practice for intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW). 
• Question 32: Is there a dose rate criteria to distinguish between HLW and ILW?

(In fact in Canada management of ILW has been neglected. There is no permanent disposal site  for ILW. The classification of HLW and ILW is very vague on purpose.  By a malicious change of the definition of these wastes, at Chalk River, the inventory of ILW has decreased dramatically while LLW has increased.) 

In the document Responses to Questions Raised from the Peer Review of Canada’s Seventh National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, experts from other countries have asked Canada:

• United Kingdom, Radioactive waste inventory: In tables D.3 and D.5, the volumes of ILW and LLW at Chalk River Laboratories are provided but there is no indication of the activity associated with these wastes…
  1. Does Canada know the activity associated with this waste?
  2. If not, does Canada have any plans to determine it?
• China:  In last report, it is mentioned that the near surface disposal facility (NSDF) would be built by 2020, but the date has been changed into 2024 in this report. What is the main reason for the delay?

“The Government is confident that the CNSC will continue to follow international standards and best practices in its licensing decisions and as needed, conduct international peer reviews as part of its commitment to continuous improvement in the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning.”

The Government’s confidence is misplaced. The CNSC flouts international standards repeatedly. For example, the 2019 IRRS mission called to attention the fact that entombing defunct reactors is permissible only in cases of emergency. Yet, after the visit and receipt of the recommendation,  the CNSC inserted language into its REGDOC-2.11.2, Decommissioning that enables in situ decommissioning (i.e., entombment) of future reactors where removal is not “possible and practicable.” This language contradicts IAEA safety standards and recommendations from the IRRS review team.

The IRRS mission called on CNSC to revise its Radiation Protection Regulations to reduce the allowable radiation dose to a pregnant nuclear energy worker from 4 mSv to 1 mSv, and to reduce radiation dose limits for apprentices or students aged 16 to 18.  No action has been taken.

CNSC also intervened behind the scenes to exempt “small modular reactors” from impact assessment, an act that would be unthinkable in most other countries. It is impossible to conceive of a technology more dangerous and in need of impact assessment than new experimental nuclear reactors.