Author: hendricksonjones
Canada’s federal nuclear waste liability is $16 billion
November 2, 2020
…estimates of AECL’s nuclear liability are heavily discounted, such that when the discount rate increases, the liability decreases.[1] Actual clean-up costs are far higher. AECL’s 2018 Annual Report stated that “The undiscounted future expenditures, adjusted for inflation, for the planned projects comprising the liability are $15,932.9 million.”[2]
The accounting firm Deloitte recommends discounting for environmental liabilities and asset retirement obligations only if two criteria are met:
· The “aggregate amount of the liability or component” is “fixed or reliably determinable.”
· The “amount and timing of cash payments for the liability or component are fixed or reliably determinable.”[3]
Neither condition is met in the case of the Government of Canada’s nuclear liabilities. Both liability amounts and timing of cash payments are highly uncertain. The federal government funds AECL’s decommissioning and waste management expenses on an annual basis.
[1] Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 2016 Annual Report, p. 20.
[2] Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 2018 Annual Report, p. 50.
[3] A Roadmap to Accounting for Environmental Obligations and Asset Retirement Obligations, Deloitte, 2019.
Excerpt from “The Government of Canada’s Radioactive Wastes: Costs and Liabilities Growing under Public-Private Partnership”
Why is there so much plutonium at Chalk River?
October 25, 2020
~~
Update April 29, 2022) five isotopes of plutonium are included in the inventory of radioactive materials destined for the NSDF if it is approved. Details here: https://concernedcitizens.net/2020/12/17/cnls-partial-inventory-of-radionuclides-that-would-go-into-the-chalk-river-mound/
~~~
A consortium of private multinational corporations is proposing to create a giant mound of radioactive wastes at Chalk River, Ontario, less than a kilometer from the Ottawa River. According to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the proposed mega-dump will house a rather large quantity of plutonium.
What is plutonium and why should we worry about it?
Plutonium is a human-made radioactive element that is created as a byproduct in nuclear reactors. The first reactors were built to produce plutonium for use as a nuclear explosive in atomic weapons. Plutonium can also be fabricated into fuel elements for nuclear reactors.
Plutonium remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years after it is created. It comes in several different varieties or “isotopes”. The most abundant varieties are plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,000 years; and plutonium-240, with a half-life of 6,600 years. The half-life is the time required for half of the atoms to undergo radioactive disintegration. When a plutonium atom disintegrates it is transformed into another radioactive material, sometimes one with a much longer half-life.
All isotopes of plutonium are highly toxic. Even very small doses can lead to radiation-induced illnesses such as cancer, often resulting in death.
Why is there plutonium at Chalk River?
The decision to build the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) was taken in Washington, D.C. in 1944. Canada, Great Britain and the United States agreed to build the facility as part of an effort to produce plutonium for bombs. In fact, plutonium produced at CRL played a role in both the US and UK nuclear weapons programs.
During the late 1940s, British scientists carried out all necessary pilot plant work at Chalk River to design their own large plutonium production plant at Windscale, England. Plutonium produced at CRL arrived in England just months before the first British nuclear explosion took place in Australia in 1952.
For three decades, plutonium produced in Canadian research reactors was sold to the U.S. military to help finance the Chalk River Laboratories. A reprocessing plant at Chalk River was built to extract plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel dissolved in nitric acid. It was shut down in 1954, but irradiated fuel containing Canadian plutonium was shipped to the U.S. until the mid-1970s. In all, at least 250 kg of plutonium was sold to the U.S. for nuclear weapons and warheads.
Three buildings central to plutonium production are slated for demolition
Various facilities at CRL were used in the 1940s and 1950s to extract plutonium from fuels irradiated in the NRX reactor. In 2004, environmental assessments were initiated governing the radioactive demolition of three such structures:
• The Plutonium Tower, used in the late 1940s to extract plutonium from fuel rods irradiated in the NRX reactor.
• The Plutonium Recovery Laboratory, used between 1949 and 1957 to extract plutonium isotopes from enriched fuels irradiated in the NRX reactor.
• The Waste Water Evaporator, used between 1952 and 1958 to process radioactive liquid wastes left behind from the plutonium extraction work. Decommissioning of this facility would include: removal, treatment and storage of plutonium-bearing liquid wastes and sludge in tanks, plutonium-contaminated process lines and equipment; decontamination and removal of process equipment and processing cells for handling plutonium; removal of building structures containing plutonium residues; segregation of solid wastes and transfer of these plutonium-contaminated materials to waste management facilities at CRL.
In December 2011 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission gave the go-ahead for dismantling the first of these structures, the Plutonium Tower. In 2012, changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act introduced by Stephen Harper’s government made it permissible to demolish radioactively contaminated buildings without any environmental assessment (EA).
To date, only the auxiliary buildings associated with the Plutonium Tower have been decommissioned, but the Tower itself is still standing. And as far as the Plutonium Recovery Lab and Waste Water Evaporator go, neither has been decommissioned. All these decommissioning projects will be difficult, and will generate lots of long-lived, intermediate-level waste.
These buildings are just three examples of demolition projects that would produce plutonium-contaminated rubble likely destined for the proposed megadump. Chalk River scientists were keenly interested in testing plutonium as a reactor fuel. Some three tonnes of plutonium-based fuel elements were fabricated at Chalk River using remote handling devices called gloveboxes. Such facilities would also result in plutonium-contaminated wastes when demolished.
The draft EIS estimates that total quantities of plutonium to be placed in the planned landfill-type facility would be measured in the trillions of Becquerels. A Becquerel is a unit of radioactivity, indicating that one radioactive disintegration is taking place every second. (Every radioactive atom eventually disintegrates, or explodes, giving off one or two subatomic projectiles called “atomic radiation”. All forms of atomic radiation — alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and neutrons–are damaging to living cells.)
Plutonium will inevitably leak into the Ottawa River (EIS)
The draft EIS indicates that after failure of the landfill cover, which is bound to occur at some point after abandonment, millions of Becquerels of each plutonium isotope would enter Perch Creek every year. Perch Creek flows into the Ottawa River about 1 km away.
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
May 2017
SMRs are actually DDDs (Dirty Dangerous Distractions)
Commentary by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
SMRs are really DDDs and should be called such.
A DDD is a Dirty Dangerous Distraction. It is an acronym much more to the point than SMR.
Nuclear proponents are loathe to even use the N in theiracronym (SMR) for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs)because they want to hide the one aspect – the NUCLEAR aspect – that is the source of all the unmentioned problems with these devices. It is the insidious linages to nuclear waste and to nuclear weapons that are precisely what set these machines apart.But the industry hopes that no one will notice if they leave out the N.It may sound silly or trivial, but it is not silly or trivial. It is deliberate.
SMRs (or SMNRs) are Dirty, Dangerous Distractions. They are DDDs.
They are DIRTY because they produce radioactive waste of all categories – low-level, intermediate-level, and high-level. It is by farthe most deadly waste byproduct that any industry has ever created.
Every SMR is DANGEROUS because it is not just a machine for generating electricity, it is also a warehouse of radioactivepoisons that can do tremendous damage for centuries to comeif anything happens to disperse those poisons into the environment, such as an act of warfare (e.g. aerial bombardment) or sabotage, or a plane crash or a violent earthquake. Once released, these poisons will contaminate the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe, and the damage will last for generations.
Some SMRs – those that are called “fast” or “advanced” reactors,those that talk about “reusing” or “recycling” or “reprocessing” irradiated nuclear fuel – pose an even more serious existential danger. Such reactors are predicated upon the extraction of plutonium and other human-made elements that are heavier than uranium to extend the nuclear fuel supply. But plutonium is also the primary nuclear explosive in the world’s nuclear arsenals, and extracting it from irradiated fuel makes plutonium that much more accessible to militaristic regimes, as well as criminals and terrorists, thereby facilitating the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the greatest human-made threat to the survival of human civilization (and most advanced forms of life on Earth).
SMNRs are also a DISTRACTION because they prevent us from dealing with climate change right now, rather than waiting 10 or 20 years to see is SMRs are even going to prove worthwhile. So much can be done through prompt investments in energy efficiency and renewables, where benefits are enjoyed in just one orTwo building seasons, using technology that is already proven and inherently safe. Can anyone imagine a catastrophic situation arising from the failure of windmills or solar collectors? Energy efficiency and renewables can be implemented faster and cheaper than nuclear power, creating more jobs and providing more sustainability at the same time.
SMRs also distract us from realizing that we have no solution to the problem of how to safely keep these radioactive poisons out of the environment of living things for millennia to come, and therefore we should stop creating them. As long as the industry distracts the decision-makers by dangling a charm bracelet of pie-in-the-sky miraculous “clean, safe, cheap nuclear reactors”(All those adjective being demonstrable lies) our political representatives are prevented from focussing on the horrendous radioactive waste problems that we have already accumulated and that will constitute a radioactive legacy forever.
Although we have no cure for the coronavirus, we do have effective methods for limiting its spread and preventing the worsening of the situation. So too we have no way to eliminate or neutralize radioactive wastes or to render them harmless, but we do know how to package them well and repackage them when necessary — as long as we don’t abandon them thereby putting these enormously dangerous materials beyond human control (as some people have abandoned their responsibility to control the spread of the coronavirus). As long as we don’t keep multiplying the sources of radioactive waste (by building a whole new fleet of nuclear reactors called SMRs) we would have a chance of addressing the radioactive waste legacy with some degree of responsibility and maturity.
Nuclear power is the ONLY technology that actually creates hundreds of new toxic elements, most of which were never found in nature prior to 1939. Those elements, once created, cannot be destroyed or rendered harmless. There isno non-nuclear method known to science – heat, pressure, combustion, chemical reactions, NOTHING – that can slow down or stop the rate of atomic disintegration, and those disintegrating atoms will give off the subatomic shrapnel that we call‘“atomic radiation” at a predetermined rate defined by the so-called “half-life”.
I have discovered that every category of radioactive waste associated with theNuclear fuel chain (from uranium mining to reactor operation to decommissioning to waste management) has a significant number of radioactive poisons that will remain a hazard for hundreds of thousands of years. That is true of uranium tailings, of low and intermediate level wastes from reactor operations, of the thousands of truckloads of radioactive rubble from decommissioning a reactor, of the so-called “depleted uranium” stored in the back yards of uranium enrichment plants, and of the irradiated nuclear fuel itself.
Keeping radioactive waste out of the environment of living things for hundreds of thousands of years is an unsolved problem of the human race. We should not be adding to this dreadful legacy, or allowing our attention to be distracted away from dealing with the problem properly (i.e. as best we can!).
Treasury Board urged to investigate ballooning costs and ethics issues at AECL
La version française suit
September 15, 2020
The Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, President
The Hon. Joyce Murray, Vice-Chair
The Hon. Bardish Chagger, Member
The Hon. Catherine McKenna, Member
The Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Member
The Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, Member
Treasury Board of Canada
Dear Mr. Duclos and Members of the Treasury Board:
We would like to bring to your attention problems with the handling of Canada’s $8 billion federal nuclear waste and decommissioning liability by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
As detailed in the attached discussion paper, “The Government of Canada’s Radioactive Wastes: Costs and Liabilities Growing under Public-Private Partnership”, taxpayer funding to AECL roughly quadrupled to $1.3 billion between 2015/16 and 2020/21. During this period, AECL’s reported liabilities increased by $332 million.
The previous Conservative Government attempted to cut costs and accelerate reduction of federal nuclear waste liabilities by implementing a public-private partnership or GoCo (“Government owned, Contractor operated”) contract between AECL and a multinational consortium.
The GoCo contractor is advancing substandard radioactive waste projects that do not comply with international standards and obligations. Environmental assessments are mired in controversy and several years behind schedule.
In the process of implementing the GoCo contract, Government oversight was greatly reduced and control over Canada’s federally-owned nuclear facilities and radioactive wastes was largely transferred to American-owned interests. It appears that AECL’s president Richard Sexton, is an American national and former senior executive in two of the original corporations awarded the GoCo contract in 2015 as members of the Canadian National Energy Alliance (CNEA) consortium. Mr. Sexton is also the Fee Distribution Officer who determines the “award fees” received by the consortium. AECL’s Lead Contracts Officer is an American national. The board of CNEA is comprised of a majority of American nationals. The GoCo contract was recently renewed unexpectedly, 18 months prior to its official expiry date, with no information provided as to the reason for the early renewal.
Issues of ethics and accountability have arisen in connection with the GoCo contract. The Caretaker Convention appears to have been disregarded in September 2015 when the multi-billion dollar GoCo contract was signed during a federal election campaign. The Integrity Regime appears to have been disregarded when the GoCo contract was quietly renewed by AECL in April 2020, during the early days of the pandemic lockdown, despite the conviction in Canada in late 2019 of the Canadian consortium partner SNC-Lavalin on a charge of fraud.
We believe that intervention is required by Cabinet and/or Parliament to restore control of and oversight over Canadian nuclear facilities and radioactive wastes, and to ensure that public funds are spent wisely.
Yours truly,
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Éric Notebaert, MD, M.Sc., Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
CC: Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada
Greg Fergus, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Le 15 septembre, 2020
L’Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, Président
L’Hon. Joyce Murray, Vice-Présidente
L’Hon. Bardish Chagger, Membre
L’Hon. Catherine McKenna, Membre
L’Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Membre
L’Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, Membre
Conseil du Trésor
Cher M. Duclos,
Distingués Membres du Conseil du Trésor,
Nous désirons porter à votre attention des problèmes liés à la manière dont Énergie atomique du Canada Ltée (EACL) gère les $8 milliards de déchets nucléaires et de déclassements qui relèvent du gouvernement fédéral.
Comme on le constate dans le document ci-joint « Les déchets radioactifs du gouvernement du Canada : La croissance des coûts et obligations en partenariat public-privé », le financement public d’EACL a pratiquement quadruplé depuis 2015-16 pour atteindre $1,3 milliard en 2020-21. Pendant cette période, les obligations d’EACL se sont accrues de $332 millions.
Le précédent Gouvernement Conservateur avait tenté de réduire les coûts et d’accélérer la réduction des obligations nucléaires fédérales en créant un PPP, un partenariat public-privé (« propriété du Gouvernement, géré par un entrepreneur ») entre EACL et un consortium multinational.
Pour les déchets radioactifs, l’entrepreneur de ce PPP met de l’avant des projets inadéquats qui dérogent aux règles internationales et à nos obligations. Embourbées dans la controverse, les évaluations environnementales accumulent des années de retard.
Dans le cadre de ce PPP, le Gouvernement a considérablement réduit sa surveillance, tandis que la gestion des installations nucléaires et des déchets radioactifs de propriété fédérale se voyait en bonne partie transférée à des intérêts américains. Il semble que Richard Sexton, le président d’EACL, soit un citoyen américain et un ex-dirigeant senior de deux entreprises qui avaient originellement obtenu ce contrat de PPP en 2015, au sein de l’Alliance nationale de l’énergie canadienne (ANEC). M. Sexton est aussi responsable de la répartition des revenus au sein de ce consortium. Le principal responsable des contrats d’EACl est aussi un citoyen américain. Le contrat en PPP a récemment été renouvelé à l’improviste, 18 mois avant sa date d’expiration officielle, sans qu’on ne fournisse la moindre explication du renouvellement hâtif.
Plusieurs enjeux d’éthique et d’imputabilité ont surgi de ce contrat en PPP. On semble avoir ignoré la convention de transition quand on a conclu ce contrat en PPP de plusieurs milliards de dollars pendant la campagne électorale fédérale de 2015. On semble aussi avoir ignoré le régime d’intégrité quand EACL a discrètement renouvelé ce contrat en PPP en avril 2020, au début du confinement attribuable à la pandémie, même si le partenaire canadien du consortium, SNC-Lavalin, avait été condamné pour fraude à la fin de 2019.
Nous estimons que le Conseil des ministres et/ou le Parlement devraient rétablir leur contrôle et leur surveillance des installations nucléaires et des déchets radioactifs fédéraux, afin que les fonds publics soient dépensés avec prudence.
Sincèrement vôtres,
Gordon Edwards, Ph.D,Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire
Éric Notebaert, MD, M.Sc.Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement
Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
Cc. Karen Hogan, Vérificatrice générale du Canada
Greg Fergus, Secrétaire parlementaire du président du Conseil du Trésor
Document ci-joint: “Les déchets radioactifs du gouvernement du Canada : La croissance des coûts et obligations en partenariat public-privé” (Anglais seulement)
The Government of Canada’s Radioactive Wastes: Costs and Liabilities Growing under Public-Private Partnership
October 6, 2020
This discussion paper was prepared by Dr. Ole Hendrickson with input from many colleagues including former senior scientists and managers at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
The November version incorporates new information on contractor fees and nuclear waste liabilities from the 2020 AECL Annual Report.
Petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires: un cauchemar, pas un rêve pour le Canada dans le discours du Trône de cette semaine
OTTAWA, le 22 septembre 2020 – En prévision du discours du Trône de cette semaine, des groupes environnementaux de partout au Canada envoient un message au premier ministre Justin Trudeau et au ministre des Ressources naturelles Seamus O’Regan que les «petits» réacteurs nucléaires seraient un cauchemar et non un rêve pour les collectivités du Nord et des Premières Nations du Canada et ne sont pas la solution aux changements climatiques.
Les critiques des petits réacteurs modulaires (PRM) disent que le développement de leurs technologies expérimentales prendra trop de temps pour faire une différence sur le changement climatique et pourrait drainer des milliards de dollars des coffres publics. Une étude récente de l’Université de la Colombie-Britannique a montré que l’énergie produite par les PRM pouvait coûter jusqu’à dix fois plus cher que les sources d’énergie renouvelables comme l’énergie éolienne et solaire.
Les PRM laisseraient également des déchets radioactifs aux emplacements proposés dans le Nord canadien, dans les collectivités éloignées et des Premières nations. Certains modèles introduiraient de nouveaux problèmes en utilisant du combustible au plutonium extrait de barres de combustible usé liquéfié dans de l’acide corrosif, créant ainsi un héritage de déchets à vie longue et hautement radioactifs.
Un groupe de femmes dirigeantes a écrit aux membres du Conseil du Trésor lundi, déclarant que le soutien fédéral aux petits réacteurs modulaires enfreindrait l’engagement international du Canada à minimiser la production de déchets radioactifs, et leur demandant de mettre un terme à tout soutien et financement du gouvernement pour les PRM.
Les PRM sont vantés par le ministre O’Regan comme essentiels pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. Pourtant, la feuille de route des PRM publiée par Ressources naturelles Canada indique que les PRM seraient utilisés pour les sables bitumineux et l’extraction de pétrole et de gaz, en plus de l’industrie minière et lourde. La feuille de route demande également aux gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux de partager le coût des premiers PRM et de leurs déchets radioactifs avec l’industrie.
Les plans d’un projet de démonstration de PRM sont déjà en cours aux Laboratoires de Chalk River sur la rivière des Outaouais, au nord-ouest d’Ottawa. Le site est géré par un consortium du secteur privé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux entreprises du Texas (Fluor et Jacobs). Le site de Chalk River appartient au gouvernement fédéral, mais ses opérations ont été privatisées en 2015.
Les messages envoyés au premier ministre Trudeau et au ministre O’Regan par des groupes et des particuliers soutiennent que:
• Les PRM retarderont l’action climatique car 15 ans pour construire une technologie non testée, c’est trop long. Une énergie renouvelable éprouvée et moins coûteuse existe maintenant.
• Les PRM n’ont pas une analyse de rentabilisation solide et nécessiteront des milliards de fonds publics, dans un environnement fiscal déjà tendu par le COVID-19.
• Les PRM créeront plus de déchets radioactifs, différents et en plus de ce qui existe déjà, et ne «recycleront» ni ne réduiront les stocks de déchets nucléaires.
Ils demandent également une consultation avec les Canadiens et les peuples autochtones et disent que les PRM relieraient le Canada à une économie de plutonium et à la production d’armes, et feraient proliférer le risque nucléaire dans des localités et des communautés partout au Canada.
CITATIONS
« Il existe plus de possibilités d’emploi et de reprise économique dans la production d’énergie renouvelable et l’efficacité énergétique que dans l’industrie nucléaire inabordable et polluante. Si le gouvernement envisage d’injecter de l’argent des contribuables dans de nouvelles technologies nucléaires non testées, il ne fera que retarder l’action nécessaire aujourd’hui pour réduire les émissions. De plus, les PRM créeraient un héritage cauchemardesque de déchets radioactifs d’un océan à l’autre. »
– Dr Ole Hendrickson, vice-président de la Fondation Sierra Club Canada
« De combien de zones de sacrifice pouvons-nous assumer la responsabilité sur une planète finie? Il y en a déjà trop. »
– Candyce Paul, Première nation d’English River, Saskatchewan, coordonnatrice de la sensibilisation du Comité pour les générations futures
« Nous avons formé la Coalition pour un développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick (CRED-NB) en réponse à la décision du gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick d’investir dans les PRM plutôt que dans l’énergie renouvelable durable. Nous voulons que les résidents du Nouveau-Brunswick évitent d’être exposés à davantage de déchets nucléaires et que nos fonds publics ne soient pas gaspillés pour développer une technologie prototype d’énergie nucléaire. Au lieu de cela, nous voulons être des acteurs dans la nouvelle économie mondiale des énergies renouvelables à faible émission de carbone. »
– Susan O’Donnell, PhD, chercheuse principale du projet Rural Action and Voices for the Environment (RAVEN) à l’Université du Nouveau-Brunswick et membre du CRED-NB
« L’investissement dans l’énergie nucléaire à la 11e heure est un détournement de l’action climatique réelle lorsque des solutions renouvelables évolutives et rentables pourraient et doivent être utilisées. Les générations futures déjà soumises aux changements climatiques ne devraient pas se voir imposer de nouveaux risques, en raison des déchets radioactifs des PRM et du risque de prolifération qui les accompagne. Nous devons investir dans des solutions d’énergie renouvelable connues, et non dans la promesse d’une technologie hypothétique et risquée. »
– Kerrie Blaise, Conseiller juridique des Services du Nord, Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement
« Toutes les centrales nucléaires, petites ou grandes, coûtent cher, peuvent subir des accidents graves, produisent des déchets radioactifs dangereux et utilisent des matériaux qui peuvent être utilisés pour fabriquer des armes nucléaires. Alors que les petits réacteurs pourraient être meilleurs sur certains paramètres, ils seront pires sur d’autres. Un réacteur plus petit coûtera nécessairement plus cher par unité d’énergie électrique produite car il perdra des économies d’échelle. Les PRM ne pourront en aucun cas sauver l’énergie nucléaire et la rendre sûre ou durable. »
– Dr M. V. Ramana, directeur, Liu Institute for Global Issues, Université de la Colombie-Britannique
Lettre au Conseil du Trésor: des femmes de partout au Canada exhortent le gouvernement du Canada à cesser de financer et de soutenir les petits réacteurs nucléaires
Le 21 septembre 2020
Honorable Jean-Yves Duclos, président du Conseil du Trésor
Honorable Joyce Murray, vice-présidente du Conseil du Trésor
Honorable Bardish Chagger, membre du Conseil du Trésor
Honorable Catherine McKenna, membre du Conseil du Trésor
Honorable Chrystia Freeland, membre du Conseil du Trésor
Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson, membre du Conseil du Trésor
Chers Monsieur Duclos et membres du Conseil du Trésor,
Nous vous écrivons en tant que femmes dirigeantes dans des milieux communautaires et autochtones, en sciences, médecine, droit et protection de l’environnement. Nous sollicitons votre attention urgente pour que le Canada s’acquitte de ses obligations juridiques de minimiser les déchets radioactifs puisqu’il est signataire de la Convention commune sur la sûreté de la gestion du combustible usé et la sûreté de la gestion des déchets radioactifs.
Les déchets radioactifs étant dangereux, ils représentent un risque pour tous les organismes vivants et ils doivent être isolés de la biosphère pendant toute la durée de leur risque radiologique (plusieurs milliers d’années). L’article 11 de la Convention commune stipule que chaque Partie contractante doit prendre les mesures appropriées pour : « Faire en sorte que la production de déchets radioactifs soit maintenue au niveau le plus bas qu’il soit possible d’atteindre ».
Les petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires, dont le développement actuellement envisagé serait financé par les contribuables canadiens, produiraient des déchets radioactifs de longue durée de vie au cours de leur exploitation normale. Ces petits réacteurs, proposés au Canada, seraient installés dans des collectivités nordiques éloignées et dans des sites des Premières Nations dont certains écosystèmes sont les plus fragiles et les plus importants pour la planète. Les principes de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les Droits des Peuples Autochtones (DNUDPA) et du Consentement Préalable et en Connaissance de Cause (CPCC) n’ont pas été respectés.
La production de plutonium et d’autres combustibles pour les petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires créerait aussi de dangereux déchets radioactifs de longue durée de vie. Les petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires produiraient aussi de dangereux déchets radioactifs de longue durée de vie. Trop dangereux à manipuler après leur courte vie de quelques décennies et trop chers à transporter, les petits réacteurs seraient probablement abandonnés sur place, créant des zones d’exclusion contaminées par la radioactivité (de quelques hectares) partout où ils auront été déployés.
Plutôt que d’utiliser la technologie nucléaire pour la production d’électricité, il existe des solutions à faibles émissions de carbone disponibles immédiatement, rapides à déployer, sans déchets radioactifs et plus susceptibles de créer des emplois. Les petits réacteurs nucléaires ne constituent donc pas une stratégie d’atténuation du réchauffement climatique utile ou nécessaire. Le Canada pourrait atteindre beaucoup plus facilement, à moindre coût et plus rapidement l’objectif de réduire à zéro les émissions nettes de carbone grâce à une combinaison de conservation d’énergie et d’énergies renouvelables. Pour plus de détails, veuillez consulter la pétition environnementale 419 adressée au vérificateur général du Canada.
Les partisans des petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires vantent l’idée d’utiliser les déchets radioactifs existants comme combustible. C’est un fantasme dangereux. En réalité, attendre pour « recycler » les déchets radioactifs favorise leur accumulation et reporte leur responsabilité aux générations futures. Pire encore, les réacteurs alimentés par du combustible nucléaire recyclé nécessitent l’extraction du plutonium, qui est très utilisé dans les armes nucléaires, ce qui crée un grave risque de leur prolifération pour la sécurité nationale.
Nous nous opposons au soutien et au financement du gouvernement fédéral pour développer de petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires car ce serait renoncer à l’engagement international du Canada à réduire au minimum la production de déchets radioactifs.
Nous vous exhortons à soumettre cette problématique à l’attention de vos collègues du Cabinet afin de cesser tout soutien gouvernemental et tout financement des contribuables au développement des petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires.
Veuillez recevoir l’expression de nos sentiments les plus sincères,
Anne Lindsey, O.M., Winnipeg, Manitoba
Brennain Lloyd, North Bay, Ontario
Candyce Paul, English River First Nation, Saskatchewan
Cathy Vakil, M.D., Kingston, Ontario
Dale Dewar, M.D., Wynyard, Saskatchewan
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, Ph. D., Toronto, Ontario
Eva Schacherl, M.A., Ottawa, Ontario
Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne, Oka, Québec
Gretchen Fitzgerald, Halifax, Nouvelle-Écosse
Johanna Echlin, M.Ed., Montréal, Québec
Judith Miller, Ph.D., Ottawa, Ontario
Kathryn Lindsay, Ph.D., Renfrew, Ontario
Kerrie Blaise, M.Sc., J.D., North Bay, Ontario
Lynn Jones, Ottawa, Ontario
Martha Ruben, M.D., Ph. D., Ottawa, Ontario
Pippa Feinstein, J.D., LL.M., Toronto, Ontario
Susan O’Donnell, Ph. D., Fredericton, Nouveau-Brunswick
CC:
Greg Fergus, Secrétaire parlementaire du président du Conseil du Trésor
Small modular nuclear reactors: A nightmare, not a dream for Canada in this week’s Throne Speech
For immediate release
OTTAWA, September 22, 2020—In anticipation of this week’s Throne Speech, environmental groups across Canada are sending a message to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan that “small” nuclear reactors would be a nightmare and not a dream for Canada’s Northern and First Nations communities and are not the solution to climate change.
Critics of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) say that developing experimental nuclear reactor technologies will take too long to make a difference on climate change and could drain billions of dollars from public coffers. A recent University of British Columbia study showed that energy produced by SMRs could cost up to ten times as much as renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
SMRs would also leave radioactive waste in the proposed locations across Canada’s North, remote and First Nations communities. Some models would introduce new problems by utilizing plutonium fuel extracted from used fuel rods liquefied in corrosive acid, creating a legacy of long-lived, highly-radioactive waste.
A group of women leaders wrote to members of the Treasury Board on Monday, stating that federal support for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) would breach Canada’s international commitment to minimize generation of radioactive waste, and asking them to stop all government support and funding for SMRs.
SMRs are touted by Minister O’Regan as essential to addressing climate change. Yet the SMR roadmap published by Natural Resources Canada says that SMRs would be used for oil sands and oil and gas extraction, in addition to mining and heavy industry. The roadmap also calls on federal and provincial governments to share the cost of the first SMRs and their radioactive waste with industry.
Plans for one SMR demonstration project are already underway at Chalk River Laboratories on the Ottawa River, northwest of Ottawa. The site is run by a private-sector consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two Texas-based companies (Fluor and Jacobs). It is federally owned but its operations were privatized in 2015.
The messages being sent to Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister O’Regan by groups and individuals argue that:
· SMRs will delay climate action because 15 years to build untested technology is too long. Lower-cost, proven renewable energy exists now.
· SMRs have no business case and will require billions in public funds, in a fiscal environment already strained by COVID-19.
· SMRs will create more radioactive wastes, different and in addition to what already exists, and won’t “recycle” or reduce nuclear waste stockpiles.
They also ask for consultation with Canadians and Indigenous peoples and say SMRs would link Canada to a plutonium economy and weapons production, and proliferate nuclear risk to locations and communities across Canada.
QUOTES
“More opportunities for jobs and economic recovery exist in renewable energy production and energy efficiency than in the unaffordable and polluting nuclear industry. If the government plans to pour taxpayer money into untested new nuclear technologies, it will just delay action to reduce emissions now. In addition, SMRs would create a nightmare legacy of radioactive waste from coast to coast to coast.”
– Dr. Ole Hendrickson, Vice-President of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation.
“How many sacrifice zones can we take responsibility for on a finite planet? There are already too many.”
– Candyce Paul, English River First Nation, Saskatchewan, Outreach Coordinator for the Committee for Future Generations
“We formed the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) in response to the decision by the New Brunswick government to invest in SMRs rather than sustainable renewable energy. We want residents of New Brunswick to avoid being exposed to more nuclear waste and to avoid having our public funds wasted on developing prototype nuclear energy technology. Instead, we want to be players in the emerging global low-carbon renewable energy economy.”
– Dr. Susan O’Donnell, PhD, lead researcher of the Rural Action and Voices for the Environment (RAVEN) project at the University of New Brunswick and member of CRED-NB
“Investment in nuclear power at the 11th hour is a distraction from real climate action when scalable, cost-effective renewable solutions could and need to be employed. Already climate-burdened future generations should not have new risks imposed on them, due to SMR’s radioactive waste and accompanying proliferation risk. We need to invest in known renewable energy solutions, and not the promise of a hypothetical and risky technology. “
– Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
“All nuclear plants, small or large, are expensive, can undergo severe accidents, produce hazardous radioactive waste, and use materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. While smaller reactors might be better on some metrics, they will be worse on others. A smaller reactor will necessarily be more expensive per unit of electrical energy generated because they lose out on economies of scale. There is no way that SMRs will be able to rescue nuclear power and make it safe or sustainable.”
– Dr. M. V. Ramana, Director, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia
– 30 –
Link: Letter to Treasury Board from women leaders across Canada re: small nuclear reactors: https://concernedcitizens.net/2020/09/21/letter-to-treasury-board-from-women-leaders-across-canada-re-small-nuclear-reactors/
Media contact:Eva Schacherl Cell: 613-316-9450
Letter to Treasury Board from women leaders across Canada re small nuclear reactors
la version française ici
September 21, 2020
The Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos, President
The Hon. Joyce Murray, Vice-Chair
The Hon. Bardish Chagger, Member
The Hon. Catherine McKenna, Member
The Hon. Chrystia Freeland, Member
The Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, Member
Dear Mr. Duclos and Members of the Treasury Board:
We write to you as women community and Aboriginal leaders in science, medicine, law and environmental protection to request your urgent attention to the need for Canada to uphold its legal obligation, as a party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, to minimize generation of radioactive waste.
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 tens of thousands of years). Article 11 of the Joint Convention states that parties shall “ensure that the generation of radioactive waste is kept to the minimum practicable”.
Small modular nuclear reactors, currently under consideration for taxpayer-funded development in Canada, would produce long-lived hazardous nuclear waste as part of normal operations. These reactors are proposed for Northern, remote and First Nations communities in some of Canada’s most fragile and globally important ecosystems. UNDRIP principles of free prior, and informed consent with indigenous communities have not been respected.
Production of plutonium and other fuels for small modular nuclear reactors would create long-lived hazardous nuclear waste. Small modular nuclear reactors would themselves become hazardous, long-lived nuclear waste; too hot to handle after their short lifespan of a few decades, and too costly to transport, they would likely be abandoned in place leaving permanently contaminated, radioactive exclusion zones, a few hectares in size, everywhere they were deployed.
Low-carbon alternatives to nuclear technology for electricity generation are readily available, faster to deploy, much less expensive and do not generate radioactive waste. They also create more jobs. Small nuclear reactors are therefore not a useful or necessary climate change mitigation strategy.Canada can much more easily, cheaply and quickly get to net zero carbon with a combination of energy conservation and renewables. For details please see Environmental Petition 419 to the Auditor General of Canada.
Small nuclear reactor proponents tout the notion that small reactors will use existing nuclear waste for fuel. This is a dangerous fantasy. In reality, “recycling” radioactive waste creates more radioactive waste, passing the buck to future generations. Worse, reactor technologies that use recycled fuel require extraction of plutonium, creating serious national security risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation.
We submit that federal support and funding for development of small modular nuclear reactors would constitute an abnegation of Canada’s international commitment to minimize generation of radioactive waste.
We urge you to bring this matter to the attention of your Cabinet colleagues, and cease all government support and taxpayer funding for small modular nuclear reactors.
Yours sincerely,
Anne Lindsey, MA, O.M., Winnipeg, Manitoba
Brennain Lloyd, North Bay, Ontario
Candyce Paul, English River First Nation, Saskatchewan
Dr. Cathy Vakil, MD, Kingston, Ontario
Dr. Dale Dewar, MD, Wynyard, Saskatchewan
Dr. Dorothy Goldin-Rosenberg, PhD, Toronto, Ontario
Eva Schacherl, MA, Ottawa, Ontario
Ginette Charbonneau, Physicist, Oka, Quebec
Gretchen Fitzgerald, BSc, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Johanna Echlin, M.Ed., Montreal, Quebec
Dr. Judith Miller, PhD, Ottawa, Ontario
Dr. Kathryn Lindsay, PhD, Renfrew, Ontario
Kerrie Blaise, MSc, JD, North Bay, Ontario
Lynn Jones, MHSc, Ottawa, Ontario
Dr. Martha Ruben, MD, PhD., Ottawa, Ontario
Pippa Feinstein, JD, LLM, Toronto, Ontario
Dr. Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Fredericton, New Brunswick
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 