Another issue not discussed in the EIS is the new evidence that radiation risks are greater than currently acknowledged. This new evidence is from the International Nuclear Workers’ Study (INWORKS) which comprises a number of meta studies of nuclear workers in the US, UK and France. These meta studies are very large (>300,000 participants) which lends considerable authority to their findings.
In more detail, in late 2015 and in subsequent years, the INWORKS studies examined associations between low dose-rate radiation and leukemia/lymphoma76, solid cancers77, and circulatory disease.
Their radiation risk estimates were higher than current risk estimates. For example, in the solid cancer study, the observed increase was 0.47/0.32 = 1.47, ie a 47% increase – a significant amount. But for leukemia the increase was much greater. The more recent study on leukemia risks (Leurad et al, 2021) found the increase in point estimates was 5.8 fold or 580%. This large increase was driven mainly by the 11-fold increase in chronic myelogenous leukemia80 (“CML”) in older workers81. The study on cardiovascular risks somewhat surprisingly reported brand new risks of heart disease and strokes. These new risks and increased risks are not taken into account in official risk estimates by regulatory agencies including the CNSC but they should be.
The INWORKS radiation studies remain pertinent as to whether a license should be given to CNL for a number of other reasons, as follows. They:
a. provide strong evidence of a dose-response relationship between cumulative, chronic, low-dose, exposures to radiation and leukemia. b. confirm that radiation risks exist even at very low dose rates (average = 1·1 mGy per year). c. observe risks at low dose rates rather than extrapolating them from high dose rates. (eg as in the LSS study of Japanese bomb survivors) d. found that risks do not depend on dose rate thus contradicting the ICRP’s use of a Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DDREF) (which acts to reduce by half its published radiation risks). e. found radiogenic leukemia risks decline linearly with dose, contradicting earlier studies suggesting a lower, linear-quadratic relationship for leukemia. f. strengthen the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiogenic risks, as it now applies to leukemias as well as to solid cancers. g. found no evidence of a threshold below which no effects are seen, and h. found a trend of increasing risk of solid cancer by attained age.
Because the INWORK findings are far-reaching in their implications, it is necessary to doublecheck their findings. This was carried out by recent exhaustive review (Hauptmann et al, 2020) of the INWORKS studies which examined possible sources of bias82 and confounding83. It concluded that these epidemiological studies directly support the conclusion of increased cancer risks from low doses of ionising radiation, with little evidence of bias and confounding. This is similar to the findings of yet another study84 which also reviewed the INWORKS studies using specialist statistical and epidemiological methods to look for evidence of bias. It found none.
References are available in the original CELA submission:
An NSDF media kit on the website of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states that
“Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) has been authorized to construct an engineered facility, called a near surface disposal facility (NSDF), to dispose of low-level radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) site in Deep River, Ontario. Low-level radioactive waste includes contaminated building materials, soils, and operational equipment (for example, protective shoe covers, clothing, rags, mops, equipment and tools).” (emphasis added)
On page 88 of the transcript of the final licensing hearing for the NSDF on August 10, 2023, Meggan Vickerd, CNL deputy vice-president of Integrated Waste Services is quoted as saying this:
“It is important to restate that only low-level radioactive waste from Canadian sources will be accepted. This waste consists of building demolition debris from current decommissioning activities at the Chalk River Laboratories site, legacy wastes and associated impacted soils, as well as general waste items such as mops and rags generated from our ongoing operations.” (emphasis added)
In Paragraph 39 of its Record of Decision for the NSDF license approval, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states: “The NSDF will contain only LLW.”
The statements above that the NSDF would only contain low-level waste do not stand up to scrutiny. The use of examples like “mops and rags and shoe covers” is misleading.
Consider that:
Much of the legacy waste at the Chalk River Labs site was created during plutonium production for the US nuclear weapons program and other activities involving “post-fission” radioactive waste ie. waste produced in a nuclear reactor. This post-fission waste includes very long-lived radioactive materials that are difficult to manage. Some of this waste can actually become more radioactive over time due to the complex decay chains of long-lived alpha emitters.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, waste from research facilities such as Chalk River Laboratories generally belongs to the “Intermediate-level” waste class and must be kept underground, tens of metres or more below the surface.
Twenty-five out of the 31 radionuclides listed in the reference inventory for the mound are long-lived with half-lives from thousands to millions of years.
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)
It is becoming increasingly clear that long-lived radioactive materials that predominate in the NSDF licensed inventory, would outlive the facility by thousands of years.
Background
During the public comment period on the Environmental Impact Statement for the NSDF in 2017, many groups and individuals expressed concern about intermediate level waste being placed in an above ground mound.
The Town of Deep River and its then mayor Joan Lougheed were among those concerned about intermediate level waste being put into the NSDF. Mayor Lougheed was quoted in a 2017 Globe and Mail article, “Ontario town slams proposal for nuclear-waste facility,” as saying the town had concerns about the intermediate-level radioactive material that requires isolation and containment for more than several hundred years.
Shortly after the Globe and Mail article was published, CNL publicly announced that it would not put intermediate level waste in the mound. However CNL’s final Environmental Impact Statement says, “It is not practical, technical, or economical, to separate the long-lived radionuclides from the waste streams…”
According to the former director of Safety Engineering and Licensing at AECL and former Champion of the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities project, in his April 6, 2022 submission to the CNSC:
“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.” (emphasis added)
and
CNL’s proposal is not a disposal facility for low level radioactive waste: Proposal is an Engineered Containment Mound comprising a large and unverified quantity of intermediate-level waste; (Slide 12)
“A decision to approve the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility two hours west of Ottawa has led Indigenous leaders, activists and experts to voice concerns about what they describe as fundamental aws within Canada’s nuclear regulator.”
“Critics of the decision believe the recent approval is the latest example of the CNSC prioritizing the nuclear industry over Canadians, which they say stems from a lack of regulatory independence.”
“Bloc Québécois MP Monique Pauzé lamented the approval what she described in French as an “insane and inconceivable project.”
“Ottawa confirms to us the bogus status of the hearings conducted by the CNSC where the Commission heard the opposition of multiple stakeholders only to nally brush them aside in the decision rendered yesterday,” Pauzé said in a statement.”
Statement from Chief Casey Ratt and Council Mitchikanibikok Inik
“License Decision for Radioactive Waste Facility: An Act of Disregard Against Indigenous Lands and Rights”
Re: CNSC Licence Decision to Construct the NSDF at Chalk River
We, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, Mitchikanibikok Inik, categorically oppose the decision made by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on January 8, 2024. This decision authorizes the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to construct the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River, Ontario.
This approval, which sanctions the establishment of a nuclear waste facility on the Kichi Sibi River—our ancestral lands—is an egregious violation of our Indigenous law, Ona’ken’age’win. This law, the original Anishinaabeg Earth law, is the spiritual and legal foundation of our people. The CNSC’s decision is nothing less than an assault on our ancestral homelands and sacred sites.
We want to clarify that at no point did we consent to this project or the CNSC’s assessment process. Despite our best efforts, Mitchikanibikok Inik was not given a meaningful opportunity to influence the consultation rules or assessment procedures.
It is clear from the CNSC’s decision that Canada’s nuclear regulator is prepared to disregard federal and international laws designed to protect our Indigenous rights, the environment, endangered species, and the future safety of communities along the Ottawa River. This violation is seemingly committed to favor the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a company with a vested financial interest in the nuclear sector at Chalk River.
We will not stand idle in the face of these assaults. Alongside our fellow Algonquin communities and allies, we are readying ourselves to fight back legally against any reckless decisions made by the CNSC.
Now more than ever, it is crucial that our Ona’ken’age’win law is upheld and respected. We call on Canada to intervene, retract this approval, and halt any further issuance of permits until there is a commitment to develop an environmental assessment strategy aligned with its international legal obligations as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We will not rest until our rights are respected and the biodiversity of the Kichi Sibi lands and waters, which have been sustainably managed for millennia under our laws and practices, are protected.
Ottawa River radioactive waste dump ~ license approved by the CNSC
January 13, 2024
Dear Friends
Yesterday afternoon Canada’s captured nuclear regulator, the CNSC, announced its approval of the license to build the giant above-ground radioactive waste mound beside the Ottawa River, aka the NSDF. See below a few links to good coverage of reactions to the announcement.
There was never any doubt that the CNSC would approve the license. The surprise is how long it took them to do so — seven and a half years! That is a testament to the incredible opposition that mobilized to fight the ill-conceived plan. In a David and Goliath battle, opponents effectively derailed the original plan of the CNSC and the consortium to have shovels in the ground six years ago, in January 2018. That is an accomplishment worth celebrating!
The battle is not over. It will move to the courts now. And along with our allies, we will continue to push for an international ARTEMIS review of the proposal. On that note, thank you to everyone who signed and shared House of Commons e-Petition 4676; the petition just closed for signatures today having been signed by well over 3000 Canadians in just 30 days. A meeting with MP Sophie Chatel about how to move the request for an ARTEMIS review forward will take place soon. Other next steps are in the works and we will keep you posted about them as the plans crystalize.
We are very grateful to our Algonquin brothers and sisters for their strong stand against irresponsible nuclear waste projects in their unceded territory. We look forward to continuing to work with them toward an ultimate victory at some point down the road.
This seems a good time to share the inspiring words of Algonquin Elder Claudette Commanda, delivered during a press conference at 50 Sussex Drive on August 10, 2023. The press conference can be viewed at this link and Claudette’s statement begins at 13 minutes. Here is some of what she said that day, to rousing applause:
“This nuclear waste facility will damage the water and we all know that.
Conscientious people are rising. We must rise together, we are all in that medicine wheel. No matter our colour, our creed or our title, we are all related in the human family and we must stand together
We have a responsibility to our brothers the animals, to our sisters the animals. To the water life and to the land.
We cannot stop the thunder.
We cannot stop the rain from falling.
We cannot stop the lightning from shining
We cannot stop the rivers from flowing
But together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, we can certainly stop the nuclear waste facility from coming here on the Ottawa River.Meegwetch”
Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest and support. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be interested. Good overviews for people new to the issue are here and here.
NUCLEAR WASTE AT CHALK RIVER: KEBAOWEK FIRST NATION CONDEMNS CNSC DECISION AND CALLS ON THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
KEBAOWEK, January 9, 2024 – Despite concerns expressed by First Nations and increased support from over 140 municipalities across Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has granted the license for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) project at Chalk River. In response, the Kebaowek First Nation strongly condemns this decision and calls on the federal government to intervene to stop this environmentally high-risk project.
“The Commission’s decision is unacceptable, notably because it goes against the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental protection. The Canadian government must act promptly and immediately assert the suspension of the project. The Commission’s final decision is totally wrong when it states that the NSDF project will not cause significant environmental effects. While the decision states that CNL will take appropriate measures to safeguard the environment, the health, safety of individuals, and national security and to comply with national obligations, it is undeniable that the safety and health of people and the environment will be profoundly impacted for generations to come through this project, ” reacted Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek.
It is worth noting that the NSDF would release radioactive and hazardous materials into a nearby wetland and the Ottawa River during its operation and after its closure. The mound is expected to degrade through a process of “normal evolution”. The NSDF could also contaminate the river following earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and other extreme weather events. Not only is the Kichi Sibi sacred to the Algonquin Peoples, but the Chalk River site is also close to the sacred Algonquin sites of Oiseau Rock and Baptism Point.
In 2017, the Assembly of First Nations adopted a resolution stating that the CNSC and the Canadian government had not fulfilled their constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate First Nations regarding the NSDF. The Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois caucus issued a joint statement on radioactive waste, asserting that “we must protect the land, water, and all living beings for future generations” and calling for no abandonment of radioactive waste, moving it away from major waterways, and eliminating the practice of importing or exporting radioactive waste.
In addition to the opposition of Algonquin First Nations to the project, over 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, including Gatineau and Montreal, as well as several civil society organizations, have expressed their opposition to the NSDF plan. In 2021, the City of Ottawa adopted a resolution expressing its concern.
The Kebaowek First Nation, committed to defending the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental preservation, expresses its eagerness to collaborate with the government and other stakeholders to ensure a careful consideration of Indigenous concerns and compliance with the obligations of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the context of this project. The First Nation maintains its categorical opposition to the establishment of a permanent NSDF on unceded Anishinabe territory, emphasizing the crucial importance of protecting Indigenous rights, the environment, and cultural heritage. Faced with a lack of trust in the CNSC and its persistent failure to uphold UNDRIP, the First Nation calls on the federal government, including the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, to intervene and end the project.
“I want to be very clear: the Algonquin Peoples did not consent to the construction of this radioactive waste dump on our unceded territory. We believe the consultation was inadequate, to say the least, and that our Indigenous rights are threatened by this proposal. We demand the cancellation of the NSDF project. The focus should instead be on a real and successful cleanup of the site to permanently eliminate old radioactive waste,” explains Chief Haymond.
Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond speaking at a press conference in Ottawa in June 2023
Projet de site d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires de Chalk River « L’endroit est mauvais et la méthode est mauvaise »
Un projet de site d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires près de la rivière des Outaouais doit être rejeté en raison des risques environnementaux qu’il représente et parce que la procédure d’autorisation est entachée par un conflit d’intérêts, plaident différentes nations autochtones.
Jean-Thomas Léveillé – La Presse
Publié le 24 nov. 2023
L’aménagement d’une « installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface » (IGDPS) – soit un site d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires – aux Laboratoires de Chalk River, du côté ontarien de la rivière, fait l’objet d’une demande d’autorisation étudiée depuis 2016 par la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN). Elle doit rendre sa décision dans les prochaines semaines.
Le site d’enfouissement projeté recevrait des déchets radioactifs de faible activité pendant au moins 50 ans dans la municipalité de Deep River, voisine de Chalk River, en Ontario, à un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, à proximité d’un milieu humide.
Il consisterait en un monticule artificiel, d’une hauteur équivalente à un édifice de cinq étages, composé de différentes cellules de stockage et doté de systèmes de collecte du lixiviat, de détection des fuites et de surveillance de l’environnement.
Cette conception est « essentiellement la même » que celle de n’importe quel site d’enfouissement de déchets domestiques dangereux au Canada, alors que des déchets radioactifs exigent un niveau de protection « beaucoup plus strict », s’étonne l’avocate Theresa A. McClenaghan, directrice générale de l’Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement.
« On ne mettrait jamais, jamais, jamais un site d’enfouissement dans une zone humide, et jamais si près d’une rivière importante. […] C’est absolument épouvantable, on ne peut pas le croire. »
Theresa A. McClenaghan, directrice générale de l’Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement
En cas de fuite, de la matière radioactive pourrait donc pénétrer dans la zone humide et atteindre la rivière des Outaouais, indique Mme McClenaghan, prévenant que les conséquences pourraient être décuplées en cas d’évènement météorologique extrême.
Dans ce monticule artificiel, « il y aurait de la place pour un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs », qui le demeureraient pendant des siècles, s’indigne Justin Roy, membre du conseil de bande et conseiller en développement économique de la Première Nation de Kebaowek, au Québec, qui fait partie de la dizaine de communautés algonquines s’opposant au projet.
La rivière des Outaouais, que les Premières Nations appellent Kichi Sibi, est d’une grande importance spirituelle et culturelle pour elles, notamment en raison de la présence de sites sacrés.
Les villes de Gatineau et de la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal s’opposent aussi au projet, soulignant que la rivière des Outaouais et le fleuve Saint-Laurent, dans lequel elle se jette, sont la source d’eau potable de millions de personnes, en aval du site de Chalk River.
Impacts potentiels « pas banals du tout »
Les impacts sur la santé d’une éventuelle fuite « ne sont pas banals du tout », s’inquiète le docteur Éric Notebaert, vice-président de l’Association québécoise des médecins pour l’environnement et professeur à la faculté de médecine de l’Université de Montréal.
« Toute exposition au rayonnement ionisant, même faible, a des risques, surtout s’il s’agit d’une exposition chronique », explique-t-il. Il se dit aussi préoccupé par l’eau tritiée, « de l’eau radioactive », générée à Chalk River.
Sa pénétration rapide dans l’ADN, démontrée par des études sur les animaux, « peut induire des cancers, des malformations congénitales, des morts in utero », dit le Dr Notebaert, dont l’organisation s’oppose aussi au projet.
« L’endroit est mauvais et la méthode de confinement est mauvaise. Il va tôt ou tard y avoir un ruissellement dans la rivière et dans le fleuve. Ça, c’est fort inquiétant. »
Les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens soutiennent de leur côté que leur projet permettra un stockage sûr des déchets grâce à une membrane de fond d’une épaisseur d’un mètre et demi, une couverture de deux mètres d’épaisseur, une surveillance du site et la possibilité d’effectuer des réparations au besoin.
Apparence de conflit d’intérêts
L’un des deux commissaires chargés d’étudier la demande d’autorisation du projet, Marcel Lacroix, a déjà travaillé aux Laboratoires de Chalk River, indique sa biographie sur le site internet de la CCSN. Il est titulaire d’un doctorat en génie nucléaire, professeur à l’Université de Sherbrooke et consultant en ingénierie. La seconde commissaire a, quant à elle, terminé son mandat.
Les Premières Nations de Kebaowek et Kitigan Zibi y voient « un gros problème », dit Justin Roy. Il espère que la Commission étudiera objectivement le projet.
« La CCSN n’a jamais dit non à un projet, pas une fois. Chaque fois qu’un projet a été soumis, la CCSN l’a approuvé. »
Justin Roy, Première Nation de Kebaowek
La CCSN « est très proche de l’industrie qu’elle réglemente », affirme l’avocate Theresa A. McClenaghan.
« Il faut se demander si le régulateur est suffisamment indépendant lorsqu’il y a en son sein trop de personnes issues de l’industrie réglementée », dit-elle, estimant que cela alimente la perception de partialité ou de manque d’indépendance de la Commission.
La Commission assure de son côté que le processus d’évaluation est impartial.
« Il n’y a aucun conflit d’intérêts. Les commissaires sont nommés par le gouverneur en conseil, c’est-à-dire la gouverneure générale, sur l’avis du Cabinet », a répondu par courriel un porte-parole de l’organisme, Braeson Holland, après avoir refusé la demande d’entrevue de La Presse.
« Les commissaires s’engagent à respecter les normes d’éthique les plus élevées et les lignes directrices les plus rigoureuses concernant les conflits d’intérêts », a-t-il ajouté, soulignant la vaste expertise de Marcel Lacroix.
Sollicité pour cet article, Marcel Lacroix n’a pas rappelé La Presse.
Droits bafoués
Les Premières Nations déplorent que le projet ait pu avancer sans leur consentement libre, préalable et éclairé, une notion pourtant enchâssée dans la législation canadienne, et accusent la CCSN de ne pas les avoir consultées convenablement.
Les chefs de trois communautés algonquines ont été entendus lors de l’audience finale de la Commission, en août, mais ils n’ont pas été autorisés à poser des questions au promoteur du projet, déplore Justin Roy.
Les Premières Nations n’excluent pas de saisir les tribunaux pour contester une éventuelle autorisation du projet par la Commission.
Elles ont aussi lancé une pétition parrainée par le Bloc québécois réclamant que le gouvernement fédéral soumette à un examen de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique les projets de déclassement de réacteurs nucléaires et d’élimination permanente des déchets, comme celui de Chalk River, et que la Commission sursoie à sa décision dans ce dossier tant que leurs droits n’auront pas été respectés.
EN SAVOIR PLUS
1945
Début des activités des Laboratoires de Chalk River, qui ont notamment permis le développement du réacteur nucléaire CANDU
SOURCE : COMMISSION CANADIENNE DE SÛRETÉ NUCLÉAIRE
1952
Les Laboratoires de Chalk River sont le théâtre du premier accident nucléaire au monde, le 12 décembre. Un second surviendra en 1958.
SOURCE : SANTÉ CANADA
Chalk River nuclear waste site project “The place is wrong and the method is wrong”.
Chalk River nuclear waste site project “The place is wrong and the method is wrong”.
A proposed nuclear waste disposal site near the Ottawa River should be rejected because of the environmental risks it poses and because the authorization procedure is tainted by a conflict of interest, argue various aboriginal nations.
Jean-Thomas Léveillé – La Presse
Published Nov. 24, 2023
The development of a “near-surface waste management facility” (NSWMF) – a nuclear waste burial site – at Chalk River Laboratories, on the Ontario side of the river, has been the subject of an application for authorization studied since 2016 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). A decision is expected in the coming weeks.
The proposed landfill would receive low-level radioactive waste for at least 50 years in the municipality of Deep River, near Chalk River, Ontario, one kilometer from the Ottawa River, close to a wetland.
It would consist of a man-made mound, equivalent in height to a five-storey building, made up of different storage cells and equipped with leachate collection, leak detection and environmental monitoring systems.
This design is “essentially the same” as that of any domestic hazardous waste landfill in Canada, whereas radioactive waste requires a “much stricter” level of protection, astonishes lawyer Theresa A. McClenaghan, Executive Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
“You would never, ever, ever put a landfill in a wetland, and never this close to a major river […]. […] It’s absolutely appalling, we can’t believe it.”
Theresa A. McClenaghan, Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Law Association
In the event of a leak, radioactive material could enter the wetland and reach the Ottawa River, says Ms. McClenaghan, warning that the consequences could be multiplied tenfold in the event of an extreme weather event.
In this artificial mound, “there would be room for a million tonnes of radioactive waste”, which would remain there for centuries, says Justin Roy, band council member and economic development advisor for the Kebaowek First Nation in Quebec, one of a dozen Algonquin communities opposing the project.
The Ottawa River, which the First Nations call Kichi Sibi, is of great spiritual and cultural importance to them, not least because of the presence of sacred sites.
The cities of Gatineau and the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal are also opposed to the project, pointing out that the Ottawa River and the St. Lawrence River, into which it flows, are the source of drinking water for millions of people downstream of the Chalk River site.
Potential impacts “not trivial at all”
The health impacts of a potential leak “are not trivial at all”, worries Dr. Éric Notebaert, vice-president of the Association québécoise des médecins pour l’environnement and professor at the Université de Montréal’s Faculty of Medicine.
“Any exposure to ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries risks, especially if it’s chronic,” he explains. He is also concerned about the tritiated water, “radioactive water”, generated at Chalk River.
Its rapid penetration into DNA, demonstrated by animal studies, “can induce cancers, birth defects, deaths in utero,” says Dr. Notebaert, whose organization also opposes the project.
“The location is wrong and the containment method is wrong. Sooner or later, there will be runoff into the river. That’s very worrying.”
The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, for their part, maintain that their project will enable safe storage of waste thanks to a one-and-a-half-meter-thick bottom liner, a two-meter-thick cover, site monitoring and the possibility of carrying out repairs if necessary.
Apparent conflict of interest
One of the two commissioners responsible for reviewing the project application, Marcel Lacroix, previously worked at Chalk River Laboratories, according to his biography on the CNSC website. He holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering, is a professor at the Université de Sherbrooke and is an engineering consultant. The second commissioner has completed her term.
The Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations see this as “a big problem”, says Justin Roy. He hopes the Commission will study the project objectively.
“The CNSC has never said no to a project, not once. Every time a project has been submitted, the CNSC has approved it.”
Justin Roy, Kebaowek First Nation
The CNSC “is very close to the industry it regulates,” says lawyer Theresa A. McClenaghan.
“You have to wonder whether the regulator is sufficiently independent when there are too many people from the regulated industry,” she says, arguing that this fuels the perception of bias or lack of independence on the part of the Commission.
For its part, the Commission assures us that the evaluation process is impartial.
“There is no conflict of interest. The Commissioners are appointed by the Governor in Council, that is, the Governor General, on the advice of Cabinet,” responded a spokesman for the organization, Braeson Holland, by e-mail, after declining La Presse’s request for an interview.
“Commissioners are committed to the highest ethical standards and guidelines regarding conflict of interest,” he added, noting Marcel Lacroix’s extensive expertise.
Contacted for this article, Marcel Lacroix did not return La Presse’s calls.
Rights denied
The First Nations deplore the fact that the project was able to go ahead without their free, prior and informed consent, a notion enshrined in Canadian legislation, and accuse the CNSC of failing to consult them properly.
The chiefs of three Algonquin communities were heard at the Commission’s final hearing in August, but were not allowed to ask the project proponent any questions, deplores Justin Roy.
The First Nations have not ruled out taking their case to court to challenge the Commission’s eventual authorization of the project.
They have also launched a petition, sponsored by the Bloc Québécois, calling on the federal government to submit nuclear reactor decommissioning and permanent waste disposal projects, such as Chalk River, to the International Atomic Energy Agency for review, and for the Commission to stay its decision on the matter until their rights have been respected.
READ MORE
1945
Chalk River Laboratories begin operations, leading to the development of the CANDU nuclear reactor.
SOURCE: CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION
1952
Chalk River Laboratories are the scene of the world’s first nuclear accident, on December 12. A second accident occurred in 1958.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 