The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has an Integrated Review Service for Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Decommissioning and Remediation (ARTEMIS) that provides independent advice on radioactive waste management policies and projects.

On Thursday, May 17, 2018, Ramzi Jammal, former Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), who is now the acting CEO of the CNSC, presented an update on the CNSC’s regulatory activities at the 42nd International Nuclear Regulators Association Meeting in Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. 

His presentation, “Canadian Update to the International Nuclear Regulators Association”, is on the CNSC website at https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/presentations/2018.cfm (scroll down to May 17th).

On Slide 27 of his presentation on “RECENT NOTABLE ACTIVITIES”, under Peer Review Missions, he says 

“The CNSC to request an IAEA review mission for radioactive waste and spent fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programs (ARTEMIS) to review the safety cases for CNL’s proposed major projects” (last line on slide 27, below)

The reference to “CNL’s proposed major projects” means i) the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) project at the Chalk River Laboratories, ii) the proposed entombment of the Nuclear Power Demonstration reactor located on the Ottawa River 25 km upstream from Chalk River in Rolphton, Ontario, and iii) the proposed entombment of the Whiteshell-1 Reactor on the Winnipeg River in Pinawa, Manitoba.  

All three projects have been criticized by retired staff from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited as not conforming to IAEA safety standards.  An IAEA ARTEMIS review could resolve this.

An access to information request for information about why the CNSC backed away from its intent to request an ARTEMIS review, was unsuccessful in discovering the reason. The material provided in response to the request is presented below. There is not much in it, but it is curious that one long email from someone at the IAEA is entirely redacted. Why the secrecy about this we wonder?

Videos of the hearing webcast are available now on the CNSC website at this link:

http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/the-commission/webcasts/archived/august2023/index.cfm#CommissionHearing

August 3, 2023 by Lynn Jones Ottawa River Institute

The Ottawa River is a Canadian Heritage River that flows for 1300 kilometers from its origin in Central Quebec to its confluence with the St. Lawrence River at Montreal.

The Ottawa River is sacred for the Algonquin Anishinabe People whose traditional territory it defines. In Algonquin it is called Kitchi Sibi, or “Great River.”

The Algonquin People have lived in the Ottawa River watershed since time immemorial. A strong ethic of environmental stewardship is part of their Anishinabe worldview and they consider it their responsibility to protect the land and water for all life and future generations.

We are fortunate that the Algonquin People take their stewardship responsibility so seriously. Right now, they are a strong protective force standing between a proposed, giant, bargain-basement, nuclear waste dump and the beautiful Kitichi Sibi that supports so many lifeforms and provides drinking water to millions of people downstream.

A multinational consortium (SNC-Lavalin, Fluor and Jacobs) is promoting a giant seven-story mound on the grounds of the Chalk River Laboratories, northwest of Ottawa, directly across the Ottawa River from the province of Quebec. If approved, it would hold one million tonnes of radioactive and other hazardous waste. The proposed dump is called the “NSDF,” and the proponent is “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories,” a wholly-owned subsidiary of the multinational consortium.

The Chalk River Laboratories site is heavily contaminated from eight decades of nuclear activities including production of plutonium for the US nuclear weapons program. The accumulated radioactive wastes at Chalk River were described in a 2011 Ottawa Citizen article “Chalk River’s Toxic Legacy.”  The estimated cost for a proper cleanup is $16 billion. Chalk River Laboratories was privatized by the federal government in 2015 to quickly and cheaply reduce this enormous environmental liability.

The Chalk River site needs to be cleaned up but the proposed giant landfill is not the right approach according to many who have studied the proposal including Algonquin First Nations, retired senior scientists from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, civil society groups and concerned citizens. The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 municipalities, including Pontiac County, Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of concern about the proposed project.

Critics say that the proposed site is unsuitable for a dump of any kind. It is located less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River and is surrounded by wetlands that drain into the river. The site is tornado and earthquake prone and the underlying bedrock is porous and fractured.

Other concerns include:

• Many of the radioactive materials destined for the dump, such as plutonium, will be hazardous for 100,000 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency says radioactive wastes such as these must be carefully stored out of the biosphere, not in an above-ground mound.

• Dioxins, PCBs, asbestos, mercury, up to 13 tonnes of arsenic and hundreds of tonnes of lead would go into the dump along with  thousands of tonnes of copper and iron and 33 tonnes of aluminum, tempting scavengers to dig into the mound after closure.

• The dump proponent is importing commercial and federal nuclear wastes to Chalk River for disposal in the NSDF. These shipments are happening despite a specific request from the City of Ottawa for cessation of radioactive waste imports into the Ottawa Valley.

• The mound would leak radioactive and hazardous contaminants into the Ottawa River during operation and after closure. The mound is expected to eventually disintegrate in a process referred to as “normal evolution.”

• There is no safe level of exposure to the radiation that would leak into the Ottawa River from the Chalk River mound. All of the escaping radioactive materials would increase risks of birth defects, genetic damage, cancer and other chronic diseases.

• The giant pile of leaking radioactive waste would be difficult to remediate. Remediation costs could exceed those of managing the wastes had they not been put in the mound. There are far better ways to manage radioactive waste and keep it out of the biosphere but they cost more money. It would be better to spend the money up front on high quality facilities farther away from a major drinking water source.

The environmental assessment for the NSDF has dragged on for seven years and the final licensing hearing is now scheduled for August 10, 2023. The assessment and the final decision about whether or not to license the dump are in the hands of Canada’s “captured nuclear regulator,” the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. CNSC staff continue to recommend approval of the dump. An Expert Panel  recommended in 2017 that the CNSC not be in charge of environmental assessment for nuclear projects. Participants in the environmental assessment for the NSDF have noted many serious flaws in the process. 

Weeklong licensing hearings in June 2022 were to have been the “final” hearings for the NSDF but in a surprise move, the CNSC decided to “keep the record open” for continued consultations with Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations, two of the 11 Algonquin First Nations whose people have lived in the Ottawa River watershed for thousands of years and who have never ceded their territory to the Crown or the Canadian government.

During the extended consultations which wrapped up this past spring, Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations conducted research at the proposed dump site. They documented extensive threats to their Indigenous rights and to biodiversity in the NSDF footprint in a booklet available online here. Their joint final submission outlines numerous potential legal failures and violations should the CNSC decide to license the NSDF on their unceded territory.

On June 20 at a press conference in Ottawa, Chiefs of Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations along with two Algonquin Grand-Chiefs, together representing 10 of the 11 Algonquin First Nations, said very clearly that they do not consent to the construction of the NSDF on their unceded territory and that approving the dump without their consent would contradict the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Earlier in June, their sister First Nation, the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan, signed an agreement with the proponent, offering consent for the NSDF in exchange for economic and business opportunities and a role in monitoring at the site.

This struggle seems destined to play out in the courts over many years. It seems tragic that so much time, energy and money have been expended on such a bad proposal. Canada’s poor nuclear governance system is largely to blame for this; there is literally no one minding the shop other than our captured nuclear regulator, the CNSC and nuclear reactor proponents at Natural Resources Canada. 

Thank goodness for our Algonquin brothers and sisters who are standing firm to protect Kitchi Sibi and actually have a good chance to eventually stop the madness.

Photo below of the Ottawa River looking north, near the Chalk River Laboratories.

Lynn Jones is a founding member of the Ottawa River Institute, a non-profit, charitable organization based in the Ottawa Valley. ORI’s mission is to foster sustainable communities and ecological integrity in the Ottawa River watershed. 

July 2023

The Algonquins of Kebaowek, Kitigan Zibi and Barriere Lake First Nations are holding a public meeting on August 10, 2023, at 50 Sussex Drive in Ottawa, to make their final presentations to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission about the proposed nuclear waste facility beside the Ottawa River, the NSDF.

This is a very important hearing because it is the final step in the licensing process for the NSDF, the first ever proposal for permanent nuclear reactor waste disposal in Canada. It is also a test of Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A decision to license the NSDF would contradict four articles of UNDRIP ( see details here).

There were “final” licensing hearings for the NSDF last year, in May/June 2022, but at the end of those proceedings it was recognized that consultation with Algonquin First Nations has been inadequate. Consultations with Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations continued over the past year and included an Indigenous-led assessment of the potential impacts of the NSDF on Indigenous Rights. The findings of the assessment are summarized in this booklet.

The hearing on August 10 is the culmination of a seven-year long environmental assessment process for the NSDF – a giant above-ground mound which would hold up to one million tons of radioactive and other hazardous waste. The proposed facility would be located on unceded Algonquin territory, less than one kilometer from the Kitchi Sibi (Ottawa River) on the side of a hill surrounded by wetlands which drain via a creek into the river. The proponent of the waste facility is a multinational consortium (SNC-Lavalin, Fluor and Jacobs), which was contracted by the federal government in 2015 to quickly and cheaply reduce the multibillion dollar cleanup bill for Chalk River Labs, site of eight decades of nuclear activities such as plutonium production for US nuclear weapons. The proposed facility is expected to leak during and after construction and to disintegrate after a few hundred years due to “natural evolution.” Ten Algonquin First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations, and more than 150 municipalities including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal, have serious concerns about the proposed facility. More information can be found here, here and here.

During this event, three Algonquin First Nations (Kebaowek, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabe and Barriere Lake) will make their final presentations to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission via videolink. They will present the findings of their Indigenous-led study of the NSDF proposal, outline their concerns and highlight the threats to their Indigenous rights that would occur if the facility were granted a license. Other participants in the hearing — the proponent, CNSC staff and Commissioners — will participate remotely by webcast. 

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is a resolution passed by the United Nations in 2007. In Canada, on June 21, 2021, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act received Royal Assent and came into force. The Act affirms the United Nations Declaration and requires the Government of Canada to work towards its implementation.

A CNSC decision to license the giant Chalk River Radioactive Waste Mound also known as the NSDF, this contradicts the following four UNDRIP articles:

Article 25: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive, spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned and otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, water and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.”

Article 29 (2): 2. “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”

Article 32 (1): “Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.”

Article 32 (2): “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.” 

National Observer article by Matteo Cimellaro here

At its annual meeting in Halifax, the AFN passed a resolution introduced by Kebaowek First Nation Chief, Lance Haymond. Here is an excerpt from the press release that is posted on Kebaowek FN website:

NUCLEAR DISPOSAL ON THE CHALK RIVER LABORATORIES SITE: THE ASSEMBLY
OF FIRST NATIONS CALLS FOR URGENT MEETING WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
KEBAOWEK, July 20, 2023 — Last week, at the General Assembly of the Assembly of First
Nations (AFN), a resolution was adopted regarding the proposed project of a Near Surface
Disposal Facility (NSDF) on the Chalk River Laboratories site, calling for “an urgent meeting
between the AFN and the Government of Canada regarding the consultation policy of the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as it relates to nuclear waste transport and
disposal decision”.

The full press release is here: http://documents.kebaowek.ca/PressReleaseAFNsupportsoppositionofNSDF.pdf

And here is the resolution:

July 2023

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area has actively participated in the Environmental Assessment of the proposed radioactive waste dump at Chalk River Laboratories since the EA began in 2016.

Our group has made the following submissions:

Comments on the project description for the NSDF, June 24, 2016

Comments on the revised project description for the NSDF, November 18, 2016

Comments on the revised project description for the NSDF, November 21, 2016

Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the NSDF, May 26, 2017

Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the NSDF, August 3, 2017

CMD 22-H7.74 – Submission from CCRCA, published April 19, 2022 

CMD 22-H7.74A – Presentation from CCRCA, published May 18, 2022 

CMD 22-H7.74B – Final submission from the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area June 15, 2023

Our final submission covers the following topics:

1. Has the CNSC dealt appropriately with Algonquin Anishinaabe First Nations on whose unceded, unsurrendered traditional territory the NSDF would be constructed?

2. Would the NSDF result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated?

3. Is a license amendment needed for the NSDF and if so, can the Commission conclude with confidence that the risks that would be created by the facility are justified?

4. Deficiencies in the Environmental Assessment process (detailed post on this here)

~~~~~~

The section below is an excerpt that supports our position that the NSDF is highly likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. 

Significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated include:

• Emissions of greenhouse gases from forest clearing at the NSDF site; 
• Loss of the carbon sink potential of the NSDF footprint;
• Loss of significant habitat for wildlife, including for many species at risk; 
• Deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish;
• Spread of contaminated materials beyond the Local Study Area owing to a tornado or microburst during waste emplacement
• Human intrusion for recovery of radioactive scrap metal from the mound;
• Contamination of the Perch Creek Basin and the Ottawa River with radioactive and hazardous substances

Proposed mitigation measures – the “Consolidated Commitment Lists”

According to CNSC staff, mitigation measures proposed by CNL in its “Consolidated Commitments Report”  will successfully mitigate all of the significant adverse environmental effects that would be created by the NSDF. We find this conclusion by CNSC staff to be irresponsible and not based on evidence. 

CNL’s “Consolidated Commitments Report” received essentially no attention during the May-June 2022 hearing on the NSDF.  In our view, the commitments in it would do little, if anything, to mitigate the NSDF’s adverse effects.  Some could worsen them.  

As explained in our CMD 22-H7.74:

• Most of the 856 “commitments” merely repeat statements found in CNL’s 1661-page EIS. Some are new, such as the provision that radioactive waste remaining in the Port Hope area after the closure of the two mounds there would be sent to Chalk River for disposal.  Shipping additional Port Hope waste to CRL would worsen, not mitigate, the environmental impacts of the NSDF. 
• The Consolidated Commitments Lists says that weather cover structure “designs are being evaluated for compatibility with the NSDF Project configuration and if feasible, could be implemented as a mitigation measure…” An evaluation of the feasibility of a mitigation measure is not a real mitigation measure.
• The Consolidated Commitment Lists – the supposed mitigation measures if the NSDF is approved – would even allow vegetation clearing activities during the migratory bird nesting period (or bat maternity roosting period) if nest searches are conducted.
• No effective means of mitigating these significant adverse environmental impacts on species at risk is foreseen, or likely even possible. For example, the promise to temporarily suspend blasting activities “if wildlife are [sic] observed in the blasting area” is pathetically weak. 
• CMD 22-H7 (p. 290 of 590) says “CNSC staff have found that the NSDF Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on the species at risk.” This assertion is not supported by evidence. Habitat loss would be long-term and irreversible. Impacts will inevitably be felt well beyond the local study area.

CMD 22-H7.111C, the supplementary written submission from the Kebaowek First Nation (KFN), describes the seeming indifference of CNSC staff to CNL’s proposed “sustainable forest management plan” — supposedly the key measure to mitigate the adverse impacts of the NSDF Project on wildlife and species at risk:

Staff have relied too heavily on CNL’s promise to implement a sustainable forest management plan (“SFMP”) to mitigate the deforestation. Staff have not received baseline information on animal populations for the NSDF necessary to determine whether a SFMP would actually address the impacts of deforestation or not. KFN does not understand how Staff can determine the proposed deforestation as minimal or justifiable, when they have not actually assessed the proposed measures to mitigate the impact.

Judging by information in the Consolidated Commitments Report, CNL’s promised sustainable forest management plan – yet to be released – would clear more forest areas in other parts of the CRL site.  The notion is that this would allow Large-Toothed Aspen to regenerate in those areas, providing (after several decades) a possible replacement for the bat maternity trees that would be destroyed by deforestation of the NSDF site.  

This would have uncertain future benefits for endangered bat species.  However, they would suffer immediate losses from removal of their existing habitat.  Their current habitat is likely to be of particular importance because of its proximity to Perch Lake and the Ottawa River.   Additional removal of mature forests would result in adverse effects on other species, adding to the impacts created by the NSDF itself.

Following the May/June 2022 hearing, KFN conducted on-site field research in the NSDF “footprint”.  This research, described in CMD 22-H7.111C, documents the extensive use of the area by wildlife species that have cultural, spiritual, and economic importance to Algonquin peoples, including three active bear dens, winter moose and deer habitat, and eastern wolves:

After starting fieldwork, it quickly became evident to KFN technical staff that there were significant gaps in the baseline environmental work done for the NSDF. Specifically… CNL had not conducted animal population counts in the NSDF for moose, deer, or bear, nor studied prey-predator relations; in particular, there was a lack of documentation of eastern wolf presence, population, and prey-predator relations since the beginning of the NSDF EIS process in 2016.

Has the Commission adequately studied the proposed mitigation measures? 

In June 2022 our group submitted the following question to the CNSC registrar: 

“Will Commissioners discuss and review the 856 mitigation measures in the 105-page Consolidated Commitment Lists under Licence Condition G.8 prior to prescribing them?” 

The CNSC has not responded.  There is no indication that the Commission has reviewed these measures. There was virtually no review or discussion of the Consolidated Commitment Report in the five days of public hearings in May/June 2022.  

In our view, it is not possible for the Commission to render a decision about the appropriateness and adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. The fact that 856 mitigation measures are proposed by the proponent suggests there are indeed significant adverse environmental effects.  A cursory review reveals that many of the mitigation measures will do nothing, and some might make matters worse.  A prudent approach would be for the Commission to conclude that the project will cause significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated.

Scope, application and verification of the proposed mitigation measures

Buried in proposed Revision 3 of the License Conditions Handbook for the CRL site (NRTEOL-LCH-01.00/2028), under the new licence condition G.8, is a statement that CNL would be required to “implement EA regulatory commitment [sic] as outlined in the Near Surface Disposal Facility Project Consolidated Commitments Report, 232-513440-REPT-001 that are applicable to construction and pre-operation activities.” (CMD 22-H7, p. 532 of 590, emphasis added)

In essence, mitigation measures would only apply to site preparation and construction activities. 

Most of the significant adverse impacts of the NSDF Project will occur during the operation and post-closure phases. By limiting mitigation measures to construction and pre-operation activities, the proposed licence amendment G.8 would not address most of the significant adverse impacts of the NSDF Project.  Amending the site licence in this manner would not prevent unreasonable risk to the environment and to the health and safety of persons. The Commission would fail to meet its object found in section 9(a)(i) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Of particular concern is that this proposed amendment would allow serious adverse impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples who have lived in the project area since time immemorial.

As already noted, evidence is lacking that the conditions in the Consolidated Commitments Report have been properly taken into account by the decision maker.  Section 53 of CEAA 2012 says it is the decision maker — either the Governor in Council or the CNSC’s Commission, and not the proponent – that must establish the conditions that would permit the NSDF Project to be carried out.  These conditions must include:

(a) the implementation of the mitigation measures that were taken into account in making the decisions under subsection 52(1); and

(b) the implementation of a follow-up program (for determining the effectiveness of any mitigation measures)

There is essentially no follow-up program in the Consolidated Commitments Report. to determine the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Only a small minority of the commitments would be formally tracked (through an environmental monitoring program).  The “Commitment Tracking Methods” shown in the Report for other mitigation measures are vague phrases or words such as “Good Corporate Responsibility”, “Public Information Program”, “Maintenance”, “Security”, etc.  

This means that there would be no verifiable means for determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

CNSC staff nonetheless assert that CNL’s proposed mitigation and follow-up measures – limited to the pre-operation phases of the NSDF Project – would mean there will be “no new impacts” on Indigenous rights.  CNSC staff further assert that Indigenous Nations have been thoroughly engaged on this matter:

Taking into consideration the location of the NSDF site and CNL’s identified mitigation measures and follow-up program measures, CNSC staff conclude that there will be no new impacts on any potential or established Indigenous and/or treaty rights as a result of the NSDF Project (CMD 22-H7, p. 30 of 590) 

Taking into consideration CNL’s list of EA regulatory commitments (including mitigation measures and follow-up program measures) identified to address potential impacts and project-specific concerns, CNSC staff have determined that CNL has conducted a thorough engagement process with the public, Indigenous Nations and communities, and other stakeholders.  (CMD 22-H7, p. 113 of 590)

Indigenous Nations do not agree.  They assert that the engagement process, and the resulting mitigation and follow-up measures proposed by the proponent, will not adequately address the impacts on their established/potential/asserted rights. 

In relation to CNL’s engagement process and the Crown’s Duty to Consult and Governance on the Lands (UNDRIP Articles 18, 29(2), and 32) — and also in relation to KZA’s right to the dignity of its culture (UNDRIP Article 15) — KZA asserts, under the heading “Mitigation and followup measures (proponent)”:

“No suitable accommodation measures have been discussed on this matter. To do so, the consultation has to start back from the beginning, at the project planning phase, to open a window for meaningful consultation and accommodations.” (CMD 22-H7-113.B, Table 9.3: Summary of the severity of potential impacts to Indigenous rights for Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg with respect to the NSDF)

KZA also finds CNL’s mitigation measures to be incomplete in relation to impacts on its Traditional activities and the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land, its Right of maintaining and protecting a healthy environment and wholesome resources, and its Right of harvesting (hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering of natural resources for food, social or ceremonial purposes).

CNL’s Draft Environmental Assessment Follow-Up Monitoring Program for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (232-509220-PLA-001 R0 Revision 0) essentially confirms the lack of monitoring and follow-up programs related to rights of Indigenous Nations:

Since the EIS has not suggested any likelihood of adverse NSDF Project effects on… traditional land and resource use, nor on Indigenous use and enjoyment of private property, monitoring and follow-up programs are not specifically identified for these.

Monitoring and follow-up programs are not specifically identified for traditional land and resource use; rather, monitoring for environmental pathways (i.e., for air quality, surface water quality, groundwater quality and terrestrial biota) will be implemented.

What must the Commission do in this case?

Although not mentioned by the CNSC staff in CMD 22-H7, there is an important option to be followed in this matter. Slide 10 (“Remedies”) of the presentation by the Ottawa Chapter of the Council of Canadians (CMD 22-H7-117.A) points out that if the Commission decides that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, “the matter can be submitted to Cabinet pursuant to section 52 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.” 

In our view, this is the appropriate course of action for the Commission, given that it has apparently not taken into account the proposed mitigation measures, or considered whether they are appropriate.