5 avril 2023
Author: hendricksonjones
Analysis of Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning
by Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D. CCRCA researcher
April 20, 2023
Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning
Background: In 2017, civil society groups were trying to understand how three irresponsible radioactive waste projects (the giant Chalk River mound and two legacy reactor entombments), could be undergoing environmental assessment in Canada. The lack of a substantive federal radioactive waste policy was noted as a serious problem that had allowed the projects to proceed. The policy vacuum was brought to the attention of the IAEA, the Prime Minister, the Auditor General and many other Canadian officials. In September 2019, an international peer review team from IAEA flagged Canada’s lack of a radioactive waste policy as a serious problem. In response, Natural Resources Canada began a review process which took place from 2020 to 2023. The review included extensive involvement from civil society groups and concerned individuals across Canada. The new policy, released in March 2023, is a huge disappointment to many people who, in good faith, worked hard to provide many valuable suggestions only to find their input virtually ignored by the captured bodies (CNSC and NRCan) that developed the policy. In the words of our Quebec colleagues at Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, the policy is “a fiasco and a slap in the face to democracy.” What follows is a detailed analysis of the many serious failings of Canada’s new “modernized” radioactive waste policy.
***
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) uses “ensure” in its various forms 28 times in the final version of its new radioactive waste policy, up from 14 times in the draft.
Use of “ensure” in a policy context represents an empty promise – a promise that is not associated with any specific action and that lacks a verifiable, measurable, time-bound target. Reliance on such language indicates an intent to avoid further discussion.
For example, NRCan’s claim that Canada could “ensure nuclear non-proliferation” if plutonium reprocessing were to be allowed (and plutonium-fueled reactors were to be exported to other countries) demonstrates the policy’s superficial and specious nature.
The closest thing to a target in the policy is found in one of the “vision” statements:
By 2050, key elements of Canada’s radioactive waste disposal infrastructure are in place, and planning is well under way for the remaining facilities necessary to accommodate all of Canada’s current and future radioactive wastes.
This begs the questions, “What are those “key elements?” and “What are the remaining facilities?” To achieve this rather weak and vague vision:
The federal government accordingly ensures… that responsibility for maintaining institutional controls over the long term, including the preservation of records and knowledge management of radioactive wastes, is assigned, in an open and transparent manner, to an appropriate entity.
It appears that the federal government is unprepared to accept responsibility at this time for managing radioactive waste, even the waste that it has generated. The federal government created the nuclear industry and generated a massive (~ $16 billion) waste liability through R&D work carried out by the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) over the past 75 years. AECL continues to receive annual appropriations exceeding a billion dollars.
The policy only promises that at some indefinite time in the future the government will “ensure” that an “appropriate entity” is created to maintain institutional controls over the long term. This side-steps the key issue of governance. A public entity to oversee radioactive waste management is urgently needed. Hundreds of submissions on the draft policy called for the government to establish an independent oversight body now.
Although the policy gives the nuclear industry free rein in managing its waste, with no oversight, it assigns no real responsibility to the industry, either. It calls upon the industry to develop “conceptual approaches” and to submit an “Integrated Strategy for Canada’s radioactive waste to the federal government for review and consideration.”
An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report prompted the government to undertake a radioactive waste policy review. The IAEA specifically recommended that the government “enhance” the principles contained in its previous Radioactive Waste Policy Framework. The most important principle was “polluter pays”:
The waste producers and owners are responsible, in accordance with the principle of “polluter pays”, for the funding, organization, management and operation of disposal and other facilities required for their wastes.
Rather than being enhanced, this principle was deleted from the new policy. This opens the door to subsidies from the federal government for management of radioactive wastes produced by non-federal entities.
The policy lacks acceptable language regarding assessment of radioactive waste management facilities. NRCan rejected the following civil society proposal:
Amend the Physical Activities Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act to include construction and operation of new nuclear reactors, decommissioning of nuclear reactors, and all phases in the development, operation and closure of long-term waste management facilities.
Instead, NRCan said:
The Policy recognizes and is aligned with federal legislation, particularly the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Impact Assessment Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, as well as other legislation, associated regulations, and other policy tools that further support radioactive waste management,
adding that
These policy tools are regularly reviewed and updated by the federal government, as required, to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
This is a dubious claim, given that the government had not reviewed or updated the previous waste policy “framework” for 27 years, and has not reviewed or updated the Nuclear Safety and Control Act for 26 years.
Stating that the new policy “is aligned with” the Impact Assessment Act fails to mention that the Physical Activities Regulations under this Act exempt decommissioning of reactors and other nuclear facilities, new radioactive waste storage facilities, fuel waste reprocessing facilities with an annual production capacity of less than 100 tonnes of plutonium per year, and construction and operation of small modular reactors (and management of their wastes).
Hence, nearly all major nuclear activities are exempted from assessment.
Most current nuclear decommissioning activities are occurring on federal lands owned by AECL. In theory, impact assessment is required for all projects occurring on federal lands under section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act.
AECL, despite being a federal authority under the Act, ignores decommissioning projects, and delegates the determination of the significance of other waste-related activities (such as a new intermediate-level waste storage facility) to its private contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. This is not allowed under the Act.
With regard to health, safety and environmental aspects of radioactive waste management, NRCan rejected the following civil society suggestions on the policy draft:
Radioactive waste will be contained and monitored to ensure it remains isolated from the accessible biosphere for the time frame relevant to the category of waste;” and “Prioritize the health, safety and security of people and the environment by requiring that radioactive wastes are kept contained and isolated from the biosphere.”
These suggestions were based on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standard for radioactive waste disposal. The IAEA says:
The specific aims of disposal are:
(a) To contain the waste;
(b) To isolate the waste from the accessible biosphere and to reduce substantially the likelihood of, and all possible consequences of, inadvertent human intrusion into the waste;
(c) To inhibit, reduce and delay the migration of radionuclides at any time from the waste to the accessible biosphere;
(d) To ensure that the amounts of radionuclides reaching the accessible biosphere due to any migration from the disposal facility are such that possible radiological consequences are acceptably low at all times.
The new policy does not contain the words “biosphere”, “isolation”, “migration” or “intrusion”, instead substituting vague phrases such as “ensure protection of the environment”. The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.
The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.
Dilution is the strategy employed by the “NSDF project”, announced by a consortium of multinational companies immediately after the Harper government contracted them to deal with the 75-year accumulation of radioactive waste at AECL’s nuclear sites across Canada. The NSDF would be Canada’s first permanent disposal facility for radioactive waste from nuclear reactors – a million-cubic-meter mound of waste next to the Ottawa River, including a pipeline that would discharge partially-treated leachate from the mound into a lake that drains into the river. It would set a terrible precedent for future facilities.
First Nations have expressed serious concerns about the NSDF project and two other permanent disposal projects that involve entombing AECL prototype reactors in concrete and grout and abandoning them next to the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.
After the public comment period on the draft policy, a new section was added entitled “Canada’s commitment towards building partnerships and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.” It calls for “early, continuous and meaningful engagement” in future radioactive waste projects. However, the policy is silent on the question of whether the current disposal projects – announced without that early engagement – could be approved without the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations. Nor does the new policy commit to First Nations “consent” for future projects.
Another new section, entitled “Scope of the Policy,” adds confusion about reprocessing and fails to address Canada’s experimental work with plutonium fuels. The language on reprocessing says:
Reprocessing, the purpose of which would be to extract fissile material from nuclear fuel waste for further use, is not presently employed in Canada, and so is outside the scope of this Policy.
However, the federally-owned Recycle Fuel Fabrication Laboratories have been conducting plutonium fuel research for many years. Furthermore the government has given a private company $50.5 million to develop a commercial reprocessing facility under the guise of waste “recycling”.
Despite thousands of letters requesting a ban on plutonium reprocessing in the policy and noting the dangers of this technology for nuclear weapons proliferation, the word “plutonium” appears nowhere. Claiming that reprocessing is “outside the scope” of a radioactive waste policy is irresponsible. Furthermore, a new phrase in section 1.7 of the final policy encourages “recycling and reuse of materials.” This could be read as promoting “recycling” of used fuel to extract plutonium.
Also highly problematic is the following phrase in the new policy:
The government of Canada remains deeply committed to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which remains the only legally binding global treaty promoting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force on 22 January 2021. State Parties to this treaty “undertake never under any circumstances to… Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
While Canada may refuse to acknowledge the existence of the TPNW, this does not alter the fact that the international community has acted to ban nuclear weapons.
The section on “Scope of the Policy” also contains contradictory and confusing wording on naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). The IAEA says NORM is “Radioactive material containing no significant amounts of radionuclides other than naturally occurring radionuclides.” The IAEA definition explicitly includes “Material in which the activity concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides have been changed by a process.”
In contrast, the new policy defines NORM as “material found in the environment that contains radioactive elements of natural origin.” This would appear to exclude from the policy the waste that is created when NORM is extracted from the environment and then processed.
The CNSC regulates many facilities that process NORM (using the internationally agreed definition): uranium mines, Cameco’s processing facilities in Blind River and Port Hope, fuel fabrication facilities, etc. The new policy also says:
“this Policy does not address NORM other than those associated with the development, production or use of nuclear energy or technologies and those associated with the transport and import/export of nuclear substances.”
This statement is both grammatically incorrect (NORM refers to “material”, not “materials”) and does not adequately address the contradiction inherent in defining NORM in a manner that excludes the many processing activities occurring in Canada, and the wastes they generate.
The terms “process” and “processing” appear nowhere in the policy. Even the word “uranium” is absent from the policy, further illustrating the superficial nature of the new policy.
Also problematic is the reference to “an independent nuclear regulator that makes decisions using inclusive, open, and transparent public hearings.” Self-serving promotion of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does not belong in a radioactive waste policy. Claims of transparency and openness do not match reality. The real issue is that the CNSC invariably dismisses public input in making its decisions.
Public input has also been dismissed in this new policy. It reads as if it was written by the CNSC, which may be true. The CNSC is widely considered to be completely “captured” by the nuclear industry, with a revolving door between CNSC, the nuclear industry, and Natural Resources Canada.
The policy rejects the demand by civil society organizations for a ban on imports of radioactive waste from other countries. It says that the federal government:
is committed to the principle that radioactive waste generated in other countries are [sic] not to be disposed of in Canada and radioactive waste generated in Canada will be disposed of in Canada, with the exception of certain radioactive wastes subject to return arrangements.
The policy lists as exceptions the “repatriation of disused sources to Canada.” It adds that “radioactive sources that were not from Canada may be brought to Canada.”
This is a clear admission that Canada is importing radioactive waste from other countries and intends to continue doing so. The ownership of this waste is eventually transferred to the Government of Canada, and the waste is stored at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories of AECL.
The financial arrangements involved in these waste transfers are completely non-transparent. In this way, the waste imports could be adding to the liabilities recorded in the Public Accounts of Canada. Canadian taxpayers may be subsidizing not only Canada’s own nuclear industry, but the nuclear industry of foreign nations as well.
Plutonium extraction promotes the proliferation of nuclear weapons
January 16, 2023
by Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
There are two kinds of proliferation of nuclear weapons – vertical proliferation, whereby a nuclear weapons state expand its nuclear arsenal or its nuclear weapons delivery capabilities, and horizontal proliferation, whereby a non-nuclear weapons state acquires a nuclear weapons capability.
In the past, Canada has contributed to both vertical proliferation by selling uranium and plutonium to the USA for weapons use and horizontal proliferation by giving India the technology needed to produce and extract plutonium for weapons use.
Canada is not in a position to contribute to vertical proliferation except in very indirect ways, and no nuclear weapon state wishing to expand its nuclear arsenal would be depending on Canada for that purpose,
However there are many non-nuclear-weapons states that have a desire to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Canadian technology and nuclear materials could play a key role in helping them to acquire that capability.
Canada could play a very important role in horizontal proliferation by making plutonium production and its extraction that much easier.
If Canada develops nuclear reactors that depend on producing and extracting plutonium as fuel, (e.g. Moltex or ARC) and proceeds to sell those reactors to other countries around the world (as is the intention), then those countries that acquire the Canadian technology will be very much closer to building an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
By far the most difficult part of building a nuclear weapons is simply acquiring a sufficient quantity of nuclear explosive material.
Building a nuclear explosive device, once the necessary weapons-usable explosive material is available, is not nearly as difficult as people think. The best testimony to this fact comes from men who were directly involved in building nuclear weapons themselves, such as the people who expressed their concerns in the TV program whose transcript is found here: www.ccnr.org/Peaceful_Atom.html
Giving a commercial value to plutonium as a fuel, as proponents of “small modular” nuclear reactors want to do, makes it virtually inevitable that it will fall into criminal hands.
Unlike uranium, all plutonium is weapons-usable; no “enrichment” is required as is the case with uranium.
There is a great danger in making plutonium into a commercial fuel because anything that is commercially traded will end up, to a small but significant extent, in the hands of criminals and/or terrorists. We cannot keep drugs, money, guns or diamonds out of the hands of criminals, and there is no reason to think that we can keep plutonium out of the hands of criminals either.
It is entirely credible for a subnational group to make a devastatingly powerful nuclear explosive device that could be delivered in the trunk of a car parked on a downtown city street and detonated by remote control.
In the meantime, as more states acquire nuclear weapons materials, they will also build nuclear arsenals and then any military conflict in any part of the world can turn into a nuclear war. It is foolish to think that a country that is losing a conventional war will refuse to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal.
~~~~~~~~~~
The photo below by Japanese military photographer Yosuke Yamahata shows the extent of the devastation of Nagasaki, one day after the plutonium bomb was dropped on it by the United States.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area supports the Campaign to Ban Plutonium Reprocessing in Canada. Visit the campaign website for more information and suggestions for adding your voice to the campaign.
Chalk River Labs ~ Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (CPDP)
Update December 2025 ~ THE CPDP appears to have been replaced by CNL with a document called The Overview Decommissioning and Cleanup Plan (ODCP). The ODCP does not appear to qualify as a preliminary decommissioning plan. It seems to be more of a public relations document. CNL has deleted information about actual quantities of radionuclides in the different waste management areas.
Original post January 15.2023
This document, dated 2014 is the current version of the plan developed over many years for decommissioning and cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories property. It is a requirement under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act that licensed nuclear facilities have decommissioning plans in place.
The plan was developed as part of the multimillion dollar “Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Project” prior to privatization of CRL in 2015. The work outlined in this plan will cost billions of dollars, possibly close to $16 billion which is a recent government of Canada estimate for the cost of cleaning up its federal nuclear legacy liability, the bulk of which is at Chalk River.
Interestingly, the CPDP includes no mention of a “Near Surface” disposal facility, aka the giant Chalk River Mound that has caused so much consternation on the part of Indigenous communities, downstream municipalities, and civil society groups over the last six years.
The private sector consortium that owns Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and is now running Chalk River Laboratories and other Canadian federal nuclear facilities, does not appear to be following this CPDP, and the plan is not publicly accessible on the CNLwebsite.
We are posting the CPDP here because it is an important document that should guide decision making about Canada’s largest federal environmental liability and we believe it should be publicly available.
There is a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission requirement (in REGDOC 2.11-2, Decommissioning) that a Preliminary Decommissioning Plan shall include… a public consultation plan. The IAEA also says that planning for decommissioning includes activities for public consultation in accordance with national requirements.
The photo above is the “active area” at Chalk River Laboratories on June 24, 2022, showing some of the buildings and structures that need to be decommissioned. The NRU reactor, closed in 2018, is the red brick building in the foreground. The Plutonium Tower – the grey structure to the left of the “Molybdenum-99 Stack” – is also visible in the photo,
ARC-100 SMR: Does the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada do anything other than recommending not to do impact assessments?
December 23, 2022
The ARC-100 reactor is a proposed sodium-cooled “small,” “modular,” nuclear reactor (SMR). It is one of two nuclear reactors comprising a proposed demonstration project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site in New Brunswick along with a Moltex Energy molten salt SMR and spent fuel reprocessing unit.
In July 2022, a coalition of groups from New Brunswick, and other provinces asked environment minister Steven Guilbeault to designate the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Demonstration Project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site for assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. Small modular nuclear reactors have been on the drawing board for decades. Serious accidents have occurred in prototype reactors. Spent fuel reprocessing is highly controversial due to attendant risks of serious accidents and nuclear weapons proliferation.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area provided a letter in support of the designation request, in part because Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River is conducting work to produce fuel for the ARC-100 reactor.
On December 22nd Minister Guilbeault denied the request for impact assessment, following an analysis done by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.
One must ask: Does the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada do much anything other than recommending not to do impact assessments?
In November 2022 the Agency provided the following information about all its completed assessments under the new Act (which entered into force in August 2019):
| Phase or Assessment Type | Highway and Roads | Mines and Minerals | Oil and Gas | Ports and Harbours | Bridges | N/A | Total |
| Planning | 0 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 11 |
| IA by Agency | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| IA by Integrated Assessment | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| IA by Review Panel | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| IA by Substitution | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Regional Assessment | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| Total | 2 | 8. | 8 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 25 |
So the answer to the question is no, the Agency doesn’t appear to do much in addition to recommending against doing impact assessments. It has completed an average of eight assessments per year since 2019.
According to the Government Electronic Directory Services there are 360 staff in the Agency.
As outsiders with a keen interest in seeing the serious impacts of nuclear energy and radioactive waste thoroughly assessed, it appears that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada might be a tad overstaffed for its underwhelming performance.
Given the numerous serious potential impacts, we find it to be irresponsible that the Agency recommended against an assessment of the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Demonstration Project at the Point Lepreau nuclear site.
The Agency also recommended in 2021 against a regional assessment of radioactive waste management in the Ottawa Valley, despite a very clear need and a call for one by the City of Ottawa and many civil society groups.
The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is a disappointment. It appears to be yet another government body prioritizing the needs of industry over the safety and well-being of Canadians and their supporting ecosystems.
Further ~ Dec 24/2022 per the comment added below, the Agency appears to turn down dozens of requests every year, and to ONLY do assessments that are required by the legislation and captured by the seriously flawed project list.
Chalk River Mound (NSDF) would release plutonium to the Ottawa River in “treated effluent”
June 7, 2022
It is clear that The NSDF would not contain and isolate radioactive waste from the accessible biosphere. One only needs to look at the table in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement entitled “Maximum concentrations of radionuclides in the treated effluent and east swamp stream.” (reproduced below)
Just above the table is the statement “both aquatic and terrestrial species will be exposed to contaminated surface water and sediment in the East Swamp stream, perch lake, perch creek, and Ottawa River.”
The table lists 29 radionuclides that would be present in the treated effluent. These are the “maximum concentrations” that CNSC expects, and the CNSC license would approve. They include a large quantity of tritium and three isotopes of plutonium. The maximum concentration of Pu 241 increased 50 fold between the draft EIS and final EIS. It would be good to know the reason for that and why the tritium more than doubled.
Table 5.7.6-2 is excerpted from CNL’s Environmental Impact Statement pages 5-698 – 5-699
As Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility said in his intervention at the licensing hearings last week:
“CNSC and CNL may say these levels are negligible, but why should any citizens of Ontario or Quebec be exposed to any amount of plutonium in their drinking water?”
Thursday June 2 is INDIGENOUS Day at the hearings for the Chalk River Mound (NSDF)
Junes 2 is a special day at the hearings for the Chalk River Mound.
It is the day the Commission will consider Indigenous issues. Five Algonquin First Nations delegations will address the tribunal. The Five Algonquin First Nations intervening are; Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, Kebaowek First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation, Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake. All five of the Indigenous delegations are coming to Pembroke to make their interventions. The Indigenous presentations will begin at 9:00 am. One Non-Indigenous delegation, The Kitchisippi Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Council of Canadians will also intervene.
Here is the schedule for tomorrow:
9:00 Smudging Ceremony9:30 Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation
10:45 Kitigan Zibi Anishinabe (Elder Verna McGregor)
Lunch
Drumming (Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake)
Kebaowek First Nation,
Wolf Lake First Nation,
Mitchikanibikok Inik Algonquins of Barriere Lake.
Kitchisippi Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Council of Canadians
Please join us in the hearing room for part or all of the day, if you can!
We are suggesting that you bring a piece of paper with FPIC on it for Free Prior Informed Consent, which refers to the requirement under the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for states 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.
We may hold up our signs at certain points during the hearing. The aim is to quietly and respectufully show our support for our Indigenous friends and allies. Some of us will put signs with FPIC on our cars while they are parked at the hotel.
If you can’t join us in person, please send one or more messages to decision makers to let them know that five Algonquin First Nations say they have not been adequately consulted and do not support the proposal to build the giant radioactive waste mound on their unceded territory. For more info and sample messages start here.
Photo below of Kitchi Sibi September 20. 2019
Sample messages for NO CONSENT day of action
More information about the No Consent Day of Action here.
Sample email message
Dear (add the name of your elected official)
I would like to request your urgent attention to licensing hearings for a giant radioactive waste mound on traditional unceded Algonquin land alongside the Ottawa River upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal.
These licensing hearings are being held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, widely perceived to be a captured regulator and in need of reform. The hearings are proceeding despite serious problems with the dump proposal and specific requests by four Algonquin First Nations that the hearings be suspended.
The First Nations in question say they have not been adequately consulted or in some cases not consulted at all and are not prepared to give their consent to the project.
Please do what you can to ensure that the proposed radioactive waste facility does not receive a license at this time, and that the rights of Indigenous communities are respected.
Yours sincerely,
Sample tweets
Support Algonquin Nations’ rights on #NoConsent Day. Tell feds no #nuclearwaste on First Nations lands! Here are words of 5 First Nations who do not consent to #ChalkRiver dump: concernedcitizens.net/2022/05/28/algonquin-nations-do-not-consent/ @JustinTrudeau @MarcMillerVM @PattyHajdu @Rvelshi @CNSC_CCSN @GGCanada
Protect Kitchi Sibi Ottawa River and Mother Earth! Send messages of support to Kebaowek, Barriere Lake, Wolf Lake and Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn First Nations here: bit.ly/3wY5B0u #NoConsent
#NoConsent to nuclear waste on Algonquin lands! @CNSC_CCSN hearings today must listen to First Nations. Free prior and informed consent. @MarcMillerVM @PattyHajdu @Rvelshi @SophieChatel1 @JonathanWNV @s_guilbeault @GGCanada @Laurel_BC @kyleseeback @ElizabethMay @m_pauze #cdnpoli
MPs: #FirstNations do not consent to #ChalkRiver nuclear dump @SophieChatel1 @GregFergus @stevenmackinnon @Yasir_Naqvi @anitavandenbeld @DavidMcGuinty @MonaFortier @mflalonde @AryaCanada @JennaSudds @Francis_Drouin @PierrePoilievre @cherylgallant @seblemire @stephanelauzon5 #CNSC
Ottawa/Gatineau #water comes 100% from the #OttawaRiver. Listen to #Indigenous allies: Algonquin First Nations are saying #NoConsent to #radioactivewaste next to a major river. #WaterIsLife @CNSC_CCSN @RVelshi @JonathanWNV @s_guilbeault @Laurel_BC @ElizabethMay @m_pauze #cdnpoli
Where to send your emails and tweets
| Twitter Tags for Decision-makers and MPs | |
| Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission | @CNSC_CCSN |
| President and CEO of CNSC Rumina Velshi | @RVelshi Email: rumina.velshi@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca |
| Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson | @JonathanWNV Email: minister.ministre@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca |
| Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault | @s_guilbeault Email: ministre-minister@ec.gc.ca |
| Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Marc Miller | @MarcMillerVM Email: marc.miller@rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca |
| Minister of Indigenous Services Patty Hajdu | @PattyHajdu Email: MinistreSA-MinisterIS@sac-isc.gc.ca |
| Prime Minister Justin Trudeau | @JustinTrudeau Email: pm@pm.gc.ca |
| Governor General of Canada Mary Simon | @GGCanada |
| Opposition Critics in Parliament | |
| Laurel Collins – NDP Critic for Environment and Climate Change | @Laurel_BC |
| Richard Cannings– NDP Deputy Critic for Natural Resources | @CanningsNDP |
| Charlie Angus – NDP Critic for Natural Resources | @CharlieAngusNDP |
| Kyle Seeback – Conservative Shadow minister for Environment and Climate Change | @kyleseeback |
| Greg McLean – Conservative Shadow Minister for Natural Resources | @GregMcLeanYYC |
| Elizabeth May, MP, Green Party of Canada | @ElizabethMay |
| Monique Pauzé, Députée et porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois | @m_pauze |
| Tag your Member of Parliament | Regional (Eastern Ont./West Que.) MPs |
| Sophie Chatel | @SophieChatel1 |
| Greg Fergus | @GregFergus |
| Steven MacKinnon | @stevenmackinnon |
| Yasir Naqvi | @Yasir_Naqvi |
| Anita Vandenbeld | @anitavandenbeld |
| David McGuinty | @DavidMcGuinty |
| Mona Fortier | @MonaFortier |
| MFLalonde | @mflalonde |
| Chandra Arya | @AryaCanada |
| Jenna Sudds | @JennaSudds |
| Francis Drouin | @Francis_Drouin |
| Pierre Poilievre | @PierrePoilievre |
| Cheryl Gallant | @cherylgallant |
| Sébastien Lemire | @seblemire |
| Stéphane Lauzon | @stephanelauzon5 |
| Email addresses – Members of Parliament and Ministers | The standard Parliamentary address is: FirstName.LastName@parl.gc.ca Or you can look up your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search |
Algonquin First Nations Do NOT CONSENT to a giant radioactive landfill on the shores of Kitchi Sibi in their unceded territory
***UPDATE June 13, 2023
According to a press release posted on the CNL website, datelined Chalk River, ON – June 09, 2023 – Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), and the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (AOPFN) are pleased to announce that they have signed a historic long-term relationship agreement….. the organizations have reached agreement on the NSDF project, and the AOPFN will provide its consent to CNL and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to move forward with the construction of the proposed facility. More details here.
May 28, 2022
Five Algonquin First Nations are saying they have not been adequately consulted about the NSDF or not been consulted at all.
Kebaowek First Nation (KFN)
The Kebaowek First Nation’s letter to the CNSC (Jan. 31, 2022) states that the CNSC’s decisions “pose significant and long-term impacts [to] Kebaowek’s constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights,” and that “The CNSC as yet, has not discharged its duty to consult nor undertaken consultation with Kebaowek before deciding to proceed with the licensing and EA hearing for the NSDF.”
From KFN’s supplementary submission to the CNSC April 28, 2022:
“United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Although the mandate of the CNSC does not mention a mandate to examine the relationship between the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the NSDF, the Committee should be reminded of your government’s adoption of UNDRIP at the UN assembly and incorporate the “minimal standards” developed by States and Indigenous peoples from around the world with respect to the protection of waters used and valued by Indigenous people.
Article 32 of UNDRIP recognizes the right of Indigenous Peoples’ to control development of their traditional territories and resources. Among that development is the exploitation and use of water resources. In fact, States such as Canada should be engaged in good faith processes with Indigenous peoples affected by development projects in their territories in order to obtain the free, prior and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting Indigenous water resources.
KFN takes the position that the CNSC has not engaged in consultation via a good faith process intended to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of our community with respect to the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the NSDF. We further take the position that the duty to consult and accommodate has been eliminated and/or seriously reduced.
The Commission is not in a position to make either of the determinations required in order to approve CNL’s application. The CNSC has not fulfilled the DTCA with KFN and consequently, it cannot satisfy itself that the requirements under the CEAA or the NSCA have been met. The Commission has no option at this point but to either deny CNL’s application or defer its decision to allow for the proper fulfillment of its DTCA. Proceeding otherwise would result in the Commission’s violation of the Crown’s constitutional obligations and potentially the greater and unknown impacts to both the environment and our inherent and projected rights.”
Mitchikanibikok Inik, Algonquins of Barriere Lake (ABL)
The Algonquins of Barriere Lake state in their letter to the CNSC (April 1, 2022) that: “it appears to us that your Agency’s approach to fast tracking the NSDF hearing without fully and meaningfully consulting affected Algonquin Anishinaabeg communities is unreasonable and falls considerably short of fulfilling the Crown’s duty to meaningfully consult.”
From ABL’s submission to CNSC (May 4, 2022):
“We have lived in the Kishi Sipi watershed from time immemorial…The Algonquin Nation have been on the territory for over 8000 years…Never once was ABL directly contacted or consulted by the CNSC or CNL…ABL has always taken on our role as protectors of the land and resources on our traditional territory seriously.”
“ABL submitted a request for ruling to the CNSC on April 1, 2022, in accordance with rule 20 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Rules of Procedure in favour of an adjournment of this public hearing for a period of 12 months. We made this request on the basis that we are extremely concerned about the NSDF project’s and its potential impacts and considering our community’s deep-seated ecological and environmental knowledge, acquired through a long and intimate association with the Kitchi-Sibi, as we know the Ottawa River, and surrounding sites are not reflected in the baseline studies conducted by CNL. We also took issue with the aggressive timeline that has led to the negotiation of participant funding agreements being undertaken in an informational vacuum. Despite this, the Commission determined that an adjournment was not merited and that it would be premature to adjourn the proceedings at this time…”
“While the CNSC staff have recommended that the Commission determine that the NSDF project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects referred to in the CEAA and conclude pursuant to the NSCA that CNL’s application with respect to the NSDF should be approved, the Commission cannot make this determination and fulfill its DTCA absent ABL’s input and engagement with this process. The Commission simply does not have any of the information it needs to make these determinations. Both ABL’s lack of opportunity to provide this input and CNSC’s resulting inability to consider and address this information mean that the DTCA has not been met.”
“The Commission is not in a position to make either of the determinations required in order to approve CNL’s application. The CNSC has not fulfilled the DTCA owed to ABL, in fact it has not engaged with us at all and consequently it cannot satisfy itself that the requirements under the CEAA or the NSCA have been met. The Commission has no option at this point but to either deny CNL’s application or defer its decision to allow for the proper fulfillment of its DTCA through the creation of an engagement framework that properly recognizes ABL as an equal jurisdiction in this matter. Proceeding otherwise would result in the Commission’s violation of the Crown’s constitutional obligations and potentially the greater and unknown impacts to both the environment and our inherent and projected rights.”
Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg(KZA)
The Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, in its submission to the CNSC (April 11, 2022) stated: “we do not give our consent for this project in its current form. . . . As mentioned above we also do not consider that we have been adequately and meaningfully consulted and especially not accommodated on this project.”
Wolf Lake First Nation (WLFN)
The Wolf Lake First Nation, In its recent submission to the CNSC dated May 4, 2022, states: “We do not agree with the NSDF disposal mound proposal on our Title territory alongside the Ottawa River. We view this alarming situation as clearly inconsistent with the federal objective of advancing reconciliation. Moreover, the commission bypassing our and other Algonquin communities’ participation in the CEAA 2012 environmental assessment ignores our rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate WLFN’s concerns.”
Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (AOPFN)
AOPFN say they are not ready to provide their free prior and informed consent (FPIC).
Here are some excerpts from this AOPFN submission to the CNSC May, 19, 2022:
“Engagement on critical issues – the location of the facility, planning for management of wastes,importation of wastes, respect for AOPFN’s consent requirement, and what impacts are likely should the Project proceed – has been superficial or dismissive and has not led to reconciliatory actions”
“AOPFN has never been engaged by AECL or CNL in site planning activities to date.”
“The importation of radioactive waste from other facilities, is opposed to the AOPFN’s nuclear sector principles and the Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus (2017) Declaration on Nuclear Wastes which calls for ‘no imports or exports’ of nuclear wastes”
“The Project as proposed is not ready”
“The AOPFN is not ready to provide its FPIC due to Project uncertainties and lack of evidence of adequate mitigation and accommodation, and that consent is paramount”
“Further work is required to:
• Confirm with impacted parties this is the best location for CRL waste storage
• Remove incoming waste streams from the Project plan
• Show that impacts on rights are properly predicted, minimized and accommodated for
• There is no emergency requiring immediate action; Canada and its contractor should take the time it takes to develop a Project acceptable to impacted parties
• The CNSC can play a key role in this by requiring additional work be done prior to making a decision or deeming the Project is not ready to proceed as proposed”
“NO CONSENT” Day of Action June 2
A multinational consortium plans to pile up one million tonnes of radioactive and hazardous wastes in a gigantic landfill beside the Kitchi Sibi / Ottawa River in unceded traditional Algonquin territory.
The proponent’s own studies show that the giant mound would leak and disintegrate long before radioactive components like plutonium decayed to a harmless state.
Staff of Canada’s captured nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, are recommending that the license be approved.
On Thursday June 2, 2022 the commission will hear oral interventions from five Algonquin First Nations who say they have not been adequately consulted about the plan and DO NOT CONSENT to the licensing of the facility at this time.
Everyone with concerns about the plan for the giant leaking radioactive dump is invited to support the Algonquin First Nations in a “NO CONSENT” Day of Action on Thursday, June 2.
HERE IS HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT and STAND WITH our Algonquin friends and allies on June 2:
IN PERSON
~ Come to the hearings at the Best Western Hotel in Pembroke and sit in the hearing room while the Algonquin First Nations make their presentations to the tribunal (roughly 11 am to 5 pm)
~ Wear a racing bib (piece of paper pinned to your clothing) that says “NO CONSENT” or “FPIC” for “Free Prior and Informed Consent”
~ While your car is parked at the hotel, decorate it with a “NO CONSENT” or “FPIC” sign
ONLINE
~ Send messages to decision makers: MPs, councillors, Mayors etc. (sample messages here and see twitter tags below the photo)
~ Spread the word to your family, friends, neighbours and colleagues and encourage them to participate
~ Make a NO CONSENT sign, and share photos of it on social media, using the #NOCONSENT hashtag; be sure to tag elected officials and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
~ Send a note of encouragement or thanks to our Algonquin allies on the NO CONSENT DAY of ACTION Facebook Page. https://fb.me/e/1HiCMydeY
Twitter Tags for Decision-makers and MPs
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
@CNSC_CCSN
President and CEO of CNSC Rumina Velshi
@RVelshi
Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson
@JonathanWNV
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault
@s_guilbeault
Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Marc Miller
@MarcMillerVM
Minister of Indigenous Services Patty Hajdu
@PattyHajdu
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
@JustinTrudeau
Governor General of Canada Mary Simon
@GGCanada
Opposition Critics
Laurel Collins – NDP Critic for Environment and Climate Change
@Laurel_BC
Richard Cannings– NDP Deputy Critic for Natural Resources
@CanningsNDP
Charlie Angus – NDP Critic for Natural Resources
@CharlieAngusNDP
Kyle Seeback – Conservative Shadow minister for Environment and Climate Change
@kyleseeback
Greg McLean – Conservative Shadow Minister for Natural Resources
@GregMcLeanYYC
Elizabeth May, MP, Green Party of Canada
@ElizabethMay
Monique Pauzé, Députée et porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois
@m_pauze
Tag your Member of Parliament. Regional (Eastern Ont./West Que.) MPs:
Sophie Chatel
@SophieChatel1
Greg Fergus
@GregFergus
Steven MacKinnon
@stevenmackinnon
Yasir Naqvi
@Yasir_Naqvi
Anita Vandenbeld
@anitavandenbeld
David McGuinty
@DavidMcGuinty
Mona Fortier
@MonaFortier
MFLalonde
@mflalonde
Chandra Arya
@AryaCanada
Jenna Sudds
@JennaSudds
Francis Drouin
@Francis_Drouin
Pierre Poilievre
@PierrePoilievre
Cheryl Gallant
@cherylgallant
Sébastien Lemire
@seblemire
Stéphane Lauzon
@stephanelauzon5
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 