The two page document below is excerpted from an environmental remediation report that was presented to members of the CNL Environmental Stewardship Council on June 26, 2025.
The photo below from the report shows the growing collection of shipping containers full of radioactive wastes being amassed at Waste Management Area H on the Chalk River Laboratories property. As reported verbally at the meeting, the number of containers was approximately 1500 in June 2025 with more arriving regularly.
Towards a transparent and responsible management of radioactive waste
December 2 2025
Several political parties and civil society organizations are dismayed to learn thatCanadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) has decided to consolidate radioactive waste (forwhich the federal government is responsible) at the Chalk River Laboratories site. This decision was made without consultation with First Nations or the public, and without parliamentary debate. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is only a private contractor,not a government agency.
For the population, there is no public accountability and concern is growing. Why concentrate everything at Chalk River? CNL is not intending to permanently store high- or intermediate-level waste at Chalk River. Those wastes will likely be moved again. Chalk River is an unsuitable location for radioactive waste consolidation because it islocated on the Ottawa River and the area is prone to seismic tremors.
Used nuclear fuel has the highest level of radioactivity; it is being transported to ChalkRiver from nuclear reactors in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec for interim storage pending the construction of a proposed deep geological repository (DGR). CNL intendsto have the same used fuel eventually transported to the DGR. But such a repositorystill does not exist and may never be licensed or approved. Whether the DGR isultimately built or not, issues surrounding the transportation of radioactive waste have to be addressed.
There are increased risks and costs of transporting used fuel twice: first from thenuclear power plants to Chalk River, and then from Chalk River to a second destination.This leads to extra safety risks and a waste of public money. The government is justmoving the waste around at great expense and added risk without solving the problempermanently, as there is still no proven safe solution despite 45 years of effort.
The proposed transportation of intermediate-level waste to Chalk River from thedecommissioning of nuclear reactors is similarly ill-advised.
Public concern was heightened by the news of the secretive transport of tonnes of usednuclear fuel from Bécancour, Quebec, to Chalk River during the summer of 2025, alongpublic roads and bridges, without any explicit authorization or opportunity for publicconsultation or even proper notification.
• We call on the federal government for a moratorium on the shipment of Canadianradioactive waste to Chalk River because of the increasing risk of radioactivecontamination and the lack of an acceptable due process.
• We call on the federal government to ban all imports of radioactive waste from othercountries, including disused medical sources, discarded tritium light sources, or usednuclear fuel.
• We call on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to conduct a strategicassessment of the transportation of high- and intermediate-level radioactive waste onpublic highways, in accordance with section 95 of the Impact Assessment Act. Theresults of this assessment would contribute to future impact assessments of nuclearfacilities. The goal would be to examine, for example, the cumulative impact at ChalkRiver and to provide a framework for upcoming environmental assessments of nuclearpower plants and reactor decommissioning projects.
Patrick Bonin, M.P.Bloc Québécois critic for the Environment and Climate Change
Elizabeth May, M.P.Green Party of Canada
André BélangerFondation Rivières
Alain BranchaudSNAP Québec
Ginette Charbonneau Physicist and spokesperson for le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive
A hearing this Wednesday November 12 in the Federal Court of Appeal, before a panel of three judges, will be a test of Canada’s commitment to protect threatened and endangered species and may determine whether the giant Ottawa River nuclear waste dump can be built or not.You can watch the hearing on Zoom by registering at this link, and you are also invited to a rally, “Stand up for Wildlife,” from noon to 2 pm outside the courtroom on Sparks St. in Ottawa.
Background:
Earlier this year we celebrated the successful legal challenge to the granting of a Species-at-Risk permit to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) for the construction of the nuclear waste dump known as the “NSDF.” The legal challenge was brought by Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation.
You may recall that CNL is owned by a multinational private-sector consortium that operates Canada’s federal nuclear labs under a $1.6 billion per year contract with the Government of Canada. CNL needed a Species-at-risk permit in order to construct its controversial, giant, above-ground nuclear waste dump beside the Ottawa River because the site they chose for the dump is on federal land smack dab in the middle of irreplaceable wildlife habitat that is home to many species at risk. A permit would allow CNL to destroy habitat and residences for threatened and endangered species in order to construct its giant dump.
In order to get a permit, a proponent must prove that it carefully considered all possible alternatives and chose the one with the least impact on endangered species. CNL did not do this. In fact, it is on record as saying it chose the location because it would reduce transportation costs. In his ruling issued on March 14, 2025, Justice Russel Zinn said the environment minister’s issuing of the species-at-risk permit was “unreasonable due to fatal flaws” in interpreting and applying the federal Species at Risk Act, adding that the issuing of the permit must be reconsidered.
Unfortunately for threatened wildlife and for Canadian taxpayers, who foot the bill for everything the multinational consortium does under its contract with the government, the case was appealed by CNL. Hence, the evidence will be reviewed again on November 12, this time in the federal court of appeal, by a panel of three judges.
The legal case here is fairly cut and dried; it will be interesting to see how it plays out. But behind the straightforward legal arguments lies a shocking story of disregard for wildlife that we discovered when we applied for the initial judicial review and received 4,000 pages of material connected with the permit application. Among other things, we learned that CNL knew that the site was very rich in biodiversity, but chose it anyway. The site is located on a south facing densely forested hillside that rises 140 feet above five named wetlands at its base, critical habitat for endangered Blanding’s turtles. The forest stands have old growth characteristics and provide prime habitat for endangered bats and songbirds such as the Canada Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler and Eastern Whip-poor-will. To create a flat surface for the NSDF, clear cutting and extensive blasting would convert 28 hectares of forested hillside into 170,000 cubic metres of rock, with unknown but likely adverse effects on the surrounding wetlands. More than 10,000 mature trees would be cut down, including provincially-endangered Black Ash trees. Kebaowek First Nation found three active bear dens on the site, and evidence of extensive use of the site by threatened Eastern Wolves. Both bears and wolves are species of great cultural importance to Algonquin peoples.
Seethis post on the Concerned Citizens website, for more detail on CNL’s disregard for wildlife in its choice of a site for the NSDF.
The beautiful artwork below is by Destiny Cote of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg. Eastern Wolves are one of the threatened species that would be adversely affected by the NSDF.
In March 2024, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) was granted a Species at Risk permit by Environment and Climate Change Canada. The permit would allow CNL to harm, harass and kill destroy endangered species and destroy their residences during construction of the “NSDF,” a giant radioactive waste dump alongside the Ottawa River, upstream of Ottawa and Montreal.
Kebaowek First Nation, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Sierra Club Canada Foundation applied for a judicial review of the decision to award the permit. During the judicial review, we reviewed evidence produced during the environmental assessment and 4,000 pages provided to us as applicants for judicial review. We concluded that there is considerable evidence that CNL did not meet the requirements of the Species at Risk Act and should not have been given a permit.
In his ruling issued on March 14, 2025, Justice Russel Zinn said the environment minister’s issuing of the species-at-risk permit was “unreasonable due to fatal flaws” in interpreting and applying the federal Species at Risk Act, adding that the issuing of the permit must be reconsidered.
The ruling by Justice Zinn was appealed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. A hearing in the Federal Court of Appeal took place on November 12, 2025.
We feel strongly that the mature ecosystem and rich biodiversity present on the NSDF site are highly valuable and irreplaceable. Much as we may wish to be able to do so, humans cannot recreate a rich, biodiverse mature forest on the side of a southwest-facing slope surrounded by wetlands. Only Nature can create such an ecosystem that supports hundreds to thousands of species in a thriving matrix of interrelated life.
Background and context:
The federally owned Chalk River Laboratories site is heavily contaminated with radioactive and other hazardous waste accumulated over eight decades of operation including three decades of plutonium production for US nuclear weapons. The contamination was described by Ottawa Citizen journalist Ian McLeod in 2011: Chalk River’s toxic legacy. The legacy wastes at Chalk River are “poorly documented and misunderstood” according to NRCan (Ottawa Citizen) and are likely to require underground disposal according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The cost to clean up the site has been estimated at $16 billion, more than the combined total cost of cleaning up all other federal environmental liabilities across Canada.
The federal government initiated the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program (NLLP) in 2006, a long-term strategy to clean up Chalk River Laboratories and other federal nuclear sites in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. As part of the program, a Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan was produced. The cleanup was to take place over eighty-five years. One of the first steps was a “Very LowLevel” (VLLW) waste facility to dispose of 160,000 cubic meters of waste. A “Low Level” waste facility was not planned until later because waste characterization was in progress and would take considerable time. It is important to note that the “Low Level” radioactive waste at Chalk River is much more dangerous than the “Very Low Level” waste and will remain hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years.
However, the federal government’s long-term NLLP strategy was abandoned prematurely in September 2015 when Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was re-structured and privatized. The contract to manage the nuclear laboratories was awarded to a multinational consortium, the “Canadian National Energy Alliance”, of which SNC-Lavalin was a key player. The contract between the Government of Canada and the new contractor-operated entity, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), required CNL to seek the “fastest, most cost-effective ways” of disposing of all waste and required that a “Low Level” Waste facility be built within six years of commencement of the contract (by September 2021).
Only a few months later, in February 2016, CNL issued a project description for the NSDF (Near Surface Disposal Facility), a giant above-ground mound for one million tons/cubic metres of radioactive and hazardous waste that experts say clearly contravenes international safety standards. The proposed NSDF would be six times larger than the proposed VLLW facility and would use the same basic design, similar to a municipal landfill. Studies show the mound would leak during operation and break down due to erosion after a few hundred years, releasing its contents to the environment, even though much of the inventory will remain radioactive for many millennia.
The NSDF project was supposed to be completed in September 2021 but met with strong opposition from Indigenous communities, more than 140 downstream municipalities, civil society groups and many individual Canadians. It became caught up for almost eight years in protracted closed-door negotiations between the consortium and the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), as a deeply-flawed environmental assessment was carried out. The project was approved in January 2024 by the CNSC, a body widely viewed to be a captured regulator that promotes the projects it is supposed to regulate.
Inadequate siting process for the NSDF
A proper siting process for “all” the legacy federal radioactive waste would have taken several years and would have seriously considered federal lands farther away from the Ottawa River, such as the extensive sand barrens at Garrison Petawawa adjacent to Chalk River Laboratories. That was not to be the case. Within five months of assuming responsibility for federal nuclear wastes, CNL was defending a site for its NSDF on CRL property, less than one kilometer from the Ottawa River. CNL’s February 2016 project description described two prospective sites but declared that one, the “EMR site”, was preferred. Reasons for the preference did not mention biodiversity or species at risk. Instead they emphasized proximity to the wastes slated for disposal in the facility.
A site selection report for the NSDF was released in February 2016 at about the same time as the hastily prepared project description. It relied heavily on the previous study to find a site for the Very Low Level Waste Facility. The report ruled out locations off the CRL site on economic (not biodiversity) grounds. The study also relaxed the exclusion criteria to allow steep slopes, rock outcrops and proximity to critical habitat for endangered species. This enabled CNL to insert its new “preferred” site (the East Mattawa Road or “EMR site”) into the process even though it consisted of a densely forested hillside rising 140 feet above five named wetlands at its base. To create a flat surface area for the facility, clear cutting and extensive blasting would convert 28 hectares of mature forest into 170,000 cubic metres of rock, with unknown but likely adverse effects on the surrounding wetlands that drain into the nearby Ottawa River.
Later in 2016, CNL issued a report entitled “Biodiversity review for the NSDF project” (attached). This study was not provided to ECCC during the SARA permit application process. The report concluded that the preferred “EMR site” would have the least impact on biodiversity even though data presented in the report showed the opposite – greater biodiversity at the chosen EMR site than at the Alternate site. For example, 11 species at risk were documented at the EMR site versus 8 at the Alternate site. One hundred and twelve species of animals and plants were present at the EMR site versus 46 species at the Alternate site. The study failed to document the presence of species such as Black Bears and Eastern Wolves in the EMR/NSDF local study area. This flawed study was used to support selection of the EMR site for the NSDF, a clearly unsupportable choice if lesser impact on biodiversity was truly the objective.
Exceptionally rich biodiversity at the NSDF site
The Chalk River Laboratories site is uniquely rich in biodiversity. As a restricted area for 80 years, there has been very little human access to most of the 3,700-hectare site. Some forests, such as those at the EMR site, have acquired old growth characteristics from lack of disturbance. The site is dotted with lakes and wetlands that, combined with proximity to the Ottawa River, provide habitats and feeding grounds for many species at risk and large mammals. According to the Biodiversity review for the NSDF project, fifty species at risk have the potential to be present on the CRL site and 26 have been confirmed to be present. According to the Environmental Impact Statement for the NSDF, 123 migratory bird species are present or likely to be present on the CRL property.
The NSDF/EMR site is even richer in biodiversity than the CRL site as a whole. As depicted on the map below of the CRL site, the NSDF/EMR site and vicinity include key components that combine to support exceptionally rich biodiversity: a densely forested south-west facing slope, surrounded at the base by wetlands. Riparian zones abound in this area, including as it does five named wetlands in addition to Perch Creek, Perch Lake and the Ottawa River shoreline less than one kilometer away. It is not surprising that the Biodiversity Review noted 112 plant and animal species present here compared to only 46 at the Alternate site.
Compared to all other forest stands within the Chalk River Laboratories property, the NSDF site’s forested hillside, proposed for blasting and leveling, has relatively old stands of mature trees, which provide important habitat for species at risk (Appendix 5.6-4 in the final EIS). The forest stands in the NSDF/EMR site have by far the greatest number of bat roost trees of any forest stands on the entire Chalk River Laboratories property. The EIS reports 6,485 bat roost trees in the NSDF/EMR site, compared to approximately 1,567 in the Alternate site. This is shown graphically in the appended bat habitat suitability maps that show the great concentration of suitable bat nesting habitat in the local study area for the NSDF site, which is closer to ideal foraging habitat above Perch Lake and surrounding wetlands. The bat habitat suitability maps were were produced by Trent University and provided to ECCC by Annie Morin of CNL in a memo dated October 24, 2023.
The EMR site’s southwest-facing hillside with sandy soil provides preferred conditions for bear dens, of which three active ones have been observed recently. Bears are very important to the Algonquin Anishinaabe people on whose unceded territory the CRL property is located. It is surprising therefore that Black Bears were not considered as a valued component, or even listed as a mammal species observed in the local study area for the NSDF. It was Indigenous-led research by Kebaowek First Nation that documented the three active bear dens in winter 2023. KFN also documented the presence of Eastern Wolves, another species of great cultural and spiritual importance to Algonquin Anishinaabe people, in the NSDF local study area.
The southwest-facing slope of old growth forest stands – in close proximity to abundant insect breeding grounds in adjacent wetlands – also provides preferred nesting conditions for many migratory songbirds. According to Appendix 5.6-3 of the Environmental Impact Statement, 111 migratory bird species are likely or confirmed in the local study area for the NSDF site, a high density of species in a relatively small area.
The Biodiversity Review noted that Perch Lake contains 17 fish species, all of which were under consideration as valued components but ruled out on the basis that the lake water would be unaffected by the project. However, a pipeline to Perch Lake from the NSDF, added to the plan in 2020, is expected to discharge very high levels of radioactive tritium and smaller quantities of many other radioactive and hazardous substances directly into Perch Lake. CNL would allow the concentration of tritium in Perch Lake to rise as high as 360,000 Bq/l, fifty times higher than the very permissive Canadian drinking water standard for tritium. This would have adverse effects on the 17 fish species mentioned above and many other aquatic species. Tritium is readily incorporated into genetic material and causes genetic damage, cancer and birth defects. It readily bioaccumulates in the food chain and has the potential to affect all animals feeding in the Perch Lake basin. It is our understanding that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should review this plan, but we have not seen any evidence that they have yet done so.
It cannot be said that CNL chose the location and site expected to have the least impact on species at risk
CNL chose the EMR site for the NDSF even though it contains more habitat for species at risk and is richer in biodiversity than the Alternate site. It cannot be reasonably said that CNL chose the location and site expected to have the least impact on species at risk or chose the best solution to reduce the impact on species at risk. Given that the entire CRL property is rich in biodiversity, failing to seriously consider off-site alternatives is another way in which CNL did not choose the site and location expected to have the least impact on species at risk.
CNL’s actions with respect to the Eastern Wolf suggest that biodiversity conservation was considered an impediment rather than a goal
According to the Canada Gazette (page 25), CNL raised concerns about uplisting of the Eastern Wolf in 2017 stating they could incur costs of up to $160 million from uplifting. CNL did not mention Eastern Wolves in its application for a SARA permit in 2017 despite the fact that, according to a letter from George Dolinar of CNL to ECCC in March 2024, Eastern Wolf pups had been observed within the CRL boundary in 2012. The Eastern Wolf was also not mentioned in George Dolinar’s letter to ECCC in April 2020 providing additional information in support of the SARA permit application. These actions suggest that CNL considered protection of Eastern Wolves to be something to be avoided. In George Dolinar’s letter of March 2024, “Protecting the Eastern Wolf in Preparation to the Near Surface Disposal Facility Construction,” Mr Dolinar does not mention Indigenous-led research by Kebaowek First Nation in 2023 that documented the presence of Eastern wolves and pups on the CRL site with extensive use of trail cameras and “ground truthing.” The failure to mention the role of Kebaowek First Nation and its findings is deeply concerning. Kebaowek First Nation presented detailed results of its research to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a submission dated May 1, 2023.
A March 2025 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) flagged a serious problem in Canada’s nuclear governance regime. Canada has not incorporated the fundamental safety principle of justification into its legal framework, despite being urged to do so by an international peer review team in 2019.
The IAEA principle of justification in nuclear safety requires that any practice involving human exposures to ionizing radiation be justified during the licensing process for a facility. It must be demonstrated that the overall benefits of the project to individuals and society, outweigh the potential health detriments of the radiation exposures it will cause.
Justification is necessary because there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear reactors and radioactive waste. Ionizing radiation causes cancers of all kinds, many other chronic diseases and damage to the human gene pool. Human-made nuclear waste will remain hazardous and radioactive for millions of years.
Canada’s failure to justify nuclear projects is a serious deficiency that urgently needs to be addressed given the Government of Canada’s professed interest in funding and expanding nuclear electricity generation in Canada. We need to ask: can we justify creating more and more radioactive waste that future generations will have to deal with even though they will receive zero benefit from the activities that created it.
Other serious deficiencies were flagged by the IAEA experts in 2019. For example, Canada allows pregnant nuclear workers to be exposed to a radiation dose four times larger than is tolerated by IAEA standards. This issue remains unaddressed five years later.
This letter appeared in the July 7 edition of the Hill Times. (subscribe here)
It was in response to a letter by Jeremy Whitlock, indefatigable cheerleader for all things nuclear. His letter, published on June 23, 2025 is here.
Jeremy Whitlock was responding to this letter, published in the Hill Times on June 16, 2025:
Canada is failing to meet a fundamental principle of nuclear safety according to international experts
A March 2025 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) flagged a serious problem in Canada’s nuclear governance regime. Canada has not incorporated the fundamental safety principle of justification into its legal framework, despite being urged to do so by an international peer review team in 2019.
The IAEA principle of justification in nuclear safety requires that any practice involving human exposures to ionizing radiation be justified during the licensing process for a facility. It must be demonstrated that the overall benefits of the project to individuals and society, outweigh the potential health detriments of the radiation exposures it will cause.
Justification is necessary because there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear reactors and radioactive waste. Ionizing radiation causes cancers of all kinds, many other chronic diseases and damage to the human gene pool. Human-made nuclear waste will remain hazardous and radioactive for millions of years.
Canada’s failure to justify nuclear projects is a serious deficiency that urgently needs to be addressed given the Government of Canada’s professed interest in funding and expanding nuclear electricity generation in Canada. We need to ask: can we justify creating more and more radioactive waste that future generations will have to deal with even though they will receive zero benefit from the activities that created it.
Other serious deficiencies were flagged by the IAEA experts in 2019. For example, Canada allows pregnant nuclear workers to be exposed to a radiation dose four times larger than is tolerated by IAEA standards. This issue remains unaddressed five years later.
These two successful court challenges are fuelling concerns about whether or not privatizing Canada’s federal nuclear laboratories in 2015 was a good move for Canadian taxpayers.
Since it was first announced in February 2016, the giant Ottawa River radioactive waste dump has met with widespread opposition from Algonquin First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations, citizens’ groups and more than 140 downstream municipalities including Pontiac County, Gatineau, Ottawa, and Montreal.
Opponents had reason to celebrate recently as the Federal Court of Canada upheld two legal challenges to the giant dump.
The seven-storey radioactive megadump, known as the NSDF, is planned to hold one million tons of radioactive and other hazardous waste from eight decades of operations of the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) along with imported waste from other provinces and commercial sources.
CRL is a heavily contaminated federal nuclear research facility beside the Ottawa River, 180 km northwest of Canada’s capital, directly across from Quebec. The facility is currently operated by SNC-Lavalin and two Texas based engineering firms under a contract with the federal government.
The site chosen for the NSDF by SNC-Lavalin and its corporate partners is on Chalk River Laboratories property, less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River in unceded Algonquin territory. Some studies show the mound could leak during operation and break down due to erosion after a few hundred years, contaminating the Ottawa River—the source of drinking water for millions of Canadians. All exposures to radioactive materials in drinking water increase risks of cancer, birth defects, and genetic mutations.
The materials destined for the NSDF include man-made radioactive materials such as plutonium that will remain hazardous to humans and other living things for millennia. The NSDF is the first ever attempt in Canada to dispose of materials created in a nuclear reactor. The dump proponent and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have persisted in calling the waste “low level,” despite copious evidence to the contrary from industry experts, thus confusing the public and decision makers.
After a long environmental assessment process, the NSDF received a greenlight in January 2024 from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The CNSC is widely perceived to be captured by the nuclear industry and to promote the projects it is supposed to regulate, as reported by a federal Expert Panel in 2017. Soon after the greenlight from the CNSC, Environment and Climate Change Canada issued a permit that could allow destruction of species at risk and their habitats and residences during construction of the dump.
Both decisions, the one to license the facility and the one to issue the species-at-risk permit were successfully challenged in Federal Court. Both cases are potentially precedent-setting.
The first successful court challenge was brought by Kebaowek First Nation (KFN). KFN lawyers argued that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission failed to secure Algonquin First Nations’ free, prior and informed consent for disposal of hazardous waste in their territory as mandated by Canada’s United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. This is the first test of the new law in Canada and the result will have implications for future projects on Indigenous lands.
In her judgment issued on Feb. 19, Justice Julie Blackhawk ordered the Commission and CNL to resume consultations with Kebaowek “in a robust manner,” while properly considering the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The consultation must be adapted to address Indigenous laws, knowledge and be aimed at reaching an agreement, to be completed by Sept. 30, 2026.
The second successful court challenge was brought by KFN, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Sierra Club Canada Foundation. The applicants challenged the decision by Environment and Climate Change Canada to issue a permit to potentially destroy species-at-risk and their residences during construction of the dump.
This is the first time that a decision to issue a species-at-risk permit has been challenged in Federal Court. The lawyer for the applicants presented evidence that the proponent failed to choose the location that would be least harmful to biodiversity and species at risk as required under the Species at Risk Act, and chose instead a location that it knew to be richer in biodiversity and potentially more damaging to species-at-risk because it would reduce its costs for transporting waste.
In his ruling issued on March 14, 2025, Justice Russel Zinn said the environment minister’s issuing of the species-at-risk permit was “unreasonable due to fatal flaws” in interpreting and applying the federal Species at Risk Act, adding that the issuing of the permit must be reconsidered.
Species-at-risk that make their homes in the proposed NSDF location include Blanding’s turtles, eastern wolves, Canada warblers, golden-winged warblers, whip-poor-wills, and two bat species—little brown myotis and northern myotis. As a no-go zone for 80 years, the Chalk River Laboratories site has become very rich in biodiversity, much richer than alternative federal sites at Whiteshell and Rolphton that were rejected by the proponent.
These two successful court challenges are fuelling concerns about whether or not privatizing Canada’s federal nuclear laboratories in 2015 was a good move for Canadian taxpayers. A recent op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen noted that since privatization, costs to taxpayers have ballooned by 300 per cent to $1.4-billion annually, more than the budget of the CBC. Yet little progress has been made to reduce the multi-billion dollar nuclear waste liability that was purported to be the main purpose of the contract. In fact, the liabilities have grown, from $7.5-billion in 2015 to $9.8-billion in 2024. Now the NSDF project, put forward by SNC-Lavalin and partners as the solution to Canada’s nuclear waste liabilities, is tied up in legal wrangling that could go on for years.
Postscript: Since this article was written in early March, the dump proponent has appealed both of the federal court decisions described above. Therefore it appears that the battle will continue for several more years and may end up in the Supreme Court. For now though, opponents are celebrating these federal court decisions that are applying the brakes to the NSDF project.
Lynn Jones is a member of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, a non-governmental organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for 40-plus years. She is based in Ottawa.
BROAD COALITION PRESS CONFERENCE TO DENOUNCE THE CHALK RIVER NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT
Montréal, May 26, 2025 – Kebaowek First Nation invites media representatives to a major press conference bringing together a powerful coalition of Indigenous leadership, major environmental organizations, municipal and regional elected officials, and members of opposition parties from both the federal and provincial governments. This united front will denounce the controversial Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) for nuclear waste at Chalk River and demand that the federal and Quebec governments take a firm and public stance against the project.
Speakers will highlight the unacceptable environmental risks, the ongoing violations of Indigenous rights and international law (UNDRIP), and the widespread mobilization of communities across Quebec and Ontario.
Prior to the press conference, media and guests are welcome to attend a special in-person and livestreamed panel discussion featuring Kebaowek First Nation and Indigenous Climate Action moderator who will explore the impacts of the NSDF project and will provide essential context.
WHAT: WHO:
Expert panel discussion – 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. (ET) Press conference – 11:00 a.m. till noon (ET)
Panel discussion
Chief Lance Haymond and Justin Roy from Kebaowek First Nation
Algonquin leader Verna Polson of Kebaowek First Nation
Forest Ecology and Environmental Researcher Rosanne Van Schie
Onagoshi-Lila Haymond, Moderator and Operations Manager for Indigenous Climate Action Press conference
Chief Lance Haymond and Justin Roy from Kebaowek First Nation
Chiefs from the Anishinabe Nation
Chief Francis Verreault-Paul of AFNQL
Québec Solidaire and other opposition parties (provincial and federal)
Elected officials from City of Montréal, others municipalities and MRCs
Leading environmental organizations: Eau Secours, Fondation Rivières, Green Coalition, and others Monday, May 26, 2025
WHEN: The panel discussion will be broadcast live on Zoom here. The press event will also be broadcast live on Stop Nuclear Waste Facebook Page here.
WHERE:
Atrium, Maison du développement durable, 50 Rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest, Montréal, QC The venue is accessible to media and the general public. Seating is limited, and journalists are encouraged to arrive early.
Source: Kebaowek First Nation For information and interview requests:
Kebaowek First Nation Mathilde Robitaille-Lefebvre Media relations m.robitaille-lefebvre@seize03.ca 819-852-4762
~~~~~~~
CCRCA comments:
We are immensely grateful to Kebaowek First Nation for its leadership in the fight against the NSDF megadump. If this is how the Government of Canada thinks radioactive waste should be managed, the world should say “No to Nuclear” – especially from Canada.
The NSDF project was conceived to reduce as quickly and cheaply as possible the environmental liability of around 20 billion dollars in the Public Accounts of Canada created by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
That is why private companies contracted to run AECL’s nuclear sites want to put waste in a landfill next to the Ottawa River, as close as possible to the old nuclear reactors and other contaminated nuclear facilities at the Chalk River Laboratories. Their top priority is to reduce the distance of waste transport – to minimize hauling costs.
Health, safety and the environment were given lower priority than cost savings.
The NSDF megadump fails to meet international safety standards. The NSDF environmental assessment found that nuclear facility types other than a landfill would release less pollution and have fewer impacts on the health and safety of people. It also found the site chosen would be worse for biodiversity than other sites.
But the proposal was approved anyway by Canada’s nuclear regulator. The CNSC never turns down nuclear industry projects.
AECL’s radioactive waste will last for time immemorial. When the Government of Canada hired private companies associated with the U.S. military industrial complex to operate its nuclear sites and deal with its waste as cheaply as possible, the risks to the public became unacceptable, unjustifiable and unreasonable.
Should decisions about managing the Government of Canada’s nuclear waste be made by the military-industrial complex for its own profit and perpetuation? No, of course not.
Is it possible to terminate the NSDF project and deal with this waste in a better way? Yes, we can do much better. “the federal government needs to act. This reckless plan has been moving forward on autopilot with no government oversight for far too long. Thank you.
Published Mar 10, 2025 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read
Demonstrators rally on Parliament Hill a year ago against a proposed nuclear waste dump at Chalk River. PHOTO BY DAVE CHAN /AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Article content
Recently, Ottawans learned that SNC-Lavalin, now AtkinsRéalis, is being sued for $100 million over its management of the Trillium Line light-rail construction. But few taxpayers know of SNC-Lavalin’s leading role in another contract that is costing them billions.
In 2015, an SNC-led consortium landed a 10-year, $10-billion federal contract to manage nuclear facilities. The jewel in that crown is Chalk River, home to laboratories and two defunct nuclear reactors on the shores of the Ottawa River, 180 kilometres upstream from the national capital. SNC-Lavalin runs the operation along with two Texas-based companies, Fluor and Jacobs.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is the public face of this government-owned, contractor-operated (Go-Co) deal. A Go-Co model was also used to manage nuclear waste liabilities in the United Kingdom, until it was cancelled after a scandal and a parliamentary inquiry.
The Canadian Go-Co is currently costing taxpayers more than $1.4 billion a year — more than the annual budget of the CBC. The cost of these operations to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) has ballooned by almost 300 per cent in the past 10 years, making it now among the feds’ most expensive contracts
What has been accomplished in that decade; what is the value for money for Canadian taxpayers? The Go-Co was supposed to bring private-sector managerial skills into cleaning up the Canadian government’s huge nuclear waste liabilities. But on the government’s estimates, those liabilities have actually grown, from $7.5 billion in 2015 to $9.8 billion in 2024.
And why have the contract’s costs gone up so much? Well, plans at the Chalk River campus include, like the Trillium Line, an ambitious construction project: a 107,000 sq.-ft. “state-of-the-art research complex” slated to be completed in 2028. It’s also described as “a modern, efficient, world-class nuclear lab to serve the needs of the Government of Canada and the Canadian nuclear industry.”
But those are not the only costs. CNL is managed by 14 executives and 30 management contract staff, with an average salary and expenses of $510,000 a year, for a total of $22.5 million in 2023. Two-thirds of the managers and executives are non-Canadians. CNL’s current president and CEO is Jack Craig, who started as an engineer with the U.S. Navy, had a long career with the U.S. Department of Energy, and had a stint as the Chief Operating Officer of SNC-Lavalin’s U.S. nuclear division from 2021 to 2024, before stepping into the CNL role last April.
CNL has spent seven years defending a contentious plan to create a million-cubic-metre mound of radioactive waste at Chalk River, dubbed the Near Surface Disposal Facility, designed to dispose of contaminated buildings, soil and equipment from 80 years of laboratory and reactor operations, which it says is for low-level radioactive waste. Citizen groups dispute this: It will contain dozens of radionuclides including tritium, uranium, plutonium and the gamma-ray emitters cobalt-60 and cesium-137, as well as toxins like PCBs, mercury, arsenic and lead.
Small problem: municipalities, including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal, as well as many residents, worry about what could wash into the Ottawa River. It’s a major watershed that serves the national capital, empties into the St. Lawrence Seaway, and provides drinking water for millions. The facility was finally approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2024, but is now tied up in three court challenges, all costing taxpayers even more for lawyers to fight against citizens.
The first challenge comesKebaowek First Nation, one of 10 Algonquin First Nations that have not consented to the radioactive mound. The second court case says the CNSC did not follow its own rules about an allowable radiation dose to future generations from the radionuclides that will be abandoned in the permanent dump. The third case, heard in Federal Court in February, says that the project endangers species at risk.
What else has the Go-Co contract accomplished? CNL was partnering with Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation to plan a 15 MW micro-reactor at Chalk River, billed as a “clean energy demonstration project.” UNSC’s recent bankruptcy would seem likely to set back these plans.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is proposing a “near surface disposal facility” at this site in Chalk River to store low-level nuclear waste. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
In a recent news release, CNL president Craig boasts of a “strong year” at CNL, including among others: research on fusion and hydrogen fuel; the relocation of “two large activity Cesium-137 sources from the Whiteshell Laboratories (WL) site (in Manitoba) to the Chalk River Laboratories campus for long-term storage”; the building of “meaningful relationships” with Indigenous peoples; and the signing of academic partnerships with the Universities of Regina and Saskatchewan.
Are Canadians really getting long-term value for a $1.4 billion-a-year investment?
SNC-Lavalin/AtkinsRéalis and its U.S. partners’ lucrative 10-year contract is up for renewal in 2025. AECL is well advanced in the procurement process. Will scrutinizing this contract be a priority for this or the next federal government, and will Canadian taxpayers’ interests be high on the list? Or will costs continue to balloon, to the benefit of U.S. corporations and American executives?
Eva Schacherl is a member of the Council of Canadians’ Ottawa Chapter. Ole Hendrickson is an ecologist, a former federal research scientist, and chair of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation’s national conservation committee.
The CNSC staff submission (CMD 22-H7) for the February 22, 2022 Part 1 hearing on construction of the NSDF indicates that the financial guarantee for decommissioning of all AECL facilities, including the NSDF, may have expired in 2020.
Regarding a financial guarantee for decommissioning of AECL facilities, Greg Rickford, Minister of Natural Resources in the Harper government, signed a letter on July 31, 2015 recognizing “that the liabilities of AECL are the liabilities of Her Majesty in Right of Canada.” In CMD 22-H7, CNSC staff stated that “CNL confirmed that the provisions in the 2015 letter [65] remain valid on August 25, 2020 [66]. In reference [66], staff cited a “CNL letter, P. Boyle to M. Kavita” — presumably, a letter from Phil Boyle, a former Canadian Nuclear Laboratories vice president, to Kavita Murphy, a former director general at the CNSC (she retired in October 2024).
This statement by CNSC staff regarding the validity of the financial guarantee was questionable, considering that
CNL is a private company that cannot express a commitment from a government as a financial guarantee,
financial guarantees must be revised every five years,
there is no evidence that the 2015 financial guarantee remained valid after August 25, 2020,
the CNSC staff statement was in CMD 22-H7, dated January 24, 2022 — over a year after August 15, 2020, and over six years after Mr. Rickford signed the letter, and
Commission approval to construct the NSDF was issued on January 11, 2014, over nine years after Mr. Rickford signed the letter.
“licensees must revise their financial guarantee at a minimum every five years or earlier when requested by the Commission.”
The relevant sections of CMD 22-H7 follow:
6.3.1 Discussion
With respect to a financial guarantee required by the paragraph 3(1)(l) of the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations, REGDOC-3.3.1 states that an expressed commitment from a federal or provincial government is an acceptable form of financial guarantee.
AECL is a Schedule III, Part 1 Crown Corporation under the Financial Administration Act and an agent of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. As an agent of Her Majesty in Right of Canada, AECL’s liabilities are ultimately liabilities of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. While the restructuring of AECL has seen the ownership of CNL transferred to a private-sector contractor, the Canadian National Energy Alliance, AECL retains ownership of the lands, assets and liabilities associated with CNL’s licences.
These liabilities have been officially recognized by the Federal Minister of Natural Resources in a letter dated July 31, 2015 [65]. This letter states that AECL will retain ownership of the lands, assets and liabilities associated with CNL’s licences, including the CRL site, and states that the liabilities of AECL are the liabilities of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. CNL confirmed that the provisions in the 2015 letter [65] remain valid on August 25, 2020 [66].
6.3.2 Conclusion
CNSC staff conclude that the financial guarantee is sufficient for the decommissioning of the CRL site, including the NSDF supporting facilities and infrastructure, should it be approved by the Commission.
The Commission’s Record of Decision approving construction of the NSDF accepted the staff conclusion, saying ” The Commission is satisfied that the existing financial guarantee, in the form of an expressed commitment from the federal government, remains sufficient for the decommissioning of the CRL site, including the NSDF and supporting infrastructure.”
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is proposing a “near surface disposal facility” at this site in Chalk River to store low-level nuclear waste. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 