CNSC here is ignoring its own regulatory requirements. Radiation levels in any waste disposal facility must be compared to the regulatory requirements in the Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices Regulations.
Section 5.1 (1), Abandonment or Disposal
“A person may, without a licence, abandon or dispose of a radioactive nuclear substance if the activity or the activity concentration of the substance does not exceed
(a) its exemption quantity;
(b) its conditional clearance level; or
(c) its unconditional clearance level.
The NSDF “Licensed Inventory” quantities for nearly all isotopes exceed the exemption quantities, generally by many orders of magnitude, e.g., by 3.65 million times for radium-226, 7.57 million times for uranium-238, 6.88 million times for uranium-234, 2.7 million times for thorium-232, 5.07 million times for plutonium-239/240, 303 thousand times for iodine-129, 171 thousand times for carbon-14, 296 thousand times for uranium-235 and 530 thousand times for thorium-230.
Even when “averaged” over the estimated NSDF total waste mass of just under a million tonnes (9.57E+08 kg), the activity concentrations of carbon-14 and iodine-129 alone exceed the unconditional clearance levels. The “sum of quotients” for all the NSDF isotopes with half-lives greater than 1600 years (see the definition in section 1 of the Regulations) would exceed the unconditional clearance levels by a factor of five.
The unconditional clearance levels in Column 2, Schedule 2 of the Nuclear Substances and Radiation Devices Regulations are also found in IAEA Safety Standard RS-G-1.7 (Application of the Concepts of Exclusion, Exemption and Clearance). That document says “Doses to individuals as a consequence of these activity concentrations would be unlikely to exceed about 1 mSv in a year.” The 5-fold excess of the unconditional clearance levels in the NSDF at 1600 years would be equivalent to a dose of about 5 mSv in a year.
Furthermore, as former AECL staff have noted, the higher-activity packaged wastes that CNL proposes to put in the facility would grossly violate the Regulations.
Consider cesium-137 (Cs-137). In the Waste Acceptance Criteria for the NSDF, the proposed limit for “leachate-controlled” packages containing Cs-137 is 10,000 Bq/g. For a Cs-137 package to decay by a factor of 100,000 and reach the unconditional clearance level would take over 16 half-lives – 16.61 to be precise. With Cs-137’s half-life of 30.17 years, it would take 501 years for a package Cs-137 at the “leachate-controlled” WAC limit to decay enough to be released from regulatory control and abandoned – far beyond the proposed 300-year institutional control period.
A package of plutonium-239 would take 288,380 years, uranium-233 would take 1.37 million years, and so forth.
The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 municipalities including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of concern or opposition to the proposed radioactive waste facilities on the Ottawa River.
NEW resolution by the Assembly of First Nations July 2023
This is the latest list, last updated on March 14, 2022. Click on the blue hyperlink below the box to view the pdf in your browser without downloading.
OTTAWA, le 10 novembre 2021—L’annonce récente de la tenue d’audiences pour l’autorisation d’un dépôt controversé de déchets radioactifs près de la rivière des Outaouais a suscité une vive réaction de la part des groupes de citoyens qui s’opposent à ce projet depuis cinq ans. Les audiences sont annoncées pour février et mai 2022.
Ces groupes affirment que l’évaluation environnementale n’a pas été menée correctement et que les audiences d’autorisation devraient être interrompues en raison des nombreuses et graves lacunes du projet. Dans une lettre d’août 2020 adressée au ministre des Ressources naturelles, la Première nation Kebaowek et le Conseil tribal de la nation Algonquine Anishinabeg ont demandé la suspension de l’évaluation environnementale, déclarant que « l’approche de la CCSN ne respecte même pas les normes modernisées du gouvernement du Canada en matière de consultation, d’engagement et de réconciliation avec les Premières Nations ».
Le permis autoriserait la construction d’un gigantesque monticule près de la surface* pour loger plus d’un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs le long de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d’Ottawa-Gatineau. Le site de Chalk River se trouve juste à côté de la source d’eau potable pour des millions de Canadiens et repose sur un substrat rocheux poreux et fracturé.
De nombreux groupes de citoyens, ainsi que des ONG, des Premières nations et plus de 140 municipalités en aval s’opposent au projet. Beaucoup affirment qu’il ne respecte pas les directives internationales visant à empêcher les déchets radioactifs d’entrer dans la biosphère. En tant qu’installation d’élimination, le monticule sera finalement abandonné.
« L’installation de gestion des déchets radioactifs ne les empêcherait d’atteindre la rivière des Outaouais » déclare Ole Hendrickson, chercheur de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area , ajoutant que « les propres études du promoteur démontrent que le dépôt devrait se dégrader d’ici 400 ans et que son contenu s’écoulerait dans les zones humides environnantes qui s’écoulent dans la rivière des Outaouais, à moins d’un kilomètre. »
Une fiche d’information produite par Concerned Citizens, basée sur les informations contenues dans l’étude d’impact environnemental du promoteur, identifie les matériaux qui seraient déposés dans le monticule, notamment :
· Des matériaux radioactifs tels que le tritium, le carbone 14, le strontium 90, quatre types de plutonium (l’un des matériaux radioactifs les plus dangereux s’il est inhalé ou ingéré), et plusieurs tonnes d’uranium et de thorium. Vingt-cinq des 30 radionucléides répertoriés dans l’inventaire de référence pour le monticule ont une longue durée de vie. Certains déchets dans le dépôt resteraient radioactifs pendant au moins 100 000 ans.
· Une très grande quantité de cobalt 60 provenant de sources radioactives retirées du service, qui étaient utilisées pour l’irradiation des aliments et les procédures médicales. Ces sources dégagent des rayonnements beta et gamma si intenses qu’elles nécessitent un blindage en plomb pour éviter une exposition dangereuse des travailleurs lors de leur manipulation. Selon l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique, les sources de Co-60 sont classifiées comme des déchets radioactifs de niveau intermédiaire, et la plupart devront être stockés sous terre.
· La décharge contiendrait des dioxines, des PCB, de l’amiante, du mercure, jusqu’à 13 tonnes d’arsenic et des centaines de tonnes de plomb. Elle contiendrait également des milliers de tonnes de cuivre et de fer et 33 tonnes d’aluminium, ce qui inciterait les charognards à creuser dans le monticule après sa fermeture.
« La soi-disant évaluation environnementale de ce projet est une imposture depuis le premier jour » déclare Johanna Echlin de l’Association des propriétaires de chalets d’Old Fort William (OFWCA), basée à Sheenboro, au Québec. Selon Mme Echlin, le processus d’évaluation présente de graves lacunes, notamment l’absence de consultation adéquate des peuples autochtones et l’absence de prise en compte des commentaires substantiels reçus du public. De plus, les règles ont été modifiées en cours de route au profit du promoteur.
« Le fait que des dates aient maintenant été fixées pour l’octroi de permis pour le monticule de déchets radioactifs est un signe de l’échec abject du gouvernement du Canada à écouter les centaines d’intervenants dans l’évaluation environnementale. Il est plus que temps pour le gouvernement d’intervenir et d’arrêter ce processus d’autorisation afin d’empêcher la contamination permanente de la rivière des Outaouais » déclare Mme Echlin.
Mme Echlin et d’autres personnes qualifient la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) d’un organisme sous l’«emprise réglementaire ». C’est-à-dire qu’il agit comme un « chef de claque » à l’égard de l’industrie nucléaire, ce qui nuit à son mandat de protéger le public et l’environnement. Elle ajoute :
« Nous ne sommes pas les seuls à parler d’emprise réglementaire. Le Comité d’experts en évaluation environnementale l’a signalé dans son rapport final au gouvernement Trudeau en 2017. » Un document obtenu par le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire note que la CCSN n’a jamais refusé d’accorder un permis au cours de ses 20 ans d’existence.
L’importation de déchets radioactifs dans la vallée de l’Outaouais à partir d’autres sites fédéraux (pour être placés dans l’installation) est un grand signal d’alarme pour les groupes de citoyens et les Premières nations. Ils disent que le site de Chalk River ne convient pas au stockage à long terme de déchets nucléaires. Selon une déclaration conjointe de la Nation Anishinabek et du Caucus iroquois, « Les rivières et les lacs sont le sang et les poumons de la Terre-Mère. Lorsque nous contaminons nos cours d’eau, nous empoisonnons la vie elle-même. C’est pourquoi les déchets radioactifs ne doivent pas être stockés à long terme à côté des grands plans d’eau. »
Les aspects économiques du projet soulèvent également de nombreux problèmes, selon Ole Hendrickson; son analyse conclut que l’installation ne réduirait pas la responsabilité de 8 milliards de dollars du Canada de nettoyer ses déchets radioactifs.
Des groupes de citoyens remettent en question le modèle d’exploitation des installations nucléaires du Canada par un entrepreneur sous-contracté par le gouvernement; ce modèle a été mis en place par le gouvernement Harper en 2015 et le contrat a été renouvelé par le gouvernement Trudeau en 2020. Dans le cadre de ce contrat, les coûts pour les contribuables canadiens sont montés en flèche et les décisions concernant les déchets radioactifs canadiens sont prises par des ressortissants et sociétés de l’étranger. Les groupes de citoyens ont demandé l’annulation du contrat et la création d’un organisme de gestion des déchets radioactifs au Canada, indépendant de l’industrie nucléaire, comme dans un certain nombre de pays européens.
* Appelé l’installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface (IGDPS) par le promoteur.
– 30 –
Liens:
Nous nous excusons pour les liens en anglais ci-dessus; les ressources en français sont disponibles sur demande.
OTTAWA, le 16 septembre 2021 – Des groupes communautaires opposés à la construction d’un immense monticule de déchets radioactifs près de la rivière des Outaouais trouvent du soutien chez certains candidats et candidates aux élections fédérales.
Les groupes ont demandé aux candidats et candidates fédéraux dans 13 circonscriptions de l’ouest du Québec, de l’est de l’Ontario et d’Ottawa s’ils entreprendraient une évaluation régionale en vertu de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact fédérale pour examiner les déchets radioactifs, le déclassement des installations nucléaires, et l’assainissement des terres contaminées dans la région. Sept candidats du NPD et du Parti vert et un indépendant ont accepté de faire pression pour une évaluation régionale.
En mai 2021, la Ville d’Ottawa a écrit au ministre fédéral de l’Environnement Jonathan Wilkinson pour demander une évaluation régionale des déchets nucléaires dans la vallée de l’Outaouais; le ministre a refusé la demande.
La candidate du Parti vert d’Ottawa-Centre, Angela Keller-Herzog, a déclaré : « Le fait qu’une évaluation régionale ait été demandée par le Conseil de la Ville d’Ottawa puis refusée par le ministre fédéral de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique est inquiétant. Ces décisions affecteront les résidents et l’environnement pour des milliers d’années. Je continuerai à faire pression pour une évaluation complète. »
Les groupes ont également demandé aux candidats s’ils s’opposeraient aux projets actuels d’un dépotoir nucléaire d’un million de mètres cubes à Chalk River et de mise en tombeau d’un réacteur à Rolphton, en Ontario, tous deux aux abords de la rivière des Outaouais.
Sur les 16 candidats qui ont répondu, près des trois quarts (11) ont déclaré qu’ils s’opposaient aux plans actuels ou avaient de sérieuses inquiétudes. Parmi eux, on compte les Verts Keller-Herzog, Jennifer Purdy (Kanata-Carleton) et Gordon Kubanek(Nepean), Konstantine Malakos du NPD (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell), le candidat indépendant Stefan Klietsch (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke), la bloquiste Geneviève Nadeau et Mathieu St-Jean du PPC (tous deux à Gatineau).
De l’autre côté de la rivière des Outaouais, juste en face des projets proposés, les candidats et candidates de la circonscription québécoise de Pontiac (où l’ancien député libéral Will Amos ne se présente pas) ont tous répondu, notamment :
• La candidate du NPD Denise Giroux s’est engagée à travailler sans relâche pour s’opposer à ces plans de gestion de déchets « irresponsables » et a ajouté qu’elle « refuse de rester les bras croisés, comme l’a fait l’ancien député, alors que ces projets vont de l’avant. Près de 40 groupes autochtones, ainsi que 6 millions de personnes en aval de ces projets. . . ont tenté d’exprimer leur opposition à ces plans. »
• La candidate du Bloc québécois Gabrielle Desjardins a déclaré que son parti s’oppose à « tout risque pour le Québec de contamination aux déchets nucléaires qu’impliquent des projets comme le dépotoir de Chalk River, le long de la rivière des Outaouais. . . L’option telle que proposée à Chalk River n’est pas acceptable et n’est pas suffisamment sécuritaire. »
• « Il est temps de repenser le plan de construction du premier dépotoir permanent de déchets nucléaires au Canada à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais », a déclaré Shaughn McArthur du Parti vert. « Le monticule de déchets en surface utilise des géomembranes et une couverture qui se désintégreront avec le temps, alors que les déchets peuvent être dangereux pendant des centaines de milliers d’années. »
• Le candidat conservateur Michel Gauthier s’est dit opposé à l’installation de déchets nucléaires de Chalk River : « Ce projet est loin d’obtenir la norme de l’acceptabilité sociale et ne doit pas aller de l’avant tant et aussi longtemps qu’une étude sérieuse de sites alternatifs, loin des régions peuplées, n’aura été faite et que la population aura été clairement informée. »
• La candidate libérale Sophie Chatel ne s’est pas opposée au dépotoir, mais a déclaré qu’elle suivrait « de très près » le projet si elle était élue, et a demandé qu’il soit « rigoureusement surveillé pour assurer qu’aucune matière radioactive ne s’infiltre dans la rivière des Outaouais. »
Le dépotoir et la mise en tombeau d’un ancien réacteur sont des propositions des Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC), qui appartiennent à un consortium du secteur privé composé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux sociétés texanes sous contrat avec le gouvernement fédéral. Le contrat a été signé en 2015 par le gouvernement Harper lors de la campagne électorale fédérale et a été renouvelé l’an dernier par le gouvernement libéral.
Selon les rapports annuels d’Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL), les montants dépensés par le gouvernement fédéral pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs, le déclassement nucléaire et les sites contaminés, dans le cadre du contrat des LNC, ont triplé, passant de 332 millions de dollars en 2016 à 955 millions de dollars en 2020.
Le questionnaire a été organisé par le Conseil des Canadiens – Section d’Ottawa, la Coalition contre les décharges nucléaires sur la rivière des Outaouais (CANDOR) et la Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association. Les réponses complètes des candidats se trouvent sur le site Web de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
Les Laboratoires de Chalk River sur la rivière des Outaouais, site du projet de monticule géant de déchets radioactifs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OTTAWA, September 16, 2021 – Community organizations opposed to the construction of a massive aboveground radioactive waste dump near the Ottawa River are finding support among some federal electoral candidates.The groups asked candidates in the 2021 federal election in 13 ridings in West Quebec, Eastern Ontario and Ottawa if they would initiate a regional assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act to look into radioactive waste, nuclear decommissioning and the remediation of contaminated lands in the Ottawa Valley. Seven candidates from the NDP and Green Party and one Independent agreed to push for a regional assessment.In May 2021, the City of Ottawa wrote to federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson asking for a regional assessment on nuclear waste in the Ottawa Valley, but the minister declined the request.
Ottawa CentreGreen Party candidate Angela Keller-Herzog said: “The fact that a regional assessment has been requested by the Council of the City of Ottawa and then declined by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change is disturbing. These decisions will affect residents and the environment for thousands of years. I will continue to press for a comprehensive assessment.”
The groups also asked the candidates if they would oppose the current plans for a million-cubic-metre radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and a reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont., both next to the Ottawa River.
Of the 16 candidates who replied, almost three-quarters (11) said they oppose the current plans or had serious concerns. They included Greens Keller-Herzog, Jennifer Purdy (Kanata-Carleton) and Gordon Kubanek (Nepean), NDPer Konstantine Malakos (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell), independent candidate Stefan Klietsch (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke), the Bloc’s Geneviève Nadeau and PPC’s Mathieu St-Jean (both in Gatineau).
Directly across the Ottawa River from the proposed waste facilities, candidates in the Quebec riding of Pontiac (where former Liberal MP Will Amos is not running) all responded, including:
· NDP candidate Denise Giroux pledged to work tirelessly to oppose these “irresponsible” waste management plans and added she would “refuse to stand idly by, as the former MP did, while these projects forge ahead. Nearly 40 Indigenous groups, along with 6 million people downstream from these projects. . .have tried to voice their opposition to these plans.”
· Bloc Québécois candidate Gabrielle Desjardins said her party is opposed to “any risk for Quebec of contamination with nuclear waste from projects such as the Chalk River dump, along the Ottawa River. . . .The option as proposed at Chalk River is not acceptable and is not sufficiently safe.” [Translated from French]
· “It’s time to rethink the plan to build Canada’s first permanent nuclear waste dump less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River,” said Shaughn McArthur of the Green Party. “The near surface waste mound uses geomembranes and a cover that will disintegrate over time, whereas the waste can be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.”
· Conservative candidate Michel Gauthier, said he is opposed to the nuclear waste facility at Chalk River: “This project is far from achieving the standard of social acceptability and should not go ahead until a serious study of alternative sites, far from populated regions, has been made and the population has been clearly informed.” [Translated from French]
· Liberal candidate Sophie Chatel did not oppose the waste dump but said she would monitor the project “extremely closely” if elected, and called for it to be “rigorously monitored to ensure that no radioactive materials leach into the Ottawa River.”
The radioactive waste facility and entombment of an old reactor are proposals of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which is owned by a private-sector consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two Texas corporations under contract to the federal government. The contract was signed in 2015 by the Harper government during the federal election campaign and was renewed last year by the Liberal government.
As shown in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) annual reports, contractual amounts spent by the federal government on radioactive waste management, nuclear decommissioning and contaminated sites, through the CNL contract, have tripled from $332 million in 2016 to $955 million in 2020.
The questionnaire was organized by the Council of Canadians – Ottawa Chapter, the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River (CANDOR) and the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association. The candidates’ full responses can be read here on the website of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
We asked federal candidates from all parties in 13 ridings in West Quebec, Eastern Ontario and Ottawa the following questions:
Will you oppose the current plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear Laboratories?
Here are the replies we received from 15 candidates. (Answers are in the language in which they were provided.)
Chalk River Laboratories on the Ottawa River, site of proposed giant radioactive waste mound.
GATINEAU
Geneviève Nadeau – Bloc Québécois
Il me fait plaisir de vous mentionner que dans la plateforme du Bloc Québécois, nous avons indiqué que le Bloc Québécois s’opposera au développement du nucléaire, incluant les petits réacteurs modulaires, et à tout risque pour le Québec de contamination aux déchets nucléaires qu’impliquent des projets comme le dépotoir de Chalk River, le long de la rivière des Outaouais.
Nous ne pouvons être crédible dans notre volonté de lutter pour la préservation de notre environnement tout en continuant d’investir dans le développement du nucléaire.
Je vais prendre en considération les éléments que vous m’avez apporté.
Pour moi, l’environnement est très important. Un projet comme celui-ci doit être regardé avec attention. Mettre un tombeau nucléaire qui se déverse dans un rivière ou un lac est une menace pour l’environnement et pour les citoyens qui tirent leur eau potable de la rivière.
Maintenant, qu’elles sont les alternatives possibles pour régler ce problème. Telle est la question qui devrait être posée.
Pour moi, un député est un défenseur des Canadiens à tous les niveaux. Il me fera plaisir de travailler avec nos frères amérindiens à la défense de nos terres.
GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL
Konstantine Malakos – NDP
I absolutely oppose this project. I actually had a fireside chat on my Facebook page on the topic recently.
· Will you oppose the current plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
Yes
· Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
Yes with more focus on Indigenous leaders
· Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
Yes
· Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear Laboratories?
Yes
HULL-AYLMER
Eric Fleury – PPC
Le dossier de l’environnement en est un de taille pour moi-même autant que notre parti, et bien que le nucléaire soit une des formes d’énergies que l’on devra favoriser afin de réduire nos émissions en carbone, il est essentiel de ne pas sous-estimer les risques environnementaux potentiels associés aux déchets que ces centrales peuvent produire.
Tout projet, incluant celui-ci, devra faire l’objet d’un processus rigoureux de consultation ainsi que de robustes analyses environnementales. Le nucléaire, oui, mais jamais au détriment de l’environnement ou de la sécurité des citoyens. Je ne suis ni physicien, ni biologiste, par contre, je me fierai aux experts indépendants afin de déterminer le moyen le plus sûr de disposer de ces déchets et résidus.
KANATA – CARLETON
Jennifer Purdy – Green Party
Yes to all of the questions. Also, the Green Party will ban the development of nuclear power in Canada.
NEPEAN
Gordon Kubanek – Green Party
Re, nuclear waste : Yes, I support your desired changes.
OTTAWA CENTRE
Angela Keller-Herzog – Green Party
· Will you oppose the current plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
Yes
· Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
Yes. The current consultation process is not working. There are First Nations and community groups saying their concerns are being disregarded. Decision-making needs to be transparent and accessible, documented and grounded in reason.
· Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
The fact that a regional assessment has been requested by the Council of the City of Ottawa and then declined by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change is disturbing. These decisions will affect residents and the environment for thousands of years. I will continue to press for a comprehensive assessment.
· Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear Laboratories?
I believe that such a review should be undertaken by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and would be pleased to recommend such. In the event that I am not elected, I may pursue such a recommendation either as an individual citizen or with the support of a group of local civil society organizations or by means of a public petition.
Yasir Naqvi – Liberal
Thank you for writing to me about CNL’s planned disposal facility in Chalk River.
I am committed to ensuring that Ottawa residents’ concerns on Chalk River continue to be heard. I know that protecting our waterways is of vital importance.
My understanding is that as part of the ongoing environmental assessment process led by the independent Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), members of the public, as well as local communities and elected officials submitted comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Subsequently, on July 2, 2021, CNSC staff completed their review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) submission of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility and determined that the information provided in CNL’s submission is complete.
CNSC staff will proceed with the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Report, which will be made available for review by Indigenous groups and the public prior to a public Commission hearing. Further to this, I understand that the CNSC Commission Secretariat will now proceed with scheduling public hearing dates, and further details regarding how to participate will be provided once the Commission Secretariat has announced the hearing dates.
I will continue to follow this issue closely and I would encourage you to continue to engage in the independent process. I will certainly engage with the Minister responsible should I be elected as the Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre.
OTTAWA–WEST NEPEAN
Anita Vandenbeld – Liberal
Thank you for writing to me about CNL’s planned disposal facility in Chalk River and for your continued advocacy on this issue. I, along with my colleagues in the National Capital Region, have been following the issue very closely. Currently there is a process in place which has allowed for input to be made by members of the public, as well as local communities and elected officials. I understand there will also be an opportunity to review the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Environmental Assessment Report and public hearings which will soon be scheduled by the CNSC Commission Secretariat. Protecting our waterways is crucial and I encourage you to continue engaging with the process. I will continue to follow this important issue.
PONTIAC
Denise Giroux – NDP
1. Will you oppose the current plans for the radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
YES. Like you, I share a sense of urgency in opposing plans for both these ill-conceived ideas. They must be abandoned and a new site identified for a facility which can protect the Ottawa River by containing and isolating radioactive wastes from the biosphere.
I am trying to raise awareness and action at every opportunity available to me on this issue. Your groups’ knowledge, engagement, and advocacy are critical to our collective efforts to stopping their progress while we work together to bring a true science-based approach and greater accountability to nuclear waste management.
2. Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
In my mind, accountability is the most important issue in this fight right now. Canada needs a democratic process for making these decisions. Successive governments have effectively managed to hide the truth by delegating responsibility to unelected and unaccountable corporations and members of a nuclear-friendly Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Since 2015, when the Liberal government signed the contract with CNL, the MP for Pontiac refused to speak out about this arrangement and the dangers it poses to the region, preferring instead to utter words about “listening to the science” and “encourage” individuals’ to participate in the Commission’s pseudo-consultation process. The Liberal incumbent tried to imply that the process was sufficient safeguard and ordinary Canadians could trust the Commission to get it right. He completely failed in his responsibility as an Environmental lawyer to tell the truth about what real science and international law dictates if human safety and biodiversity are to be truly protected.
I am a lawyer, too, one with a long record of speaking up for people whose voices are often ignored by the powers that be, and I refuse to stand idly by, as the former MP did, while these projects forge ahead. Nearly 40 Indigenous groups, along with 6 million people downstream from these projects, through their community groups and municipalities, have tried to voice their opposition to these plans. All of them, for all intents and purposes, have been shut-out in favour of nuclear promoters. Their concerns are “noted” and ignored by CNL on its way to checking off the administrative boxes to approving faulty, expeditious plans.
Elected representatives should be responsible for these matters, alongside local Indigenous communities as equal partners; it is they who should decide if the “NSDF”project (near-surface disposal facility) is acceptable. As you rightly say, it is being funded by taxpayer dollars, will take place on ‘federal’ land (in fact, unceded Algonquin territory), and concerns the federal government’s own waste. Real public consultation is needed, to give effect to the widespread opposition to current plans and identify responsible solutions.
As the MP for Pontiac, I would meet with these Indigenous groups early, along with the dozens of municipalities on both sides of the Outaouais–to help coordinate the efforts of all those who have passed resolutions opposing the CNL’s plans and asking for proper assessments to be done.
Once elected, I will be vocal on this issue. I will work hard to bring my caucus colleagues and other party representatives up to speed, alongside Richard Canning, the NDP MP from Vancouver who has been the party’s critic on this file. I will certainly meet with your groups, too, to determine next steps.
3. Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
Minister Wilkinson’s rejection of municipal/regional requests for Impact Assessments underscores the Trudeau government’s resistance to accountability and transparency on this issue, despite their talk of protecting the environment. He and his government are doing everything to keep all of this off the public radar.
My past experience with a Regional Affordable Housing Task Force taught me the importance of bringing all affected parties together to develop a transparent, consensus-based process and arrive at a responsible outcome. I am certain that with transparency, the right people at the table, and a requirement that all decisions be based in best practices, the outcome arrived at would be in line with CANDOR’s proposals. We will find a safer alternative.
Much work has been done to educate the municipalities on these issues and they are critical allies in this fight. Their demands for regional assessments under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley are reasonable and doable, and I will do everything in my power, once elected, to support these demands.
4. Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear Laboratories?
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s assertion that it considers CNL’s application for the radioactive waste disposal facility complete, including its environmental assessment and consultations with the community and First Nations, reveals the limitations of their useful role; in my mind, it reveals huge legal and ethical gaps in their commitment to human safety and protection of biodiversity. Its government-appointed members play a sad part pretending, (with CNL and the Canadian government), that their process is rational, rigorous and coherent, when it is in fact biased, half-baked, and misleading. Despite widespread opposition from scientists, international experts, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Indigenous and community groups, they simply ignore the concerns! The Commission has never refused a proposal, and CNL is so sure of obtaining approval once the administrative boxes are checked-off that it already ships large quantities of radioactive waste to Chalk River from other federal nuclear sites in Manitoba, southern Ontario and Quebec.
I believe the contract given by the federal government in 2015 to CNL to operate all federal nuclear facilities needs to be rescinded, not least because CNL failed to comply with the requirements of the IAEA for managing radioactive waste safely (eg. that a design for a waste facility be developed, and then a regional survey be done to find a suitable location). It seems clear that both CNL and the CNSC pressed their Liberal and Conservative friends in government, to simply move ahead. How to explain, otherwise, that neither the government nor the Commission even care to justify why CNL should be allowed to choose the “easiest route” instead of complying with best practices?
Instead of being entrusted to a private for-profit consortium the business of waste management should be delegated to a public agency with public safety and environmental stewardship as its top priorities. There is no place for a for-profit corporation–still less one known to be ethically-challenged. The fact that CNL has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to justify its plans since hastily proposing the landfill-type mound in 2015 is proof enough of that. What evil game are we caught in that we should pay to be fooled into believing CNL knows best?? It all underscores just how ready these 3 partners-in-negligence have been to cut corners and fill each others’ pockets while avoiding answering for their actions and inactions.
When a true public airing of these issues occurs, it will be clear to everyone that a landfill-type mound by a well-settled river is not suitable for medium-level radioactive waste.
The fact is that the proposed mound at Chalk River and the entombment of a nuclear reactor at Rolphton are entirely inadequate to contain radioactive substances. CNL’s plans for waste management are irresponsible. Given the planned expectation that the membrane for the football fields-high mound of waste will deteriorate in less than 50 years despite knowing the materials piled there remain dangerous for thousands of years, it guarantees the Ottawa River will be permanently contaminated. The Commission’s approval and the government’s efforts to “greenwash” all of it, are shameful lies to the Canadian public, and just more shoulder-shrugging of Indigenous groups’ concern for the earth and its people. It is all evidence of just how closely tied the current government is to those who would profit from the destruction of our waterways and lands.
Letting Canada’s nuclear “regulator,” the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, make final decisions on their plan is an abdication of responsibility by the Government of Canada. These are not ordinary regulatory matters. The overwhelming evidence demands that we do exactly what you propose: enact strict regulations to keep radioactive waste out of the biosphere, build state of the art facilities for radioactive waste, reform the nuclear governance system to ensure that radioactive waste is managed according to best international practices and standards; and, take profit out of radioactive waste management.
These decisions will have major impacts on future generations and our environment forever. With your help, working together, I will work tirelessly on this issue, until common sense and reason prevail.
——————————-
Réponse de Denise Giroux, NDP Pontiac :
1. Vous opposerez-vous aux projets actuels de construction d’une installation de gestion des déchets radioactifs près de la surface à Chalk River et de mise en tombeau d’un réacteur à Rolphton, en Ontario?
OUI. Comme vous, je partage un sentiment d’urgence en m’opposant aux plans pour ces deux idées mal conçues. Il faut les abandonner et trouver un nouveau site pour une installation qui puisse protéger la rivière des Outaouais en contenant et en isolant les déchets radioactifs de la biosphère.
J’essaie de sensibiliser et d’agir à chaque occasion qui m’est offerte sur cette question. Les connaissances, l’engagement et la défense de vos groupes sont essentiels à nos efforts collectifs pour arrêter leur progression alors que nous travaillons ensemble pour apporter une véritable approche scientifique et une plus grande responsabilité à la gestion des déchets nucléaires.
2. Vous assurerez-vous que les décisions concernant la gestion des déchets radioactifs dans la vallée de l’Outaouais seront prises par les députés élus et les groupes autochtones?
À mon avis, la responsabilité est la question la plus importante dans ce combat en ce moment. Le Canada a besoin d’un processus démocratique pour prendre ces décisions. Les gouvernements successifs ont réussi à cacher la vérité en déléguant la responsabilité à des sociétés non élues et non redevables et aux membres d’une Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire favorable au nucléaire. Depuis 2015, lorsque le gouvernement libéral a signé le contrat avec CNL, le député de Pontiac a refusé de s’exprimer sur cet arrangement et les dangers qu’il représente pour la région, préférant prononcer des mots se voulant rassurant sur la notion “d’écouter la science” et d’encourager “les individus” à participer au pseudo-consultations de la Commission. Le député libéral sortant a tenté de laisser entendre que ce processus était une garantie suffisante et que les Canadiens pouvaient y faire confiance pour faire les choses correctement. Il a complètement failli à sa responsabilité en tant qu’avocat de l’environnement de dire la vérité sur ce que la science réelle et le droit international dictent si la sécurité humaine et la biodiversité doivent être vraiment protégées.
Je suis également avocate, et j’ai une longue expérience de la défense des personnes dont la voix est souvent ignorée par les pouvoirs en place; je refuse de rester les bras croisés, comme l’a fait l’ancien député, alors que ces projets vont de l’avant. Près de 40 groupes autochtones, ainsi que 6 millions de personnes en aval de ces projets, par l’intermédiaire de leurs associations communautaires et de leurs municipalités, ont tenté d’exprimer leur opposition à ces plans. Tous, à toutes fins utiles, ont été écartés au profit des promoteurs du nucléaire. Leurs préoccupations sont “notées” et ignorées par CNL qui s’apprête à cocher les cases administratives pour approuver des plans défectueux et expéditifs.
Les représentants élus devraient être responsables de ces questions, aux côtés des communautés indigènes locales en tant que partenaires égaux ; ce sont eux qui devraient décider si le projet “IGDPS” (installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface) est acceptable. Comme vous le dites à juste titre, il est financé par l’argent des contribuables, se déroulera sur des terres “fédérales” (en fait, des territoires algonquins non cédés) et concerne les déchets du gouvernement fédéral. Une véritable consultation publique est nécessaire, afin de concrétiser l’opposition généralisée aux plans actuels et d’identifier des solutions responsables.
En tant que députée du Pontiac, je rencontrerais ces groupes autochtones dès le début, ainsi que les douzaines de municipalités des deux côtés de l’Outaouais, pour aider à coordonner les efforts de tous ceux qui ont adopté des résolutions s’opposant aux plans de la CNL et demandant que des évaluations appropriées soient faites.
Une fois élue, je me ferai entendre sur cette question. Je travaillerai fort pour mettre mes collègues du caucus et les autres représentants du parti au courant, aux côtés de Richard Canning, le député néo-démocrate de Vancouver qui a été le porte-parole du parti dans ce dossier. Je ne manquerai pas de rencontrer vos groupes également, afin de déterminer les prochaines étapes.
3. Lancerez-vous une évaluation régionale en vertu de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact du déclassement des installations nucléaires, de la gestion des déchets radioactifs et de l’assainissement des terres contaminées sur les terres fédérales dans la vallée de l’Outaouais?
Le rejet par le ministre Wilkinson des demandes municipales/régionales d’évaluation d’impact souligne la résistance du gouvernement Trudeau à la responsabilité et à la transparence sur cette question, malgré ses beaux discours sur la protection de l’environnement. Lui et son gouvernement font tout pour que tout cela échappe au radar public.
Mon expérience passée au sein d’un groupe de travail régional sur le logement abordable m’a enseigné l’importance de réunir toutes les parties concernées afin d’élaborer un processus transparent et consensuel et de parvenir à un résultat responsable. Je suis certain qu’avec la transparence, les bonnes personnes à la table et l’exigence que toutes les décisions soient fondées sur les meilleures pratiques, le résultat obtenu serait conforme aux propositions de CANDOR. Nous trouverons une solution plus sûre.
Beaucoup de travail a été fait pour éduquer les municipalités sur ces questions et elles sont des alliées essentielles dans cette lutte. Leurs demandes d’évaluations régionales, en vertu de la Loi sur les études d’impact, du déclassement des installations nucléaires, de la gestion des déchets radioactifs et de l’assainissement des terrains contaminés sur les terres fédérales de la vallée de l’Outaouais sont raisonnables et réalisables, et je ferai tout ce qui est en mon pouvoir, une fois élue, pour appuyer ces demandes.
4. Vous engagerez-vous à entreprendre un examen public du contrat de 10 ans signé entre le gouvernement du Canada et les sociétés propriétaires des Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens?
L’affirmation de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire selon laquelle elle considère que la demande de CNL pour l’installation du dépotoir de déchets radioactifs est complète, y compris son évaluation environnementale et ses consultations avec la communauté et les Premières nations, révèle les limites de son rôle ; à mon avis, elle révèle d’énormes lacunes juridiques et éthiques dans son mandat et son engagement envers la sécurité humaine et la protection de la biodiversité. Ses membres nommés par le gouvernement jouent en un rôle complice en prétendant (avec CNL et le gouvernement canadien) que leur processus est rationnel, rigoureux et cohérent, alors qu’il est en fait biaisé, partial et trompeur. Malgré l’opposition généralisée des scientifiques, des experts internationaux, de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique, des groupes autochtones et communautaires, ils ignorent tout simplement toutes leurs préoccupations ! La Commission n’a jamais refusé une proposition, et CNL est tellement sûre d’obtenir l’approbation une fois les cases administratives cochées qu’elle expédie déjà à Chalk River de grandes quantités de déchets radioactifs provenant d’autres sites nucléaires fédéraux au Manitoba, dans le sud de l’Ontario et au Québec.
Je pense que le contrat signé par le gouvernement fédéral en 2015 à CNL pour exploiter toutes les installations nucléaires fédérales doit être annulé, notamment parce que CNL n’a pas respecté les exigences de l’AIEA pour gérer les déchets radioactifs en toute sécurité (par exemple, qu’une conception pour une installation de déchets soit élaborée, puis qu’une étude régionale soit réalisée pour trouver un emplacement approprié). Il semble évident que la CNL et certains de leurs ami.e.s au sein de la CCSN ont fait pression sur leurs amis libéraux et conservateurs pour qu’ils aillent tout simplement de l’avant. Comment expliquer, sinon, que ni le gouvernement ni la Commission ne se soucient même de justifier pourquoi CNL devrait être autorisée à choisir la “ voie la plus facile ” au lieu de se conformer aux meilleures pratiques ?
Au lieu d’être confiée à un consortium privé à but lucratif, la gestion des déchets devrait être déléguée à une agence publique dont les priorités sont la sécurité publique et la gestion de l’environnement. Il n’y a pas de place pour une société à but lucratif, et encore moins pour une société connue pour ses problèmes d’éthique. Le fait que CNL ait dépensé des centaines de millions de dollars de l’argent des contribuables pour tenter de justifier ses plans depuis qu’elle a hâtivement proposé le monticule énorme en 2015 en est une preuve suffisante. Dans quel jeu diabolique sommes-nous pris pour payer afin d’être trompés en croyant que CNL sait mieux que quiconque ? Tout cela souligne à quel point ces 3 partenaires-en-négligence ont été prêts à couper les coins ronds et à se remplir les poches les uns des autres tout en évitant de répondre de leurs actions et inactions.
Lorsqu’un véritable débat public sur ces questions aura lieu, il sera clair pour toute personne qu’un monticule énorme près d’une rivière bien établie ne convient pas aux déchets radioactifs de moyen niveau.
Le fait est que le monticule proposé à Chalk River et l’enterrement d’un réacteur nucléaire à Rolphton sont totalement inadaptés pour contenir les substances radioactives. Les plans de CNL pour la gestion des déchets sont irresponsables. Étant donné que l’on s’attend à ce que la membrane du monticule de déchets de la hauteur d’un terrain de football se détériore en moins de 50 ans, même si l’on sait que les matières qui y sont entassées demeurent dangereuses pendant des milliers d’années, cela garantit que la rivière des Outaouais sera contaminée de façon permanente. L’approbation de la Commission et les efforts du gouvernement pour ” écologiser ” le tout sont des mensonges honteux à la population canadienne, et qu’un haussement d’épaule de plus face aux préoccupations des groupes autochtones voulant protéger la terre et ses habitants. Tout cela montre à quel point le gouvernement actuel est lié à ceux qui veulent profiter de la destruction de nos cours d’eau et de nos terres.
Laisser le “régulateur” nucléaire du Canada (la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire) prendre les décisions finales sur leur plan est une abdication de responsabilité de la part du gouvernement du Canada. Il ne s’agit pas de questions réglementaires ordinaires. Les preuves accablantes exigent que nous fassions exactement ce que vous proposez : promulguer des règlements stricts pour empêcher les déchets radioactifs d’entrer dans la biosphère, construire des installations de pointe pour les déchets radioactifs, réformer le système de gouvernance nucléaire pour s’assurer que les déchets radioactifs sont gérés selon les meilleures pratiques et normes internationales, et retirer le profit de la gestion des déchets radioactifs.
Ces décisions auront un impact majeur sur les générations futures et sur notre environnement à jamais. Avec votre aide, en travaillant ensemble, je travaillerai sans relâche sur cette question, jusqu’à ce que le bon sens et la raison l’emportent.
Gabrielle Desjardins – Bloc Québécois
La solution au problème énergétique canadien ne passe pas par le nucléaire. Le Bloc Québécois s’oppose au développement du nucléaire, incluant les petits réacteurs modulaires, et à tout risque pour le Québec de contamination aux déchets nucléaires qu’impliquent des projets comme le dépotoir de Chalk River, le long de la rivière des Outaouais.
Dans tous les cas, le fédéral doit se doter d’un plan de gestion des déchets nucléaires. L’option telle que proposée à Chalk River n’est pas acceptable et n’est pas suffisamment sécuritaire. Un réel plan de gestion des déchets s’assurerait d’obtenir l’approbation des communautés du Québec et de l’Ontario concernées et tiendrait compte des risques de contaminations du sol et des cours d’eau.
Le Bloc Québécois est fermement opposé à la gestion des déchets nucléaires et s’inquiète des impacts négatifs qu’auront ceux-ci sur la qualité de l’eau de la rivière des Outaouais et du fleuve Saint-Laurent.
Michel Gauthier – Candidat conservateur
J’ai déjà pris position contre le projet d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires de Chalk River, il y a quelques mois, et mon opinion demeure la même aujourd’hui.
Ce projet est loin d’obtenir la norme de l’acceptabilité sociale et ne doit pas aller de l’avant tant et aussi longtemps qu’une étude sérieuse de sites alternatifs, loin des régions peuplées, n’aura été faite et que la population aura été clairement informée. Aussi, le choix d’un site doit aller plus loin qu’une simple évaluation des coûts.
Il est plutôt étonnant d’avoir choisi une colline dont l’écoulement des eaux se fait directement vers la rivière des Outaouais, un cours d’eaux dont le bassin direct dessert plus de 2 millions d’habitants.
Je serais également favorable à ce que tout le processus actuel fasse l’objet d’une étude, au besoin, afin de s’assurer qu’il suive des critères objectifs et soit hors de toute influence intéressée.
Shaughn McArthur – Green Party / Parti vert
Thank you for these questions, and for your leadership and engagement on this critical issue.
I have attached my statement on Chalk River, as well as a petition I will be promoting throughout my campaign. This issue will be a central focus of an event we’ll be hosting at Mary-Ann Phillips Park on Sunday, 5 September, towards the end of my Paddle for a Livable Future. We welcome any help you may be able to offer in mobilizing your supporters around this event, and would welcome a representative of your group delivering some remarks during the event.
In short, my answer to all your questions is an emphatic “YES!”
Sophie Chatel – Liberal
La santé et la sécurité des Canadiens et la protection de notre environnement demeurent la priorité du Parti libéral. Malheureusement, la plupart de ces déchets ont été créés il y a des décennies, sous la direction du Parti conservateur, et se trouvent actuellement dans des sites partout au Canada. Il est impératif que si le projet de Chalk River avance, qu’il respecte les normes internationales pour le stockage des déchets nucléaires de faible teneur et est rigoureusement surveillé pour assurer qu’aucune matière radioactive ne s’infiltre dans la rivière des Outaouais.
Les évaluations environnementales continues ont donné plusieurs occasions au public, aux communautés autochtones et aux parties intéressées de fournir des commentaires et de soumettre des commentaires, jusqu’à et y compris une audience publique. À ce jour, le processus de consultation publique a conduit à des changements dans la conception du projet reflétant l’importance de la consultation et de l’engagement dans ce projet.
Si je suis élu député, je m’engage à suivre de très près le projet . Il est important de reconnaître l’expertise scientifique de ces organismes, mais nous devons également rester informés et critiques afin d’assurer la sécurité de notre communauté. Je demanderai à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire des mises à jour régulières sur l’état du projet ainsi que des consultations et des commentaires du public. Il est essentiel que le gouvernement exerce une surveillance à toute épreuve sur les entrepreneurs privés afin de s’assurer que le projet respecte toutes les normes internationales pertinentes. La santé et la sécurité des gens de Pontiac est ma priorité absolue tout au long de ce projet.
/ /
The health and safety of Canadians and the protection of our environment remain the priority of the Liberal Party. The fact is that most of this waste was created decades ago, under a Conservative Party leadership, and is currently sitting in sites across Canada. It is imperative that if the Chalk River project goes ahead, it meets international standards for the storing of low-grade nuclear waste and is rigorously monitored to ensure that no radioactive materials leach into the Ottawa River.
Continual environmental assessments have allowed for several opportunities for the public, indigenous communities, and interested parties to provide input and to submit comments, up to and including a public hearing. To date, the public comment process has led to changes in the project design reflecting the importance of consultation and engagement in this project.
Should I be elected, I commit to monitoring the project extremely closely. While it is important to acknowledge these parties’ scientific expertise on the matter, we must also remain informed and critical to ensure the safety of our community. I will request regular updates from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on the status of the project as well as consultations and public input. It is essential for the government to provide iron-clad oversight over private contractors to ensure that the project meets all relevant international standards. The health and safety of the people of Pontiac is my top priority through the course of this project.
RENFREW-NIPISSING-PEMBROKE
Stefan Klietsch – Independent Candidate
Will you oppose the current plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
Yes, I do oppose the current plans for radioactive waste disposal at Chalk River and Rolphton.
Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
Yes, I would ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups.
Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
Yes, I would initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley.
Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear Laboratories?
I am reluctant to potentially abrogate a Government of Canada contract, given the resulting uncertainty that would therefore result in future Government of Canada dealings with businesses. However, I would commit to a public review on any possibility of renewing the contract.
NDP TEAM Response: Radioactive waste in the Ottawa Valley
1. Will you oppose the current plans for a radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont.?
Yes, New Democrats have raised concerns about the Liberal government’s handling of nuclear waste regulations.
2. Will you ensure that decisions on radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley are made by elected officials and Indigenous groups?
Yes, policy decisions should not be left in the hands of industry, New Democrats want to see elected officials make these decisions, following consultation with indigenous groups.
3. Will you initiate a regional assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, management of radioactive waste, and remediation of contaminated lands on federally owned lands in the Ottawa Valley?
Yes, if elected, the NDP would support the City of Ottawa’s request for a regional assessment.
4. Will you commit to a public review of the 10-year contract between the Government of Canada and the corporations that own Canadian Nuclear
Laboratories?
Yes, New Democrats commit to bringing accountability, transparency, and oversight to public contracts and how federal funding is allocated. We have previously expressed concern over the privatization of nuclear facilities under the Conservative and Liberal governments.
Update December 2025 reply from CNL (see PDF below)
Note that the hyperlink in the letter to the Chalk River Laboratories Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (CPDP) is no longer working, but the CPDP can be accessed here.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA) is an incorporated, non-profit organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for 40+ years. Our current focus is nuclear waste, in particular the proposed giant mound for one million cubic meters of radioactive waste at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories, and the proposed “entombment” of the federal Nuclear Power Demonstration reactor at Rolphton, Ontario.
A modernized radioactive waste policy should state Canada’s intent to fully meet its obligations pursuant to international legal instruments developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), specifically the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
The modernized policy should explicitly state Canada’s intent to meet its obligations under Article 4 (Implementing Measures) and Article 5 (Reporting) of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, and under Article 12 (Existing Facilities and Past Practices) and Article 32 (Reporting) of the Joint Convention.
With regard to Article 32, Canada should require that all owners and generators of radioactive waste maintain full inventories of waste volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides. Where only estimates of volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides are available, the methods and assumptions used in preparing these radioactive waste inventory estimates should be described in sufficient detail that an independent body can verify the estimates.
Radioactive waste inventories should be updated regularly and be made publicly available on an ongoing (e.g., annual) basis.
A national body – a national radioactive waste authority – should be established with a legislated mandate to maintain records, knowledge and memory of radioactive waste. The authority should be charged with maintaining a national radioactive waste inventory.. It should have a capacity and legal mandate to inspect nuclear facilities and independently verify inventory information provided by waste generators and owners. The national authority should be independent of other bodies — whether government or private sector — that regulate, utilize or promote nuclear energy.
The radioactive waste authority should ensure traceability of radioactive waste, including any transfers of waste for processing, storage, or disposal. Responsibility for traceability and maintenance of records, knowledge and memory related to radioactive waste should not rest with Canada’s nuclear regulator.
When any proposal is submitted to Canada’s nuclear regulator for a new nuclear facility or activity (such as decommissioning) that would generate, store, dispose of, or transfer wastes, the proponent should also be required to submit estimates of the volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides in the radioactive wastes associated with that facility or activity to Canada’s national radioactive waste authority.
In the case of any proposed new nuclear reactors – such as “small modular reactors” – this should include a full accounting of activation products created by neutron bombardment of reactor components, fission products and transuranics in the fuel, and wastes associated with fuel fabrication, processing, and reprocessing.
The proponent of a new nuclear facility or activity (such as decommissioning) should also be required to submit a detailed management plan for wastes arising to the national authority. Acceptance of the waste estimates and the management plan by Canada’s national radioactive waste authority should be required prior to approval of any new facility or activity by Canada’s nuclear regulator.
Canada’s modernized radioactive waste policy should state explicitly that the protection of human health by avoiding radiological exposure shall be given the highest priority in radioactive waste management, and cannot be compromised by economic considerations of “cost-effectiveness”. It should state explicitly that radioactive waste generation shall be minimized. It should state explicitly that every effort shall be made to minimize the waste burden imposed on future generations.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly that radioactive waste shall be contained and isolated from the biosphere.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly that the public shall have full access to information about radioactive waste.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly the principle of justification as described in the IAEA Fundamental Safety Principles: that “facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks must yield an overall benefit,” and that the benefit must “outweigh the radiation risks to which they give rise.”
The national radioactive waste authority should be given the mandate to ensure that generators and owners of radioactive waste adhere to these principles.
At present, Canada’s 143-word “Radioactive Waste Policy Framework” (RWPF) – in calling only for “waste disposal plans” – ignores the internationally agreed pre-disposal requirements for radioactive waste found in the IAEA General Safety Requirements (GSR) Part 5, Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste. Requirements of GSR Part 5 that are not addressed in the RWPF include 2 on “National policy and strategy on radioactive waste management,” 8 on “Radioactive waste generation and control,” 9 on “Characterization and classification of radioactive waste,” 11 on “Storage of radioactive waste”, and 20 on “Shutdown and decommissioning of facilities.”
Canada is currently on a slippery slope to radioactive waste abandonment, with risks of undocumented waste transfers and illegal dumping, exposing future generations to unknown radiological hazards. The emphasis on disposal in the RWPF creates an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality.
Much of Canada’s current radioactive waste legacy has been created by the Government of Canada itself. The federal government has failed to acknowledge its own responsibilities as waste generator and owner. It remains an active promoter of nuclear energy under a Nuclear Energy Act that gives the Minister of Natural Resources powers to “utilize, cause to be utilized and prepare for the utilization of nuclear energy.”
The RWPF, in stating the “polluter pays” principle, is fundamentally at odds with Government of Canada assertions that nuclear energy is “clean”.
A national radioactive waste authority that is accountable to elected public officials but independent of government or industry bodies that promote or utilize nuclear energy is an essential complement to a modernized radioactive waste policy.
As owner of Canada’s only licensed commercial radioactive waste storage facility at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), the federal government has assumed ownership of significant inventories of industrial, hospital, and university wastes.
Some industrial wastes stored at CRL are imports from foreign countries. Canadian companies are major manufacturers of cobalt-60 “sealed sources”. Canada’s Seventh National Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management says “Canada remains a global leader in the production and export of Category 1 cobalt-60 radioactive sealed sources, supplying approximately 95 percent of the global demand.”
Article 28 of the Joint Convention says
A Contracting Party shall allow for re-entry into its territory of disused sealed sources if, in the framework of its national law, it has accepted that they be returned to a manufacturer qualified to receive and possess the disused sealed sources.
Canada has not to our knowledge accepted the return of sealed sources in the framework of its national law; nonetheless, Canadian companies such as Nordion, Best Theratronics, and SRB Technologies are doing a brisk trade in waste imports in the form of disused sealed sources and expired self-luminous tritium devices..
These companies do not necessarily limit their imports to devices of their own manufacture. Imported radioactive wastes are being sent to CRL, where they become the property of the Government of Canada.
Canada’s modernized radioactive waste policy should ban radioactive waste imports.
A national radioactive waste authority should have the mandate to track the inventory of private sector waste transferred to Government of Canada ownership. The authority should collect payments that are adequate for the long-term management of transferred wastes. It should assume the management of the fund currently overseen by the federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It should be responsible for developing appropriate management strategies for federal nuclear wastes.
Responsibility for management of wastes owned by the Government of Canada should not be in the hands of a body with a mandate to promote and utilize nuclear energy
With regard to Canada’s obligations under Article 12 (Existing Facilities and Past Practices) of the Joint Convention, the national radioactive waste authority should be responsible for remediation of areas contaminated by past practices. Canada’s obligations in this regard are described in requirement 49 (“Responsibilities for remediation of areas with residual radioactive material”) of the IAEA GSR Part 3, Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources.
Areas with “residual radioactive material” include those contaminated by uranium mines and processing facilities formerly owned by the Government of Canada (including those in the Port Hope area) as well as federally-owned nuclear facilities (such as the Chalk River Laboratories).
GSR Part 3 requirements for areas contaminated by past practices include a remedial action plan, appropriate record keeping, a strategy for managing wastes arising, and public involvement in planning, implementation and verification of remedial actions.
These requirements should be met by a national radioactive waste authority – a body that does not have a mandate to promote and utilize nuclear energy.
The federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not the appropriate body to meet these requirements.
Of particular concern to our group is that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is allowing private companies under contract to transfer radioactive and other hazardous wastes from federal nuclear facilities in Manitoba, southern Ontario, and Quebec to the Chalk River Laboratories. This is being done under an unapproved “Integrated Waste Strategy”. There is no long-term management plan for the transferred wastes, nor is there a remedial action plan for the Chalk River Laboratories.
We submit that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is acting in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner and showing disrespect for the Government of Canada’s obligations to Indigenous rights holders and to the public at large.
With regard to lack of transparency of activities related to radioactive waste transport, processing and storage, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is allowing Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private company owned by a consortium of multinational engineering firms, to make its own determinations regarding a range of activities at the Chalk River Laboratories that may have significant adverse environmental impacts but are not being adequately disclosed or reviewed under the Impact Assessment Act.
During the period November 2020 to March 2021, numerous “section 82” waste-related projects were posted on the Impact Assessment Registry with essentially no information other than the following headings:
81139 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Cask Facility Project 81177 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Intermediate Level Waste Storage Area 81178 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Bulk Storage Laydown Area 81209 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Material Pit Expansion Project 81375 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Building Demolition Project 81389 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Waste Management Area Modification Project 81403 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Heel Storage Removal Project 81424 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Effluent Monitoring Stations Upgrade Project 81443 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Multi-Purpose Waste Handling Facility
For each of these projects, a “Notice of Determination” has now been issued. All have been similar to the one for project 81443:
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) has determined that the proposedMulti-Purpose Waste Handling Facility Project at AECL’s Chalk River site is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects… Therefore, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada may carry out the project, exercise any power, perform any duty or function, or provide financial assistance to enable the project to be carried out in whole or in part.
Beginning on April 1, 2021, our group sent repeated e-mails asking for information on these projects to the contact person listed in the Impact Assessment Registry: Patrick Quinn, Director, Corporate Communications, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Mr. Quinn has sent e-mails in reply promising to provide information, but no information has been forthcoming to date. In the meantime, the 30-day deadlines for public comments on all these projects have passed.
We question the acceptability of a process by which Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a privately-owned company, makes its own determinations that its projects, carried out on federal land, are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
We brought this to the attention of Nana Kwamena, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Assessment Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, on April 8th. She replied:
The projects listed below are activities that CNL is authorized to conduct under its current licence. No additional authorization or assessment is required by CNSC. Therefore, I recommend reaching out directly to CNL to receive additional information about these projects.
We also brought this to the attention of Mr. David McGovern, President of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), We asked “Is Canadian Nuclear Laboratories a federal authority for the purposes of section 81 of the [Impact Assessment] Act? If so, how should we proceed in obtaining information that will allow us to submit comments on this company’s projects?”
On April 16th the IAAC replied that AECL “is the federal authority responsible for making the environmental effects determination required by section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) as it is a Crown corporation,” and AECL “indicated that they work with the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) in implementing their obligations.” IAAC added that “we have been assured that AECL or CNL will be in touch with you shortly to provide answers to any questions you may have on these projects” However, neither AECL nor CNL provided details on the projects prior to the date of this submission.
Lack of transparency and lack of opportunities for public input related to radioactive waste-related activities on federal lands is unacceptable. Full transparency must be a foundational principle of Canada’s radioactive waste policy. It is particularly troubling that the Government of Canada itself is violating this principle.
We note that the Government of Canada has provided $50.5 million to Moltex Energy Canada Inc., to develop a process to “recycle” – extract plutonium from — used nuclear fuel. Moltex has announced that it is partnering with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to “design, build and optimize the test apparatus used to process the used fuel.”
Waste and nuclear weapons proliferation issues related to reprocessing used fuel to extract plutonium for use in small modular reactors have received considerable media attention in recent days. Our group is very concerned that research on this process will be carried out at Chalk River Laboratories, very likely without transparency.
Canada’s radioactive waste policy should prohibit reprocessing of nuclear fuel waste.
Problems identified in this submission — non-transparency, lack of full waste accounting, undocumented waste transport, lack of waste traceability, waste imports from foreign countries, the slippery slope toward waste abandonment, nuclear weapons proliferation risks of plutonium reprocessing, lack of remedial action plans for areas contaminated through past practices, avoidance of environmental assessment – should be addressed in a modernized policy, and through creation of a national radioactive waste authority, independent and arms-length from any government department, crown corporation or agency whose mandate includes the utilization or promotion of nuclear energy.
On April 14, 2021 the City of Ottawa council passed a resolution of concern about the Chalk River and Rolphton radioactive waste disposal projects, joining more than 140 municipalities, the Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus, and the Assembly of First Nations.
Prior to being passed by the full Ottawa City Council, the resolution was studied and passed unanimously by the City’s environment committee after an eight hour meeting on March 30, 2021 which can be viewed here. Among other things, the resolution calls on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to initiate a regional assessment of Ottawa Valley radioactive disposal projects under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019. (See Mayor Jim Watson’s letter to Minister Wilkinson here.)
Here are five reasons to support the City of Ottawa’s call to Minister Jonathan Wilkinson:
1. Radioactive waste in the Ottawa Valley is a very large and complex problem. It makes up the lion’s share of federally-owned “legacy” radioactive wastes, an $8 billion liability for the citizens of Canada.
The radioactive wastes currently on site at the Chalk River Laboratories, upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau, make up most of the Government of Canada’s eight billion dollar nuclear liability. This federal radioactive cleanup liability exceeds the sum total of 2000 other federal environmental liabilities . As Canada’s largest and most complex federal environmental liability, this challenge is worthy of the best and most thorough assessment available under the new Impact Assessment Act.
2. Proposed Ottawa Valley radioactive disposal projects are substandard, highly controversial, and would NOT address many parts of the needed cleanup.
The proposed Chalk River Mound (“Near Surface Disposal Facility”) and Rolphton Reactor Tomb (“NPD Closure Project”) are low budget, inadequate proposals meant to quickly and cheaply reduce Canada’s federal nuclear liabilities. The two projects were proposed five years ago by a consortium of private companies contracted by the Harper government in 2015. The proposals ignore safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and have been found wanting in thousands of critical comments submitted by Indigenous communities, municipalities, former AECL scientists and managers, NGOs, citizens’ groups and individuals.
The projects are expected to leak radioactive contaminants into the Ottawa River for millennia, according to Environmental Impact Statements produced by the proponent. The giant Chalk River Mound is expected to disintegrate as part of a process of “normal evolution” according to the proponent’s “performance assessment” study.
3. Environmental assessments of the giant mound and reactor tomb are being badly fumbled.
The environmental assessments of the NSDF and NPD closure projects were initiated in 2016 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Numerous problems with the CNSC’s handling of the EAs were identified in Environmental Petition 413 to the Auditor General of Canada in January 2018. Problems have continued to arise including lack of opportunity for public input, lack of transparency, and lack of firm deadlines for completion of the assessments. The EAs have been ongoing for far longer than is normal or reasonable for such assessments.
4. The complex challenge of nuclear waste in the Ottawa Valley is NOT addressed by the assessments that are currently ongoing.
Again, the eight billion dollar federal radioactive cleanup liability is the biggest and most expensive federal environmental challenge by far. The vast majority of the wastes comprising this liability are already in the Ottawa Valley at the Chalk River Laboratories. For an indication of the complexity of this challenge at Chalk River see the Ottawa Citizen article by Ian McLeod, Chalk River’s Toxic Legacy. Radioactive wastes not addressed by the mound and the tomb proposals include the three reactor cores dumped in the sand at Chalk River (including one from the 1952 NRX partial meltdown), the highly radioactive solidified medical isotope production wastes (including weapons-grade uranium-235), the tanks of intermediate- and high-activity liquid wastes at the ‘Waste Tank Farm”, the spent fuel from the NRX, NRU and NPD reactors, and the NRX and NRU reactors themselves.
The private sector consortium running Canadian Nuclear Laboratories plans to consolidate the federal governments’s radioactive waste from across Canada in the Ottawa Valley and is already shipping radioactive wastes from Manitoba, Quebec and elsewhere in Ontario to Chalk River. There are serious concerns about consolidating federal nuclear wastes at the Chalk River site, in a seismically-active area, beside a major river (The Kitchissippi/ Ottawa) that provides drinking water for millions of Canadians. Serious concerns about long term storage of radioactive waste in close proximity to water bodies are noted in the Joint Declaration of the Anishinabek Nation Iroquois Caucus on transport and abandonment of radioactive waste. Consolidation of federal government nuclear wastes in the Ottawa Valley and First Nations’ guidance to store waste away from major water bodies are not addressed by the current NSDF and NPD environmental assessments.
CCRCA recently learned that the consortium is going ahead with radioactive waste projects such as a new cask facility to receive shipments of highly-radioactive spent fuel from the Whiteshell (MB) and Gentilly-1 (QC) reactors, and a new intermediate-level waste storage facility that would likely contain dangerous commercial wastes. The consortium is making determinations about the significance of the impacts of these projects on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) with no transparency or public input. Assessment of the risks and implications of these projects should be done through a transparent public process. AECL, which has been reduced from thousands of employees to around 40, appears to be shirking its role of overseeing its contract with the consortium.
The cumulative impacts of all wastes and all current and future projects need to be considered together. A regional assessment could do this.
5. A regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley could address all problems noted above.
A regional assessment could:
make existing baseline data publicly accessible and produce a broad-based analysis of the problem
look at cumulative impacts of all the current and proposed management strategies for Ottawa Valley radioactive wastes, and transport of wastes from Manitoba, southern Ontario and Quebec to Chalk River.
address leaking waste management areas at the Chalk River Labs, radioactive waste imports to the Ottawa Valley and the potential creation of new wastes associated with the proposed new “small modular” reactor research and development
incorporate Indigenous knowledge and priorities
look at the big picture including the need to protect drinking water, property values and tourism and provide secure long-term employment opportunities for Ottawa Valley communities.
provide assurance to the federal government and other levels of government that the largest federal environmental cleanup liability is being properly addressed.
To support the City of Ottawa’s call, please consider writing to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada For your reference, Mayor Jim Watson’s letter to Minister Wilkinson is available for download here.
with cc to: OttawaValley-ValleeOutaouais (IAAC/AEIC) <iaac.ottawavalley-valleeoutaouais.aeic@canada.ca> Please be sure to state that you letter is Re: Canadian Impact Assessment Registry reference number 81624, “Potential regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley”
The Minister is required to respond to Ottawa’s request by July 31, 2021, so send your letters as soon as possible. But don’t hesitate to send them after July 31st too, as this issue is not going away any time soon.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 