Uncategorized
Don’t approve Nuclear Waste regulations which put Canadians at risk, says NDP Natural Resources Critic Richard Cannings
Office of/Bureau du Richard Cannings MP South Okanagan – West Kootenay
June 17, 2020
Don’t approve Nuclear Waste regulations which put Canadians at risk,
says NDP Natural Resources Critic Richard Cannings
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) should not approve a suite of regulatory documents on radioactive waste at its meeting June 18, 2020 and instead live up to the Liberal government’s commitment to openness and transparency for regulatory development. Some of these regulations developed by commission staff are at best vague guidelines that leave nuclear waste policy decisions in the hands of private industry, instead of actually prescribing actions that are in the public interest.
These regulatory changes would pave the way for several controversial nuclear waste disposal projects, including a giant mound at Chalk River, Ontario, two entombments of shut- down reactors, and a proposed deep geological repository for the burial of high-level nuclear fuel waste.
This proposal does not meet Canada’s commitment to meeting or surpassing international standards for the handling of nuclear waste. For example, the entombment of nuclear reactors is designated as “in-situ decommissioning”, a practice that the International Atomic Energy Agency says should only be used as a last option for facilities damaged in accidents.
Of further concern is the lack of clarity in the proposed regulations. In many cases the licensee is directed to develop safety requirements with no explicit directions as to what those safety requirements are. The giant mound at Chalk River is meant to contain up to 1 million cubic metres of low- to intermediate-activity nuclear waste but these activity levels are not defined and the private owner of the facility would get to decide what materials are stored in that mound of nuclear waste.
The Minister of Natural Resources has committed to consulting Canadians on a policy framework and strategy for radioactive waste. Instead we have this backdoor process with limited public input and no parliamentary oversight. The minister should be conducting a public process to develop a Canadian framework for radioactive waste management that meets or exceeds international best practices, a framework that does not allow the nuclear industry to police itself.
Le Devoir Op Ed: Des déchets radioactifs de faible activité
le 13 juin, 2020 (English translation follows)
Par Gilles Provost, journaliste scientifique à la retraite
Pendant que les médias parlent de coronavirus et d’émeutes raciales, le Canada s’affaire à tromper le public en détournant la définition de ses déchets radioactifs.
Les déchets de faible activité, par exemple, sont depuis toujours des produits radioactifs assez inoffensifs pour qu’on puisse les manipuler à main nue, sans blindage de protection. Or, dans quelques jours à peine, ces mêmes mots « déchets de faible activité » vont désigner des produits radioactifs mille fois plus dangereux, souvent mortels au toucher.
Ce détournement linguistique est caché dans un règlement-fleuve que la Commission canadienne de sureté nucléaire (CCSN) prévoit adopter le 18 juin prochain. Le règlement prévoit qu’un produit radioactif sera « de faible activité » dès qu’il sera possible de l’éliminer sécuritairement à moins de 30 mètres de profondeur (« près de la surface »), quitte à l’envelopper d’une chape de plomb ou de béton!
Un seul critère à respecter : ces déchets devront contenir surtout des produits radioactifs à vie courte, dont le danger aura disparu en « quelques siècles ». La logique ici, c’est qu’un dépotoir près de la surface est vulnérable à l’érosion et aux intrusions humaines. Comme ses systèmes d’isolement et de protection ont une espérance de vie limitée, on ne devrait y mettre que des déchets qui vont se désintégrer rapidement. Leur danger doit disparaître plus vite que le dépotoir.
L’illogisme, ce n’est pas de créer cette nouvelle classe de déchets; c’est plutôt de conserver l’ancienne appellation qui devient alors trompeuse. On ne peut pas parler de déchets de faible activité si on ne tient même plus compte de leur niveau d’activité!
Pire, on se heurte alors à une absurdité scientifique : L’activité d’un produit radioactif, en physique, c’est sa vitesse de désintégration. Plus il se désintègre rapidement, plus son activité est forte. Cela veut dire qu’un produit radioactif de forte activité selon la physique serait maintenant un déchet de faible activité, selon la nouvelle définition décrétée par la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire!
L’erreur est si grossière qu’elle en devient incroyable, compte tenu de l’expertise de la Commission. Je m’attendais donc à ce que tout soit vite corrigé si je signalais le problème à ses experts et à sa présidente.
Pas du tout! La dernière version du règlement, vieille de quelques jours, définit pour la première fois que les déchets de faible activité « sont appropriés pour évacuation dans des installations de gestion près de la surface » mais elle ne change pas leur nom pour autant. On persiste à les dire « de faible activité » même quand leur activité réelle est astronomique et mortelle. L’erreur est délibérée!
L’erreur a aussi des effets pratiques puisque la Commission se prépare à approuver une « installation de gestion de déchets près de la surface » à Chalk River, à côté de la rivière des Outaouais dont l’eau potable alimente Gatineau, Laval et Montréal. Ce dépôt recevra plus d’un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs civils et militaires qui appartiennent au gouvernement fédéral. Celui-ci nous promet que l’installation durera 500 ans même s’il s’agit d’un monticule de déchets entassés sur une colline. (C’est aussi cela, « près de la surface »!)
Depuis octobre 2017, le promoteur de ce monticule radioactif répète sur toutes les tribunes qu’il va y stocker « uniquement des déchets de faible activité ». C’était chaque fois un mensonge. Ses communications secrètes avec la Commission, obtenues grâce à la loi sur l’accès à l’information, révèlent au contraire qu’il n’a jamais eu l’intention d’exclure de son projet les déchets trop radioactifs pour qu’on puisse les toucher sans blindage. Parmi les 134 000 mètres cubes de barils et de conteneurs radioactifs qu’il prévoit entasser dans son monticule, aucun ne contient des déchets que vous pourriez toucher sans blindage.
Désormais, par la magie du nouveau règlement qui change le sens des mots, tout déchet radioactif placé dans ce dépôt deviendra par définition « de faible activité ». Toutes les promesses mensongères des trois dernières années deviendront vraies.
Heureusement que la Commission de sûreté nucléaire veille à notre sécurité!
It’s Only Low Level Radioactive Waste!
By Gilles Provost, retired science journalist
While the media are talking about coronaviruses and racial riots, Canada is trying to deceive the public by hijacking the definition of its radioactive waste.
Low-level radioactive waste, for example, has always been harmless enough to be handled with bare hands without protective shielding. However, just a few days from now, these very same words “low level waste” will refer to radioactive products a thousand times more dangerous, often deadly to the touch.
This semantic perversion is hidden in a mega-regulation the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) plans to adopt on June 18. This new regulation stipulate that any radioactive waste will be “Low Level” (faible activité/weak activity in French) as soon as it can be disposed of safely at less than 30 meters underground (“near-surface”), even if it also needs to be wrapped in a lead or concrete screed!
Only one constraint: this waste must mostly made of short-lived radioactive elements, the danger of which will have disappeared “a few hundred years” from now. The rational here is that any near-surface dumping site will be vulnerable to erosion and human intrusion. Since its isolation and containment systems have such a limited life expectancy, it should only contain waste that decay quickly. The hazard must disappear faster than the dump.
The absurdity here is not to create this new waste classification; it is rather to keep the old name which then becomes misleading. We cannot talk about low-level/weak activity waste if we don’t even take its activity level into account!
Worse, this is also a scientific nonsense: The activity of a radionuclide, in physics, is its decay rate. The faster it decays, the stronger the activity. This means that any radioactive waste which has a high activity level according to physics would now be a Low Level/weak activity waste, according to the new CNSC definition!
The mistake is gross enough to be unbelievable, given the Commission expertise. So much so that I expected everything to be fixed quickly if I reported the problem to its experts and its president.
Not at all! The latest version of the regulation, a few days old, now defines Low-Level waste as “suitable for disposal in near surface facilities” but has not changed the name accordingly. They persist in calling it Low Level/weak activity” waste even when its real activity level is astronomical and deadly. The misunderstanding is intentional!
The confusion also has practical effects since the Commission is preparing to approve a “Near Surface Disposal Facility” at Chalk River, next to the Ottawa River which serve as the drinking water source for Ottawa, Laval and Montreal. This facility will receive at least a million tons of civilian and military radioactive waste belonging to the federal government. We are also being told that this dumping ground will last for 500 years even if it is a mound of waste piled up on a hill. (Yes, “near surface” may also mean that!)
Since October 2017, the promoter of this radioactive mound has been repeating again and again that it will only contain ” Low Level Waste”. It was a lie each and every time. His secret communications with the Commission, obtained thanks to the Access to Information Act, reveal on the contrary that he never intended to exclude any waste that we should not touch without shielding. Among the 134,000 cubic meters of barrels and radioactive containers he plans to pile up in his mound, none contains waste that could be touched without shielding.
From now on, by the magic of this new regulation which redefines word’s meaning, any radioactive waste placed in this repository will by definition become “Low Level/Weak Activity Waste”. All the false promises of the past three years will become true.
Thankfully, the Nuclear Safety Commission is keeping us safe!
Hill Times Op Ed: Proposed radioactive waste disposal rules are weak and industry-friendly
OPINION
Proposed radioactive waste disposal rules are weak and industry-friendly
By OLE HENDRICKSON JUNE 12, 2020
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is on the cusp of approving new rules for the disposal of nuclear waste in Canada.
Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan, pictured delivering the opening keynote at the Canadian Nuclear Association’s annual conference in Ottawa on Feb. 27, 2020. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through Mr. O’Regan. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade
On June 18th, Canada’s industry-friendly regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), will formalize new guidance and requirements for disposal of radioactive waste. The CNSC’s new rules are tailored to allow the nuclear industry to “solve” its waste problem as easily and cheaply as possible.
While the CNSC claims to have consulted the public in preparing five new regulatory documents (“REGDOCs”) for radioactive waste storage and disposal, the documents largely reflect the agency’s separate interactions with industry giants such as Cameco, Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (a privately-owned corporation controlled by U.S. interests).
With Canadian nuclear reactors approaching the end of their useful life, or already shut down, the CNSC’s proposal to allow permanent, on-site disposal (and eventual abandonment) of radioactive waste at existing nuclear facilities is attracting criticism.
This strategy, known as “in-situ decommissioning”, is expressly supported in a new CNSC decommissioning REGDOC, even though its use is specifically proscribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Plans to use existing nuclear facilities for permanent waste disposal were initially set out in a 2014 Canadian Standards Association document prepared by industry and government nuclear officials. This document identifies “in situ confinement—to place the facility in a safe and secure condition with the intention to abandon in-place” as a decommissioning strategy option.
In 2015, the consortium of multinational companies that owns Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and operates the federal government’s nuclear sites (including six shut-down reactors) proposed to use this option for federal reactors in Ontario and Manitoba—to entomb them in concrete and grout. These proposals triggered federal environmental assessments that are being led by the CNSC.
In February 2020 the IAEA released a review of Canada’s nuclear safety framework, and observed that “The CNSC is currently considering two licence applications related to in situ confinement of legacy reactor facilities. This strategy of in-situ confinement is not consistent with SSG-47.”
SSG-47 is the 2018 IAEA Specific Safety Guide, Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, Research Reactors and Other Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. The IAEA suggested that CNSC “consider revising its current and planned requirements in the area of decommissioning to align with the IAEA guidance.”
But tather than following IAEA guidance that “entombment is not considered an acceptable strategy for planned decommissioning,” the CNSC decommissioning REGDOC to be approved on June 18th says “In situ decommissioning may be considered a solution… for legacy sites.”
The REGDOC then goes further, opening the door for abandonment of future nuclear facilities such as small modular reactors if their removal is not “practicable”.
Approval of this REGDOC and four others dealing with radioactive waste is being rushed by the CNSC behind closed doors during the coronavirus pandemic. The CNSC dismissed a written request from civil society groups to speak at, or even make written submissions for, its so-called “public meeting” on June 18th.
Civil society groups have long noted that Canada lacks policies and strategies for managing radioactive waste. Federal policy is limited to a 143-word Radioactive Waste Policy Framework that does not mention the fundamental principle of dealing with radioactive waste in a manner that protects human health—now and in the future—without imposing undue burdens on future generations.
In February, the IAEA recommended that “The Government of Canada should enhance the existing policy and establish the associated strategy to give effect to the principles stated in its Radioactive Waste Policy Framework.” The government responded that “Natural Resources Canada will review its existing policy for radioactive waste, and consider how it may be enhanced.”
NRCan officials say this review will include consultation with Indigenous groups and the public, but its start has been delayed by the pandemic.
It appears that the CNSC has decided to move quickly to pre-empt this government review, so as to allow maximum flexibility for the nuclear industry to use quick and cheap options to deal with its vexing challenge of radioactive waste disposal. When it comes to protecting people from exposure to harmful radiation, the fox is guarding the chicken house.
Ole Hendrickson is a retired environmental scientist, and a member of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
CCRCA comments on scope of MMR project at Chalk River
Micro Modular Reactor Project at Chalk River: Comments on the proposed scope of factors to be considered in the conduct of an EA (Impact Assessment Agency Reference #80182)
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
June 1, 2020
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area wishes to comment on factors to be considered in the environmental assessment of a “small modular reactor” (SMR) proposed to be built at the Chalk River Laboratories, located in Renfrew County on the Ottawa River. We are a non-governmental, volunteer organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for over 40 years.
Global First Power – a partnership between Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation and Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) – is proposing to build a “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories. The MMR project description says OPG would “provide licensing and operations capability for the MMR facility during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the project.” Project funding sources are unclear, but Global First Power said in a May 20th “SMR Telephone Town Hall” that the MMR would cost in the range of $100 to $200 million dollars.
With regard to the environmental assessment of this project, CMD 20-H102, Submission from CNSC Staff on the Proposed Scope of Factors to be Considered in the Conduct of an Environmental Assessment for a Project Proposed by Global First Power, recommends that “the scope of the factors for this EA include the factors mandated in paragraphs 19(1)(a) to (h) of the CEAA 2012 and no additional factors.”
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) was bundled into an omnibus budget bill and passed in great haste and secrecy, without an opportunity for careful consideration by Parliamentarians. In contrast, Canada’s House of Commons and Senate had prolonged and sometimes contentious debates in 2019 before passing the Impact Assessment Act– which supersedes CEAA 2012. However, the MMR project was launched just prior to the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act. Its project assessment under CEAA 2012 may not benefit from the new Act’s measures pertaining to sustainability and Indigenous rights, to name a few, that are now legal requirements.
In Section 22 (1) of the new Act, the list of “factors to be considered” in a project assessment differs from the equivalent section 19 (1) of the old Act. Parliament added the following factors, all of which are relevant to the MMR project and should be included in the scope of the project assessment:
- the “need for” the project;
- the extent to which the designated project contributes to sustainability;
- alternative means of carrying out the project that include use of “best available technologies”;
- the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
- “community knowledge provided with respect to the designated project”; and
- “the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change.”
The project’s ability to contribute to Canada’s climate change commitments must include the project’s carbon dioxide and GHG emissions. The CNSC’s Interim Strategy for Environmental Assessments (https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/greenhouse-gas-emission-assessments-canadian-nuclear-fuel-cycle.cfm, proposes “that proponents assess the total GHG production as part of CNSC-led environmental assessments,” using “a lifecycle analysis approach that includes estimation of upstream and downstream GHG emissions,” that “may include the following stages:
- mining and milling
- refining
- fuel fabrication
- nuclear power plant
- waste disposal (low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste disposal).”
All five stages are relevant to the MMR project. The CNSC should require the proponent to carefully evaluate the emissions from each of these stages, including all the uncertainties involved. In particular, GHG emissions associated with the MMR fuel fabrication stage (involving production of enriched U-235 fuel not currently used in Canadian nuclear power reactors) should be thoroughly assessed.
The MMR project would represent “the first commercial deployment of a private sector funded Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology in Canada,” intended to “demonstrate the commercial viability of the MMR technology to prospective customers.” This is not intended to be a “one-off” project. It has implications for future deployment of SMRs, and should be assessed with this in mind.
The MMR project description refers to remote communities “with no access to grid power for their heating and electricity needs” as prospective customers for MMR deployment. Many of these remote communities are Indigenous; however, the increased protections provided to Indigenous rights in the new Impact Assessment Act are not requirements within CEAA 2012. To quote from the new Act, “the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” must be considered as a factor in the project assessment. We further note that the Chalk River Laboratories were established without consultation or accommodation with Algonquin peoples who never ceded their rights to the 3,700 hectare site. At a minimum, the MMR project will be located on this site for several decades, potentially with impacts lasting thousands of years. The proponent should consider in detail the MMR project’s impact on the exercise of their traditional rights.
Our group made a previous submission on the project description with details on a number of technical issues (waste management, description of physical works related to the project, accident probabilities, nuclear weapons proliferation risks). We requested these be addressed in the EA. We repeat our request that our previous submission be addressed in the consideration of the scope of the EA.
In that submission we noted that the project description does not describe “Financial support that federal authorities are, or may be, providing to the project,” which is a requirement of the Prescribed Information for the Description of a Designated Project Regulations under CEAA 2012. We questioned the proponent’s assertion that “Federal authorities are not providing financial support to the Project,” and noted that this side-stepped the issue of support that may be provided to the project in the future.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the federal crown corporation that owns the Chalk River site, provides the privately-owned Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) with roughly a billion dollars annually in federal funding. CNL has created a Canadian Nuclear Research Initiative “to make CNL’s technical capabilities and expert knowledge available and accessible to the SMR community in order to equip them with the technical support required to progress towards SMR deployment in Canada,” and is negotiating terms of a cost sharing arrangementwithUltra Safe Nuclear Corporation “to resolve a broad array of technical questions in support of its Micro Modular Reactor (MMR).”
Noting the MMR project objective of demonstrating commercial viability of SMRs, we ask that the following additional factor be included in the scope of the EA: Financial support from government authorities, including the crown corporations AECL and OPG, for the project. The assessment should also detail any in-kind support that AECL and OPG have given or expect to be offering in the future.
Finally, we wish to raise an issue regarding the process through which the CNSC’s Commission will make its determination on the scope of the MMR EA. The scope of three previous EAs currently being conducted under CEAA 2012 was approved by a panel composed solely of the CEO and President of the CNSC, who also serves as Commission Chair. A Commission Decision on the Scope of Environmental Assessments for three proposed projects at existing Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ facilities wasmade at a Commission Hearing on March 8, 2017 with the only Member present being the past CNSC President, Michael Binder. While this is shown on the CNSC website as a “Hearing in writing,” no Notice of Meeting was issued prior to this “public” hearing, and no documentation was available for consideration other than a written submission from CNSC staff (CMD 17-H100).
In the current matter, CMD 20-H102 refers to a “Hearing in writing based solely on written submissions scheduled for June 2020,” with no further details as to the date of the hearing, which Commissioners may be present, whether the public would be allowed to listen to any discussions that might take place, or whether submissions such as the present one will be included as CMDs for the hearing.
Based on the limited information currently available, the decision-making process for the hearing on the scope of the MMR EA could be similar, if not identical, to that followed for the March 8, 2017 hearing.
Given that the current CNSC President and CEO, who is also Chair of the Commission, is a former senior manager responsible for new nuclear reactor projects at OPG – and given that OPG would “provide licensing and operations capability for the MMR facility during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the project” – using a “Hearing in writing” with only the current Commission Chair present creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.
We recommend that the CNSC use an alternative decision-making process for the scoping decision that provides transparency and that does not affect public trust in the independence and credibility of the regulator. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also recommend an extension in the submission deadline for comments, so that all interested parties have ample time to consider this important matter.
Fascinating history of Chalk River’s nuclear waste
Update on EAs for CNLs nuclear waste disposal projects
from Kerrie Blaise, Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association
For both NPD and Whiteshell, the revised EIS has been found to be incomplete and the CNSC has sent it back to the proponent. The CNSC is currently undertaking their completeness review for NSDF.
1. Whiteshell DecommissioningStatus: Revised EIS deficient and sent back to proponentProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80124
April 30, 2020 – On March 27, 2020, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) submitted a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed In Situ Decommissioning Of the Whiteshell Reactor #1 Project to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), which included an updated EIS, updated technical supporting documents, and consolidated responses to all federal and provincial information requests. CNSC staff conducted a completeness check and determined that insufficient information was provided to enable the federal and provincial review team to proceed with the EIS technical review. CNL is expected to provide additional information and resubmit the revised EIS and supporting documents at a later date.
2. Near Surface Disposal FacilityStatus: Completeness review underwayProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80122
April 9, 2020 – The Federal and Provincial Review Team (FPRT) has completed their technical review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility, including updated supporting documents, and responses to all federal and provincial comments and information requests (IRs) (step 26 in Appendix A of the CNL–CNSC Administrative Protocol for the Proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility), available here.
Led by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal and provincial authorities that participated in the technical review included Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Quebec Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changement climatiques. The FPRT technical review resulted in 37 IRs in total, several of these follow-up comments on existing IRs as well as several new IRs resulting from the review of new information. The CNSC submitted the consolidated table of federal and provincial comments from the FPRT technical review to CNL on April 3, 2020. CNL must now respond to these additional federal and provincial comments. The CNSC, in collaboration with the FPRT, will then make a determination on whether the information provided in CNL’s submissions is complete.
3. Nuclear Power Demonstration Status: Revised EIS deficient and sent back to proponentProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80121
May 05, 2020 – On March 31, 2020, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) submitted a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), which included an updated EIS, updated technical supporting documents, and responses to all federal and provincial comments and information requests. CNSC staff conducted a completeness check and determined that insufficient information was provided to enable the federal and provincial review team to proceed with the EIS technical review. CNL is expected to provide additional information and resubmit the revised EIS and supporting documents at a later date.
Une centaine de groupes exigent un gel de tous les projets en courstant qu’Ottawa n’aura pas bouché les trous béants de sa politique
COMMUNIQUÉ DE PRESSE Déchets radioactifs
Ottawa le 19 mai 2020. Plus d’une centaine d’organisations citoyennes et d’éminents scientifiques de toutes les régions du Canada ont demandé au ministre canadien des Ressources naturelles, Seamus O’Regan, de suspendre toute décision sur l’élimination des déchets radioactifs au Canada tant que le pays ne se sera pas doté d’une politique complète sur les déchets radioactifs.
En février 2020, l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) a fait savoir au gouvernement canadien que sa politique-cadre en matière de déchets radioactifs n’inclut pas tous les éléments de politique requis ni la stratégie détaillée qui fourniraient un plan d’action national pour la gestion à long terme des déchets radioactifs et pour le démantèlement des installations nucléaires au Canada. Dans leur lettre, les signataires demandent que le Canada « s’engage à vraiment consulter les peuples autochtones, [et] à fortement impliquer le public dès le départ » dans l’élaboration des politiques sur les déchets nucléaires canadiens et des stratégies associées à ce développement.
Les signataires soulignent aussi l’urgence de leur demande puisque la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire qui réglemente le nucléaire au Canada se prépare à prendre des décisions sur plusieurs demandes de permis qui concernent les déchets radioactifs. Les signataires craignent donc que les lacunes de la politique-cadre canadienne en matière de déchets radioactifs ne viennent miner les décisions qui vont affecter la santé et la sécurité des générations futures et de notre environnement. C’est pourquoi ils exigent que le Canada manifeste son leadership en définissant un cadre adéquat et une politique nationale.
Le Canada devrait aussi établir des objectifs et les principes qui devraient fonder cette politique et cette stratégie sur les déchets radioactifs, disent les signataires. Ils veulent en outre que le Canada décrive clairement les problèmes et les enjeux que soulève l’accumulation constante des déchets radioactifs.
Le texte de la lettre adressée au ministre est disponible en français et en anglais.
Lien : http://ccnr.org/Lettre_Ministre_ORegan_15_mai_2020.pdfLink : http://ccnr.org/Letter_Minister_ORegan_15_May_2020.pdf
-30-
Radiation Exposure and Cancer Incidence (1990 to 2008) around Nuclear Power Plants in Ontario, Canada
This study, by staff of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission purports to show that radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants in Ontario are not harming Canadians. It may in fact show the opposite. We offer the following observations about this study:
The Pickering results are suspect. The authors should have noted that emissions of nuclear substances from the six, 500-megawatt operating reactors at Pickering over the period of the study were less than from the four, 900-megawatt reactors at Darlington or the eight, 800-megawatt reactors at Bruce. But they did not.
Inclusion of Pickering skews the study. The very large population living within 25 km of the Pickering facility would be subject to many other influences on cancer incidence, including positive factors.
The authors should have looked at a smaller radius around Pickering – say, 10-15 km. In general, the study would have been much stronger had they done variable radii around all three reactor sites.
Also, the positive associations between cancer incidence and proximity to the Bruce and Darlington reactors are much stronger that the weak (and spurious) negative association in the Pickering data.
From the study:
“However, the number of cases varies considerably between the three
NPPs due to the large differences in population size of people living
within 25 km of Pickering, Darlington and Bruce NPPs (1,580,000;
380,000; and 24,500 respectively, based on the 2006 census year).”
(quote from p. 893).
Table 10, Bruce – 9% significant increase in incidence of all
cancers, 17% significant increase in incidence of lung cancer, 17%
significant increase in incidence of colon and rectal cancer. Total
observed cancers – 2570. Total expected cancers – 2362. Excess
cancers – 208 out of a population of 24,500.
Table 9, Darlington – 8% significant increase in incidence of all
cancers, 12% significant increase in incidence of lung cancer, 7%
significant increase in incidence of colon and rectal cancer, 8%
significant increase in incidence of thyroid cancer, 19% significant
increase in in incidence of bladder cancer, 26% significant increase
in in incidence of leukemia. Total observed cancers – 24,707. Total
expected cancers – 22,853. Excess cancers – 1,854 out of a
population of 380,000.
Excess cancers at Bruce and Darlington – 2,062 over an 18-year
period in a population at the end of that period of 404,500 – more
than a 0.5% increase of cancer.
Table 8, Pickering – The much larger population (1,580,000) within 25
km of the Pickering NPPs – which includes portions of Scarborough,
Ajax and Whitby – showed a lower overall cancer incidence than the
Ontario average, although incidence of thyroid cancer was
significantly increased (by 41%).
Our comment:
Lane et al. dismiss radiation as an explanation for the elevated
cancer incidence around Bruce and Darlington because “public doses
from environmental releases of radionuclides from Ontario NPPs
represent a very small fraction of natural background radiation (1.338
and 2.02 mSv/year) in the regions where the NPPs are located.” Based
on their “dose” calculations, they say that “Therefore, on the basis
of current radiation risk estimates and the supporting epidemiological
literature, radiation is not a plausible explanation for any excess
cancers observed within 25 km of any Ontario NPP.”
In fact it would appear that there is clear evidence of excess
cancers within 25 km of the Bruce and Darlington nuclear reactor
sites, but that the authors dismissed radiation as a cause of these
cancers because that would conflict with “current radiation risk
estimates”.
Des groupes supplient Trudeau de réparer les failles de notre gestion nucléaire
Pour publication immédiate
(Montréal, le 8 avril 2020) Trois organisations indépendantes—l’Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement, le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire et l’Institut sur la rivière des Outaouais ont écrit au premier ministre pour lui souligner que les normes de sécurité nucléaires ainsi que toute la gestion des questions nucléaires au Canada ne protègent pas adéquatement les CanadienNEs contre les douzaines de polluants radioactifs dangereux provenant des installations nucléaires.
Dans une lettre au premier ministre Justin Trudeau datée du 3 avril, on note d’importantes lacunes dans le cadre de la sécurité nucléaire et de la gestion nucléaire qui exigent l’urgente attention du gouvernement. Les auteurs s’inspirent d’un récent rapport communiqué au gouvernement par l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIÉA) concernant la sécurité nucléaire au Canada.
L’étude du cadre de sécurité nucléaire canadien par l’AIÉA a constaté que <<la règlementation de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) ne répond pas adéquatement à toutes les exigences fondamentales de sécurité de l’AIÉA. Le rapport confirme plusieurs préoccupations déjà soulevées par les groupes canadiens d’intérêt public.
Voici les lacunes spécifiques soulignées par l’AIÉA:
- le régulateur canadien a l’intention de permettre que les installations nucléaires à venir (comme les petits réacteurs modulaires) et les vieux réacteurs nucléaires radioactivement contaminés soient ensevelis et abandonnés sur place, une pratique explicitement rejetée par l’AIÉA;
- l’AIÉA n’a trouvé « aucune trace… d’une politique ou d’une stratégie gouvernementale de gestion des déchets nucléaires » ;
- la législation nucléaire canadienne n’exige aucune justification des risques de radiation de la part des installations nucléaires; l’AIÉA considère que, pour que les installations et les activités nucléaires soient considérées être justifiées, on doit démontrer que leurs bénéfices surpassent les risques de rayonnement qu’elles engendrent;
- le système canadien de gestion du transport des matières radioactives ne se conforme pas à la règlementation de l’AIÉA;
- il y a des problèmes dans la façon que le Canada autorise les relâchements de radioactivité de ses installations nucléaires;
- les présentes règlementations et celles proposées ne protègent pas adéquatement les travailleuses, étudiantes et apprenties enceintes contre les risques de radiation; elles permettent des doses quatre fois plus élevées pour les travailleuses du nucléaires enceintes que les normes de l’AIÉA.
« Nous sommes fortement préoccupés par ces lacunes » a déclaré le Dr. Éric Notebaert de l’Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement. « Nous croyons fermement que le Canada néglige de protéger adéquatement les CanadienNEs contre de dangereuses substances radioactives qui sont reconnues pour causer des cancers, de sérieuses maladies chroniques, des malformations génétiques et des dommages génétiques qui sont passés aux générations futures.»
La lettre au premier ministre souligne que ces lacunes dans les pratiques de sécurité nucléaire identifiées entre autres par l’AIÉA font en sorte que le Canada est vulnérable à des décisions insensées au niveau des investissements dans de nouvelles technologies nucléaires.
« L’empressement du Canada à promouvoir et à investir dans les petits réacteurs modulaires est mal avisée » affirme le Dr Gordon Edwards, président du Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire, « tout particulièrement du fait que ces réacteurs ont été exemptés d’une évaluation environnementale. Ces réacteurs vont produire des déchets radioactifs de toutes sortes, et il n’y a aucune politique de gestion à long terme. Alors qu’il n’y a pas besoin de « justifier » les exposition aux radiations en provenance de ces nouveaux réacteurs, les entrepreneurs et les provinces peuvent s’y engager sans vraiment se soucier d’alternatives plus rapides, moins dispendieuses et à moindres risques pour réduire les émissions de carbone. »
La lettre attire également l’attention aux problèmes de gouvernance énumérés dans la Pétition environnementale 427 à la vérificatrice générale du Canada. On y trouve (1) une législation périmée et inadéquate, (2) une surveillance gouvernementale inadéquate, (3) une absence des freins et contrepoids, (4) un manque total de politique fédérale en matière de déchets nucléaires et de démantèlement de réacteurs, et (5) le problème du parti pris de règlementation de la part de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire.
Les auteurs de la lettre appuient la recommandation dans la Pétition 427 de créer une équipe multidisciplinaire, à un haut niveau, des différentes parties concernées qui pourrait conseiller le gouvernement concernant les besoins de réformer la gouvernance nucléaire au Canada.
– 30 –
Contacts:
Dr. Gordon Edwards, Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire
514-489-5118 Cell: 514-839-7214
Dr. Ole Hendrickson, Institut sur la rivière des Outaouais
613-234-0578
Hyperliens :
La lettre au Premier Ministre, avril 3 2020:
www.ccnr.org/Letter_Trudeau_03_04_2020_e.pdf
Le rapport de l’AIEA (en anglais):
La pétition 427 en matière d’environnement à la vérificatrice générale du Canada, juin 2019.
Résumé de la pétition (en anglais) : https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_427_e_43421.html
Texte intégral de la pétition (en anglais) :
Environmental Petition: Nuclear governance problems in Canada
L’examen international par les pairs révèle des lacunes dans le cadre de sûreté nucléaire du Canada. Citoyens concernés du comté et de la région de Renfrew, février 2020. https://concernedcitizens.net/2020/03/07/international-peer-review-finds-deficiencies-in-canadas-nuclear-safety-framework/
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 