Chalk River nuclear waste

Hill Times ~ Le déluge souligne l’importance de l’audience finale pour le dépôt de déchets nucléaires – Audience finale des délégations de trois premières nations

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

THE HILL TIMES | LUNDI 21 AOÛT 2023

Il est grand temps que le gouvernement s’occupe de cette catastrophe environnementale en devenir, un problème grave qui s’aggravera si on l’ignore.

OTTAWA – Le 10 août, la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire a tenu une audience finale sur l’autorisation d’un gigantesque dépôt de déchets radioactifs en surface près de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d’Ottawa-Gatineau et de Montréal, à Chalk River (Ontario), qui a créé un précédent.

Des délégations de trois Premières Nations algonquines – Kebaowek, Kitigan Zibi et Barriere Lake – se sont réunies au 50 Sussex Dr. à Ottawa pour faire leurs présentations finales en personne aux membres de la communauté, aux alliés non autochtones et à une poignée de représentants élus, au mépris d’un décret de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) stipulant que l’audience ne serait que virtuelle. La CCSN a présidé l’audience via Zoom.

Pendant l’audience, une tempête sans précédent s’est abattue sur le site, avec d’énormes quantités de pluie, de tonnerre, de grêle et de vent qui ont soufflé sur les chaises de la terrasse extérieure couverte où la foule en surnombre regardait les débats. Malgré la férocité de l’orage, les aînés algonquins ont entretenu un feu sacré cérémoniel tout au long de la cérémonie.

Si le projet est approuvé, la décharge géante, appelée “installation de stockage en surface” (IGDPS) par le promoteur, contiendrait un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs et dangereux dans un monticule en surface sur la propriété des laboratoires de Chalk River, une installation nucléaire fédérale fortement contaminée établie sur des terres algonquines volées en 1944 afin de produire du plutonium pour les armes nucléaires américaines. Les laboratoires de Chalk River représentent un énorme passif environnemental pour le gouvernement du Canada, avec un coût de dépollution estimé à plusieurs milliards de dollars.

Le promoteur de la décharge est un consortium multinational composé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux multinationales basées au Texas : Fluor et Jacobs. Le consortium a été engagé par le gouvernement conservateur en 2015 pour réduire rapidement et à moindre coût l’énorme responsabilité fédérale en matière de déchets nucléaires hérités. Paradoxalement, les coûts pour les contribuables de la gestion des déchets radioactifs hérités du gouvernement fédéral canadien ont grimpé à plus d’un milliard de dollars par an après la privatisation.

L’audition du 10 août a créé un précédent à deux égards. Si elle est approuvée, l’IGDPS sera la toute première installation de stockage permanent des déchets de réacteurs nucléaires au Canada. Deuxièmement, la décision d’autoriser ou non l’installation est un test important de l’engagement du Canada envers la Déclaration des Nations unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones, qui interdit le stockage de déchets radioactifs sur les terres des peuples autochtones sans leur consentement libre, préalable et éclairé. Dix des onze Premières nations algonquines, dont les membres vivent dans la vallée de l’Outaouais depuis des temps immémoriaux, ont déclaré qu’elles ne consentaient pas à ce que l’ IGDPS soit implanté sur leur territoire non cédé.

Bon nombre des déchets qu’il est proposé d’éliminer dans le NSDF resteront dangereux et radioactifs pendant des milliers, voire des millions d’années, selon le Dr. J.R. Walker, le plus grand expert canadien en matière de déchets radioactifs hérités du gouvernement fédéral et de la meilleure façon de les gérer. M. Walker a clairement indiqué que les déchets proposés pour l’IGDPS ne sont pas des déchets de faible activité, mais des déchets radioactifs de “niveau intermédiaire” qui devraient être éliminés à des dizaines, voire des centaines de mètres sous la surface du sol. Il a également affirmé que la proposition n’était pas conforme aux normes de sécurité internationales.

Le site proposé pour l’IGDPS se trouve sur le flanc d’une colline entourée de zones humides qui se jettent dans la rivière des Outaouais, à moins d’un kilomètre de là.

La déclaration d’impact sur l’environnement du promoteur documente les nombreuses façons dont la décharge pourrait fuir pendant son exploitation et après sa fermeture. Trois isotopes du plutonium figurent sur la longue liste des radionucléides qui seraient rejetés dans la rivière des Outaouais dans les “effluents traités” de la décharge. Le monticule devrait se dégrader, s’éroder et finalement se désintégrer en raison de “l’évolution naturelle”.

La plupart des gens pensent qu’il est répréhensible de déverser délibérément des matières radioactives dans une importante source d’eau potable telle que la rivière des Outaouais, car il n’existe pas de niveau d’exposition sûr à ces poisons fabriqués par l’homme. Chaque rejet accidentel ou délibéré augmente les risques de cancer, de malformations congénitales et de dommages génétiques chez les populations exposées.

L’Assemblée des Premières Nations et plus de 140 municipalités situées en aval, dont Ottawa, Gatineau et Montréal, ont adopté des résolutions exprimant leur inquiétude à l’égard de la proposition du IGDPS.

Malgré les nombreuses lacunes et la forte opposition, le personnel de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire n’a jamais hésité à soutenir le projet de décharge. Il semble qu’il n’ait jamais reçu le mémo en 2000 lorsque le mandat de l’organisation a été modifié par une nouvelle législation, passant d’un rôle de promotion de l’industrie nucléaire à un mandat strictement axé sur la protection des Canadiens et de l’environnement.

L’audience du 10 août a été présidée par un seul commissaire, ainsi que par la présidente de la CCSN. Leurs curriculum vitae respectifs font état de longs états de service et d’allégeance à l’industrie nucléaire. Les deux fonctionnaires n’ont pas posé une seule question aux équipes d’intervenants des Premières nations, qui étaient manifestement choquées par le manque d’intérêt pour les informations qu’elles s’étaient donné tant de mal à rassembler et à partager. Un membre de l’équipe a demandé : “Pouvons-nous vous poser des questions ?”, ce à quoi le président a sèchement répondu : “Ce n’est pas notre façon de procéder.”

Le régime de gouvernance nucléaire gravement déficient du Canada a été décrit précédemment dans le Hill Times. La gouvernance nucléaire au Canada s’appuie fortement sur la CCSN pour presque tous les aspects de la surveillance de l’industrie nucléaire. La CCSN est largement perçue comme un “régulateur capturé” qui promeut les projets qu’elle est censée réglementer.

Il est clair que notre régime de gouvernance nucléaire gravement déficient a permis à l’IGDPS – un simulacre grotesque d’installation de gestion responsable des déchets radioactifs – d’être proposée et prise au sérieux au Canada. La décision de la CCSN d’approuver le permis pour l’IGDPS est attendue prochainement.

La puissante tempête qui s’est abattue sur le 50 Sussex Dr. pendant que l’on entendait des témoignages en langue algonquine sur la cupidité et la destruction inconsidérée de l’environnement a souligné la gravité de la décision envisagée. Il ne fait aucun doute qu’une tempête record comme celle qui a frappé l’IGDPS au cours de sa phase de remplissage de 50 ans – alors que les déchets sont exposés aux éléments – pourrait facilement provoquer d’importants déversements de poisons radioactifs et d’autres matières dangereuses dans la rivière des Outaouais.

Il est grand temps que le gouvernement se réveille et s’attaque à cette catastrophe environnementale en cours, un problème grave qui ne fera que s’aggraver au fur et à mesure qu’il sera ignoré.

————————————————————————–

Lynn Jones est une gestionnaire de programme de santé publique à la retraite qui travaille maintenant pour Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, une organisation non gouvernementale qui œuvre depuis plus de 40 ans à l’assainissement et à la prévention de la pollution radioactive provenant de l’industrie nucléaire dans la vallée de l’Outaouais. Elle est basée à Ottawa.

L’image ci-dessous est une simulation de l’effet baignoire tirée du documentaire de Découverte “Chalk River Heritage”.

Hill Times ~ Deluge underlines the importance of final hearing for nuclear waste dump beside the Ottawa River

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Published in the Hill Times Monday August 21, 2023

On August 10, 2023, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission held a precedent-setting final licensing hearing for a giant above-ground radioactive waste dump beside the Ottawa River upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau and Montreal at Chalk River, Ontario.

Delegations from three Algonquin First Nations – Kebaowek, Kitigan Zibi and Barriere Lake – gathered at 50 Sussex Drive to make their final presentations in-person to community members, non-Indigenous allies and a handful of elected officials, in defiance of a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) decree that the hearing would be virtual only. The CNSC presided over the hearing by Zoom.

While the hearing was taking place, an unprecedented storm hit the venue with huge amounts of rain, thunder, hail and wind that blew over the chairs on the outdoor covered terrace where the overflow crowd was watching the proceedings. Despite the ferocious storm, Algonquin Elders kept a ceremonial sacred fire burning throughout.

If approved, the giant dump, called a “near-surface disposal facility” (NSDF) by the proponent, would hold one million tonnes of radioactive and hazardous waste in an above-ground mound on the property of Chalk River Laboratories, a heavily contaminated federal nuclear facility established on stolen Algonquin land in 1944 to produce plutonium  for US nuclear weapons. Chalk River Laboratories is a huge environmental liability for the Government of Canada, with an estimated cleanup cost in the billions of dollars.

The dump proponent is a multinational consortium comprised of SNC-Lavalin, and two Texas-based multinationals, Fluor and Jacobs. The consortium was contracted by the Harper government in 2015 to quickly and cheaply reduce the enormous federal legacy nuclear waste liability. Perversely, costs to Canadian taxpayers for managing Canada’s federal legacy radioactive wastes ballooned to more than 1 billion dollars per year after privatization.

The August 10 hearing was precedent-setting in two ways.  If approved, the NSDF would be the first ever facility for permanent disposal of nuclear reactor waste in Canada. Secondly, the decision whether or not to license the facility is an important test of Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which forbids storage of radioactive waste on the land of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. Ten of the eleven Algonquin First Nations whose people have lived in the Ottawa Valley since time immemorial say they  do not consent to the NSDF on their unceded territory.

Many of the wastes proposed for disposal in the NSDF will be hazardous and radioactive for thousands to millions of years, according to Canada’s foremost expert on the federal legacy radioactive wastes and how best to manage them, Dr. JR Walker.  Dr. Walker has clearly stated that wastes proposed for the NSDF do not qualify as low level waste but are in fact “intermediate level” radioactive waste that should be disposed of tens to hundreds of meters below the ground surface. He also notes that the proposal is non-compliant with International Safety Standards.

The site for the proposed “NSDF” is on the side of a hill surrounded by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River – less than one kilometre away. The proponent’s environmental impact statement documents many ways the dump could leak during operation and after closure. Three isotopes of plutonium are included in the long list of radionuclides that would be discharged into the Ottawa River in “treated effluent” from the dump. The mound is expected to degrade and erode and eventually disintegrate due to “natural evolution.”  

Most people believe it is wrong to deliberately discharge radioactive materials into a major drinking water source such as the Ottawa River, since there is no safe level of exposure to these man-made poisons. Every accidental and deliberate discharge increases risks of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage in the populations exposed.

The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 downstream municipalities – including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal – have passed resolutions of concern about the NSDF proposal. 

Despite the many serious shortcomings and strong opposition, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission staff have never wavered in their support for the dump. It appears they never “got the memo” back in 2000, when the organization’s mandate changed under new legislation from a role that included promotion of the nuclear industry, to a mandate strictly focused on protecting Canadians and the environment.

The August 10 hearing was presided over by only one Commissioner – along with the CNSC President. Both of their CVs tout long service and allegiance to the nuclear industry. The two officials askednot one single question of the First Nation intervenor teams, who were clearly shocked by the lack of interest in the information they had gone to such great lengths to gather and share. A member of the team asked, “Well, can we ask you some questions?” to which the President curtly replied, “That’s not our process.”

Canada’s seriously deficient nuclear governance regime has been described previously in the Hill Times here and here.  Nuclear governance in Canada relies heavily on the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for almost all aspects of nuclear industry oversight. The CNSC is widely perceived to be a “captured regulator”  that promotes the projects it is supposed to regulate.

It is clear that our seriously deficient nuclear governance regime has enabled the NSDF — a grotesque mockery of a responsible radioactive waste management facility—  to be proposed and taken seriously in Canada. A CNSC decision to approve the license for the NSDF is expected soon.

The powerful storm that pounded 50 Sussex Drive while testimony was being heard in the Algonquin language about greed and heedless destruction of the environment, underlined the serious decision being contemplated. There is no question that a record-breaking storm like that one, hitting the NSDF during its 50-year long filling stage – while wastes are exposed to the elements, could readily cause large spills of radioactive poisons and other hazardous materials into the Ottawa River.

It’s long past time that the government woke up and dealt with this environmental catastrophe in the making, a serious problem that will only grow steadily worse the longer it is ignored.

Lynn Jones is a retired public health program manager now with Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, a non-governmental organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for over 40 years. She is based in Ottawa.

Image below is a simulation of the bathtub effect from the Decouverte documentary “Chalk River Heritage.”

Flaws and deficiencies in the CNSC-led Environmental Assessment for the NSDF

hendricksonjones 6 Comments

June 29, 2023

The seven year long, CNSC-led, Environmental Assessment of the proposed giant radioactive waste mound or “NSDF” has been fraught with serious problems and deficiencies.  These deficiencies, in our view, have led to a poor-quality assessment, leaving the Commission with poor recommendations on which to base its EA decision.

Inadequate consultation with Indigenous Peoples on whose unceded territory the proposed radioactive dump would be built

CNSC and the proponent announced the design, site and commencement of an EA for the dump in 2016. No consultation with Algonquin First Nations occurred prior to the announcement of the design, site and EA. Some consultations occurred during the protracted EA, but not all Algonquin First Nations were consulted. As a seeming afterthought, after the final NSDF licensing hearing concluded in June 2022, the CNSC decided to leave the record open for further consultations with two of the eleven Algonquin First Nations whose peoples have lived in the Ottawa River watershed since time immemorial, and whose people never ceded their territory to the Crown via a treaty.

Problems in the early stages with the project description and scoping for the EA

1 The CNSC dismissed critical comments on the project description, submitted by radioactive waste management experts, that should have resulted in a fundamental rethinking of the project design, or at least major changes to the scope of the Environmental Assessment.

2  The CNSC’s scoping of the Near Surface Disposal Project (NSDF) was seriously flawed. A combined scoping decision for three separate projects (the NSDF, and the entombment of the NPD and WR-1 reactors) was made nine days before the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the NSDF project was released. The CNSC allowed the proponent to conduct environmental impact studies before the project scope was determined. The scoping decision ignored many serious criticisms of the NSDF project description. It was released by a 1-person “Panel” comprised solely of the CNSC President. The public was not apprised of the “Panel” hearing, which may never have actually taken place.

Obstacles to “meaningful public participation”

3  The CNSC did not require the NSDF proponent to translate documents into French, despite a clear potential for adverse environmental impacts in the Province of Quebec. The closest residents to the NSDF project site are in Quebec. Lack of access to French language documents led to a complaint from a Quebec citizen and a decision by the Commissioner of Official Languages to require translation of the draft EIS.

4  The CNSC delayed or refused to provide access to documents referenced in the draft EIS for the Near Surface Disposal Project. A footnote on page 3-14 of the draft EIS (12) states that “The Safety Analysis Report demonstrates that even after failure of some of the design features, the wastes do not present a risk to the public and environment.” However, the Safety Analysis Report was not released until after the public comment period on the draft EIS ended. Key portions of this document (such as section 4.2.1.3 on “Nuclear Criticality Safety”) were redacted.

5  The CNSC did not provide the “meaningful opportunities for public participation” required by section 4(1)(e) of CEAA 2012.  CNSC closed  the record for public comments pursuant to the Environmental Assessment in August 2017 following CNL’s release of a draft Environmental Impact Statement.  This created nearly a 5-year gap before the May/June 2022 hearing.  CNSC provided no opportunity for the public to provide formally recorded comments on the final EIS, despite the numerous changes made to the project that are reflected in it.

6 The CNSC arbitrarily decided that written intervenors at the May/June 2022 hearing would not have the right to make final submissions.

7  The CNSC’s January 31, 2023 Notice of Public Hearing and Procedural Guidance for Final Submissions said that “new information may not be presented.”  This was changed very close to the submission deadline (on May 17, 2023) to “Final submissions may reference any material on the record.”

8  The CNSC public hearings provided no opportunity for witnesses to be cross-examined.

9 During public hearings, the proponent (CNL), its contractor (AECL) and the regulator (CNSC) were given unlimited time to make their arguments, but intervenors (other than First Nations) were restricted to 10 minute presentations. In some cases this required thousands of hours of research to be summarized in 10 minutes.

10 The document registry for the NSDF EA was very cumbersome and awkward and did not facilitate access to submissions by all interested parties.

CNSC staff recommendations to Commissioners fail to mention that the Commission is required to refer the decision to Cabinet if the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects 

12 There is no mention of CEAA 2012 Section 52 in CMD 22-H7.  In this document CNSC staff recommend that the Commission decide that the NSDF is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.  However, Section 52 says the Commission could decide that the NSDF is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; in which case the Commission must refer the matter to the Governor in Council (Cabinet).  Were CNSC staff so certain that the Commission would never dare to disagree with one of their recommendations that they felt it was not worth mentioning this option?  Regardless, this is a serious omission.  Information provided in CMD 22-H7 about “matters of regulatory interest” with respect to the proposed NSDF should be complete and objective.

CNSC staff allowed the proponent to write its own conditions (856 “mitigation measures”) and the manner in which they are written makes them impossible to enforce.

13. Section 53 of CEAA 2012 says that it is the decision maker — either the Commission or Cabinet  and not the proponent – that “must establish the conditions… that would permit a designated project to be carried out.”  However, CNSC staff allowed the proponent to write its own conditions (the 856 mitigation measures in CNL’s 105-page NSDF Consolidated Commitments List) in a manner that they would be impossible to enforce. There is no evidence that the Commission ever reviewed these conditions.  Furthermore, the CNSC staff draft licence handbook for the NSDF Project requires CNL to only implement mitigation measures during construction and pre-operation activities. Most of the significant adverse impacts of the NSDF Project would occur in the operation and post-closure phases. By only requiring mitigation of adverse effects occurring during construction and pre-operation activities, the CNSC’s approach would not mitigate the most significant adverse impacts of the NSDF Project.

“With regard to section 53, it is astounding that the CNSC has allowed the proponent, CNL, to write its own mitigation measures, and to write them in such a way that nearly all of them would be unverifiable.”

Ole Hendrickson, CCRCA researcher

Problems with the “Administrative Protocol” document

The “Administrative Protocol” is a document co-signed by the regulator and the proponent. It described the steps to be followed for the Environmental Assessment with milestones and target dates. 

Six different versions of Appendix A to the Protocol were published between 2016 and 2022.

The Administrative Protocol omitted any mention of the Duty to Consult with First Nations

At one point in the middle of the EA process all the dates for milestones were removed.  Interested parties were left with no idea when they might be required to allocate time to preparing final briefs and oral presentations.

An original provision for a dedicated Environmental Assessment hearing was removed. No Environmental Assessment hearing was ever held. The Environmental Assessment report was buried in a staff document and contained no references whatsoever.

And finally…

The CNSC, as responsible authority, was unable to complete the Environmental Assessment in a “timely manner” as required by section 4(1)(f) of CEAA 2012.

EAs normally are completed within one or two years. The EA of the NSDF is currently in its seventh year and counting.

Should the CNSC be responsible for environmental assessment?

The Expert Panel on Reform of Environmental Assessment recommended in its final report to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in 2017 that the CNSC not be in charge of Environmental or Impact Assessments. The CNSC-led EA of the NSDF proposal was started before the Expert Panel review so it was conducted under previous legislation, but the flaws and failings documented above seem to suggest that removing the CNSC from involvement in Impact Assessment would be prudent.

Photo below by Robert Del Tredici, August 2018, Ottawa

Analysis of Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

by Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D. CCRCA researcher

April 20, 2023

Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning 

Background: In 2017, civil society groups were trying to understand how three irresponsible radioactive waste projects (the giant Chalk River mound and two legacy reactor entombments), could be undergoing environmental assessment in Canada. The lack of a substantive federal radioactive waste policy was noted as a serious problem that had allowed the projects to proceed. The policy vacuum was brought to the attention of the IAEA, the Prime Minister, the Auditor General and many other Canadian officials. In September 2019, an international peer review team from IAEA flagged Canada’s lack of a radioactive waste policy as a serious problem. In response, Natural Resources Canada began a review process which took place from 2020 to 2023. The review included extensive involvement from civil society groups and concerned individuals across Canada. The new policy, released in March 2023, is a huge disappointment to many people who, in good faith, worked hard to provide many valuable suggestions only to find their input virtually ignored by the captured bodies (CNSC and NRCan) that developed the policy. In the words of our Quebec colleagues at Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, the policy is “a fiasco and a slap in the face to democracy.” What follows is a detailed analysis of the many serious failings of Canada’s new “modernized” radioactive waste policy.

***

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) uses “ensure” in its various forms 28 times in the final version of its new radioactive waste policy, up from 14 times in the draft.  

Use of “ensure” in a policy context represents an empty promise – a promise that is not associated with any specific action and that lacks a verifiable, measurable, time-bound target.  Reliance on such language indicates an intent to avoid further discussion.

For example, NRCan’s claim that Canada could “ensure nuclear non-proliferation” if plutonium reprocessing were to be allowed (and plutonium-fueled reactors were to be exported to other countries) demonstrates the policy’s superficial and specious nature.

The closest thing to a target in the policy is found in one of the “vision” statements:

By 2050, key elements of Canada’s radioactive waste disposal infrastructure are in place, and planning is well under way for the remaining facilities necessary to accommodate all of Canada’s current and future radioactive wastes.

This begs the questions, “What are those “key elements?” and “What are the remaining facilities?” To achieve this rather weak and vague vision: 

The federal government accordingly ensures… that responsibility for maintaining institutional controls over the long term, including the preservation of records and knowledge management of radioactive wastes, is assigned, in an open and transparent manner, to an appropriate entity.

It appears that the federal government is unprepared to accept responsibility at this time for managing radioactive waste, even the waste that it has generated.  The federal government created the nuclear industry and generated a massive (~ $16 billion) waste liability through R&D work carried out by the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) over the past 75 years.  AECL continues to receive annual appropriations exceeding a billion dollars.  

The policy only promises that at some indefinite time in the future the government will “ensure” that an “appropriate entity” is created to maintain institutional controls over the long term. This side-steps the key issue of governance.  A public entity to oversee radioactive waste management is urgently needed.  Hundreds of submissions on the draft policy called for the government to establish an independent oversight body now.

Although the policy gives the nuclear industry free rein in managing its waste, with no oversight, it assigns no real responsibility to the industry, either.  It calls upon the industry to develop “conceptual approaches” and to submit an “Integrated Strategy for Canada’s radioactive waste to the federal government for review and consideration.”

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report prompted the government to undertake a radioactive waste policy review.  The IAEA specifically recommended that the government “enhance” the principles contained in its previous Radioactive Waste Policy Framework.  The most important principle was “polluter pays”:

The waste producers and owners are responsible, in accordance with the principle of “polluter pays”, for the funding, organization, management and operation of disposal and other facilities required for their wastes. 

Rather than being enhanced, this principle was deleted from the new policy.  This opens the door to subsidies from the federal government for management of radioactive wastes produced by non-federal entities.

The policy lacks acceptable language regarding assessment of radioactive waste management facilities.  NRCan rejected the following civil society proposal:

Amend the Physical Activities Regulations under the Impact Assessment Act to include construction and operation of new nuclear reactors, decommissioning of nuclear reactors, and all phases in the development, operation and closure of long-term waste management facilities.

Instead, NRCan said:

The Policy recognizes and is aligned with federal legislation, particularly the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Impact Assessment Act and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, as well as other legislation, associated regulations, and other policy tools that further support radioactive waste management,

adding that

These policy tools are regularly reviewed and updated by the federal government, as required, to ensure they remain relevant and effective.  

This is a dubious claim, given that the government had not reviewed or updated the previous waste policy “framework” for 27 years, and has not reviewed or updated the Nuclear Safety and Control Act for 26 years.

Stating that the new policy “is aligned with” the Impact Assessment Act fails to mention that the Physical Activities Regulations under this Act exempt decommissioning of reactors and other nuclear facilities, new radioactive waste storage facilities, fuel waste reprocessing facilities with an annual production capacity of less than 100 tonnes of plutonium per year, and construction and operation of small modular reactors (and management of their wastes).  

Hence, nearly all major nuclear activities are exempted from assessment.  

Most current nuclear decommissioning activities are occurring on federal lands owned by AECL.  In theory, impact assessment is required for all projects occurring on federal lands under section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act.  

AECL, despite being a federal authority under the Act, ignores decommissioning projects, and delegates the determination of the significance of other waste-related activities (such as a new intermediate-level waste storage facility) to its private contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.  This is not allowed under the Act.

With regard to health, safety and environmental aspects of radioactive waste management, NRCan rejected the following civil society suggestions on the policy draft:

Radioactive waste will be contained and monitored to ensure it remains isolated from the accessible biosphere for the time frame relevant to the category of waste;” and “Prioritize the health, safety and security of people and the environment by requiring that radioactive wastes are kept contained and isolated from the biosphere.”

These suggestions were based on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety standard for radioactive waste disposal. The IAEA says: 

The specific aims of disposal are:

(a) To contain the waste;

(b) To isolate the waste from the accessible biosphere and to reduce substantially the likelihood of, and all possible consequences of, inadvertent human intrusion into the waste;

(c) To inhibit, reduce and delay the migration of radionuclides at any time from the waste to the accessible biosphere;

(d) To ensure that the amounts of radionuclides reaching the accessible biosphere due to any migration from the disposal facility are such that possible radiological consequences are acceptably low at all times.

The new policy does not contain the words “biosphere”, “isolation”, “migration” or “intrusion”, instead substituting vague phrases such as “ensure protection of the environment”.  The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.  

The policy’s failure to commit to isolating waste from the biosphere allows the nuclear industry to use the environment – particularly water bodies – as a way of diluting and disposing of its radioactive waste.  

Dilution is the strategy employed by the “NSDF project”, announced by a consortium of multinational companies immediately after the Harper government contracted them to deal with the 75-year accumulation of radioactive waste at AECL’s nuclear sites across Canada.  The NSDF would be Canada’s first permanent disposal facility for radioactive waste from nuclear reactors – a million-cubic-meter mound of waste next to the Ottawa River, including a pipeline that would discharge partially-treated leachate from the mound into a lake that drains into the river.  It would set a terrible precedent for future facilities. 

First Nations have expressed serious concerns about the NSDF project and two other permanent disposal projects that involve entombing AECL prototype reactors in concrete and grout and abandoning them next to the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.  

After the public comment period on the draft policy, a new section was added entitled “Canada’s commitment towards building partnerships and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.” It calls for “early, continuous and meaningful engagement” in future radioactive waste projects. However, the policy is silent on the question of whether the current disposal projects – announced without that early engagement – could be approved without the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations.  Nor does the new policy commit to First Nations “consent” for future projects.

Another new section, entitled “Scope of the Policy,” adds confusion about reprocessing and fails to address Canada’s experimental work with plutonium fuels. The language on reprocessing says: 

Reprocessing, the purpose of which would be to extract fissile material from nuclear fuel waste for further use, is not presently employed in Canada, and so is outside the scope of this Policy. 

However, the federally-owned Recycle Fuel Fabrication Laboratories have been conducting plutonium fuel research for many years.  Furthermore the government has given a private company $50.5 million to develop a commercial reprocessing facility under the guise of waste “recycling”.  

Despite thousands of letters requesting a ban on plutonium reprocessing in the policy and noting the dangers of this technology for nuclear weapons proliferation, the word “plutonium” appears nowhere. Claiming that reprocessing is “outside the scope” of a radioactive waste policy is irresponsible.  Furthermore, a new phrase in section 1.7 of the final policy encourages “recycling and reuse of materials.” This could be read as promoting “recycling” of used fuel to extract plutonium.

Also highly problematic is the following phrase in the new policy:

The government of Canada remains deeply committed to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which remains the only legally binding global treaty promoting nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force on 22 January 2021.  State Parties to this treaty “undertake never under any circumstances to… Develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”  

While Canada may refuse to acknowledge the existence of the TPNW, this does not alter the fact that the international community has acted to ban nuclear weapons.   

 

The section on “Scope of the Policy” also contains contradictory and confusing wording on naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).  The IAEA says NORM is “Radioactive material containing no significant amounts of radionuclides other than naturally occurring radionuclides.” The IAEA definition explicitly includes “Material in which the activity concentrations of the naturally occurring radionuclides have been changed by a process.”  

In contrast, the new policy defines NORM as “material found in the environment that contains radioactive elements of natural origin.” This would appear to exclude from the policy the waste that is created when NORM is extracted from the environment and then processed. 

The CNSC regulates many facilities that process NORM (using the internationally agreed definition): uranium mines, Cameco’s processing facilities in Blind River and Port Hope, fuel fabrication facilities, etc.  The new policy also says:

 

“this Policy does not address NORM other than those associated with the development, production or use of nuclear energy or technologies and those associated with the transport and import/export of nuclear substances.”

This statement is both grammatically incorrect (NORM refers to “material”, not “materials”) and does not adequately address the contradiction inherent in defining NORM in a manner that excludes the many processing activities occurring in Canada, and the wastes they generate.  

The terms “process” and “processing” appear nowhere in the policy. Even the word “uranium” is absent from the policy, further illustrating the superficial nature of the new policy.

 

Also problematic is the reference to “an independent nuclear regulator that makes decisions using inclusive, open, and transparent public hearings.”  Self-serving promotion of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission does not belong in a radioactive waste policy.  Claims of transparency and openness do not match reality.  The real issue is that the CNSC invariably dismisses public input in making its decisions.

Public input has also been dismissed in this new policy. It reads as if it was written by the CNSC, which may be true. The CNSC is widely considered to be completely “captured” by the nuclear industry, with a revolving door between CNSC, the nuclear industry, and Natural Resources Canada.

 

The policy rejects the demand by civil society organizations for a ban on imports of radioactive waste from other countries.  It says that the federal government:

is committed to the principle that radioactive waste generated in other countries are [sic] not to be disposed of in Canada and radioactive waste generated in Canada will be disposed of in Canada, with the exception of certain radioactive wastes subject to return arrangements.

The policy lists as exceptions the “repatriation of disused sources to Canada.” It adds that “radioactive sources that were not from Canada may be brought to Canada.” 

 

This is a clear admission that Canada is importing radioactive waste from other countries and intends to continue doing so.  The ownership of this waste is eventually transferred to the Government of Canada, and the waste is stored at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories of AECL.  

The financial arrangements involved in these waste transfers are completely non-transparent.  In this way, the waste imports could be adding to the liabilities recorded in the Public Accounts of Canada.  Canadian taxpayers may be subsidizing not only Canada’s own nuclear industry, but the nuclear industry of foreign nations as well.

 

Chalk River Labs ~ Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (CPDP)

hendricksonjones 3 Comments

Update December 2025 ~ THE CPDP appears to have been replaced by CNL with a document called  The Overview Decommissioning and Cleanup Plan (ODCP).  The ODCP does not appear to qualify as a preliminary decommissioning plan.  It seems to be more of a public relations document.  CNL has deleted information about actual quantities of radionuclides in the different waste management areas.  

Original post January 15.2023

This document, dated 2014 is the current version of the plan developed over many years for decommissioning and cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories property. It is a requirement under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act that licensed nuclear facilities have decommissioning plans in place.

The plan was developed as part of the multimillion dollar “Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Project” prior to privatization of CRL in 2015. The work outlined in this plan will cost billions of dollars, possibly close to $16 billion which is a recent government of Canada estimate for the cost of cleaning up its federal nuclear legacy liability, the bulk of which is at Chalk River.

Interestingly, the CPDP includes no mention of a “Near Surface” disposal facility, aka the giant Chalk River Mound that has caused so much consternation on the part of Indigenous communities, downstream municipalities, and civil society groups over the last six years.

The private sector consortium that owns Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and is now running Chalk River Laboratories and other Canadian federal nuclear facilities, does not appear to be following this CPDP, and the plan is not publicly accessible on the CNLwebsite.

We are posting the CPDP here because it is an important document that should guide decision making about Canada’s largest federal environmental liability and we believe it should be publicly available.

There is a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission requirement (in REGDOC 2.11-2, Decommissioning) that a Preliminary Decommissioning Plan shall include… a public consultation plan.   The IAEA also says that planning for decommissioning includes activities for public consultation in accordance with national requirements.

cpdp_508300_pdp_001-rev-2Download

 The photo above is the “active area” at Chalk River Laboratories on June 24, 2022, showing some of the buildings and structures that need to be decommissioned. The NRU reactor, closed in 2018, is the red brick building in the foreground. The Plutonium Tower – the grey structure to the left of the “Molybdenum-99 Stack” – is also visible in the photo,

A call for World-class Cleanup at Chalk River Laboratories

hendricksonjones 7 Comments

April 2022

Canada’s $16 billion nuclear waste legacy is in danger of being abandoned in substandard facilities and allowed to leak into our rivers and drinking water. Instead, let’s use our expertise  to turn Canada into a world leader in the cleanup and safe storage of  radioactive waste.  

WORLD-CLASS NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP would protect  health, drinking water, property values and peace of mind.    

What do experts say is needed?  

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that radioactive waste  facilities must be carefully sited and waste placed below ground to keep  radioactive materials out of air and water and protect current and future  generations. The IAEA says that siting is a fundamentally important activity in the disposal of radioactive waste. Location of a disposal facility in a “stable geological formation” provides protection from processes such as erosion and glaciation.  It says that  nuclear reactor entombment should only be used in the case of a “severe accident”, such as a meltdown.

Retired AECL scientists say that IAEA guidance must be followed, that  Canada has an obligation to follow the guidelines as a signatory to the  Joint Convention on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.  

First Nations, in a Joint Declaration, endorsed by resolution at the  Assembly of First Nations, say that nuclear waste should be managed  according to five principles: 1) no abandonment, 2) monitored and  retrievable storage 3) better containment, more packaging, 2) away from  drinking water and major water bodies and 5) no unnecessary transport  (exports and imports) 

The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility says radioactive  waste should be carefully managed in monitored and retrievable condition  so that repairs to packaging can be made as needed, to keep the contents  out of the biosphere, our air, soil and drinking water. The CCNR suggests  that a “rolling stewardship” strategy whereby each generation teaches  each subsequent generation how to look after the wastes and keep them  out of the biosphere.

Some countries such as Finland have made good progress building  facilities to keep radioactive waste out of the biosphere. Finland puts  low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes produced by its four nuclear reactors in bedrock  geological facilities 100 meters deep. It has over 25 years of experience  with these facilities. They will also house the radioactive remains of the  reactors when they are shut down and dismantled. 

WORLD-CLASS NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP would bring  money into the Ottawa Valley economy and support good  careers for generations of valley residents.  

WORLD-CLASS NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP would involve: 

Thoroughly characterizing all wastes

Establishing an impeccable record-keeping system for use by current and future generations.

Careful packaging and labelling of the wastes. Repairing packages  when they fail and improving them if safer packaging materials become  available. 

Regional mapping to locate a site with stable bedrock 

Construction and operation of an in ground or underground storage facility. Materials that will be radioactive and  hazardous for thousands of years cannot be safely stored on the surface.

While waiting for all of the above steps to be completed, wastes should  be stored in above ground monitored and reinforced (and shielded if  necessary) concrete warehouses; such facilities were pioneered by  Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in the 1990s.  

WORLD-CLASS NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES  would protect the Ottawa River and future generations.  

Inadequate siting process for the NSDF

hendricksonjones 2 Comments

April 14, 2022 (Updated May 13, 2022, and November 1, 2023)

The site for the proposed Chalk River NSDF is on the side of a steep forested hill, the base of which is surrounded by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River less than one kilometer away. This proposed location is of deep concern for many critics of the proposal, including Algonquin First Nations, 150+ Quebec and Ontario municipalities, and many citizens’ groups and NGOs.

The choice of such an unsuitable site for the NSDF can be traced back to an inadequate siting process that failed to meet international safety standards and recommendations produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which Canada is a member state.

IAEA Safety Guide SSG-29, Appendix 1, Siting of Near Surface Disposal Facilities, says siting is a “fundamentally important activity in the disposal of radioactive waste.” (Ref: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1637_web.pdf, p. 83)

SSG-29 says the first two stages in the siting process are a “conceptual and planning stage,” during which “projected waste volumes and activities should be quantified,” and an “area survey stage,” involving “regional mapping or investigation.”   

The NSDF facility type and site were selected without quantifying volumes and activities of federal wastes awaiting disposal, and without a regional investigation, thus skipping the first two stages identified in the IAEA Safety Guide.

Proximity to contaminated structures being demolished at the Chalk River Laboratories — not safety or environmental protection — appears to have been the priority is choosing the site of the NSDF. No serious consideration was given to sites other than those on AECL’s 3700-ha Chalk River property,

Proximity to contaminated structures being demolished at the Chalk River Laboratories — not safety or environmental protection — appears to have been the priority is choosing the site of the NSDF.

Alternative sites should be sought to avoid rapid discharge of radioactive and hazardous substances to a major water body and to avoid placing wastes in an area with a high water table (Ref: CMD 22-H7, Section 3.2, Design Options Evaluation). 

Flat, sandy portions of the 30,770-ha Department of National Defence Garrison Petawawa property, adjacent to the Chalk River Laboratories, would accommodate a larger, less expensive, and safer in-ground concrete vault facility.  Vegetation was removed from extensive portions of this property to create a parachute training zone for the Canadian Airborne Regiment, which was disbanded in 1995.

A regional investigation of crown land for geological formations suitable for a shallow rock cavern facility should also be conducted.

IAEA Safety Requirement SSR-5, Disposal of Radioactive Waste, indicates that an in-ground concrete vault or a shallow rock cavern could contain a wider range of waste types than an above ground, landfill-type facility such as the NSDF. (Ref: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1449_web.pdf)

The southern portion of the site chosen for the NSDF is underlain by a feature categorized in 1994 as a ““high-probability” fracture zone,” ten meters wide and over a kilometer long – a potential groundwater flow pathway with “permeability values several orders of magnitude greater than bulk rock mass.” (Ref: https://www.iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/document/139596, p.5-109).This feature should have eliminated the proposed site from further consideration.

Original site selection criteria announced by the proponent would have excluded any site with more than a 10% slope. This criterion was changed to 25% to allow CNL’s desired site (Ref: Near Surface Disposal Facility Site Selection Report 232-10300-TN-001 Revision 2. Oct. 2016).  In fact, the proposed NSDF site was rejected as a site for VERY LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE due to its slope and exposed bedrock, back in the days before privatization of the the Chalk River Laboratories.

Site selection criteria were also supposed to exclude known or proposed critical habitats for species listed under the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) or by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).”  However, construction of the NSDF would destroy 30 hectares of mature and semi-mature forest (including endangered Black Ash trees) that provides high-quality maternity roosting habitat for three endangered bat species (Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis and Tri-colored Bat) and nesting habitat for five at-risk bird species (Canada Warbler, Golden-winged Warbler, Wood Thrush, Eastern Wood Pewee, Whip-poor-will).  It would also have adverse impacts on the at-risk Eastern (Algonquin) Wolf, a keystone species because of its predation on moose and deer, and on at-risk aquatic species such as the Blanding’s Turtle.

The proposed NSDF site is on a hillside, over fractured rock, with a high water table, surrounded on three sides by wetlands that drain into Perch Lake 50 metres from the base of the hill. Perch Creek flows from Perch Lake into the Ottawa River, one kilometre away.  The entire Chalk River Laboratories property — with its proximity to the Ottawa River, high groundwater table, uneven terrain, and fractured bedrock — is a very poor location for permanent radioactive waste disposal. 

Chalk River Laboratories

MEDIA RELEASE: Nuclear regulator’s case to approve giant nuclear waste mound is fraught with serious errors and omissions, citizens’ groups say

hendricksonjones 3 Comments

OTTAWA, February 22, 2022 – Citizens’ groups from Ontario and Quebec provided Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President Rumina Velshi with a searing critique of CNSC’s case to approve a giant radioactive waste mound alongside the Ottawa River in advance of a February 22nd hearing.

If approved, the giant landfill would stand 60 feet high and hold one million tonnes of mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes. Some of the contents would remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, but the mound itself is only expected to last a few hundred years according to studies produced by the proponent, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, owned by a consortium of multinational corporations. International safety standards prohibit disposing of long-lived radioactive wastes in landfills.

The citizens’ critique of key licensing documents found eleven critical flaws ranging from a failure to provide detailed information about what would go into the dump, as required under the Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations, to a failure to note serious deficiencies in the siting process for the facility.

“You couldn’t find a worse site for this dump if you tried,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, one of the groups that co-authored the citizens’ critique. “The site is on the side of a hill, and is surrounded on three sides by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River, a kilometre away. The water table is just inches under the surface at that location and the bedrock is highly fractured.” 

The site of the proposed facility is also of concern to downstream communities who take their drinking water from the Ottawa River, including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal. The three cities are among the more than 140 municipalities that have passed resolutions of concern about the proposed dump. The Assembly of First Nations has also passed a resolution opposing the facility.

Ole Hendrickson, a scientist and researcher for the group Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area said there are a number of serious errors in the licensing documents including a 1000-fold overestimate of radioactivity in nearby uranium ore bodies. “That gross overestimate is used by the proponent and the regulator to make the case that the giant mound would be less radioactive than surrounding rocks after a few hundred years,” Hendrickson said.  “In fact, high-radioactivity waste containers in the dump would exceed levels in surrounding rocks for thousands of years.”

The Quebec-based Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive contributed a number of findings to the critique. The group is very concerned about the presence of cobalt-60, which alone will provide 98% of the initial radioactivity in the dump, even though its radioactivity will decline rapidly thereafter. Used cobalt-60 sources require lead shielding because they emit intense gamma radiation that endangers workers. 

Physicist Ginette Charbonneau, a spokeswoman for the Ralliement, says that only low-level cobalt-60 sources could be accepted in an above-ground mound and that the criteria for accepting such waste in the dump must be tightened.

“It is also out of the question that long-lived radioactive substances like plutonium be disposed of in a landfill,” Charbonneau said. “This is simply a senseless proposal, which is not in line with international standards at all,” she added.

The citizens’ groups say the case to approve the giant radioactive landfill, called the NSDF by the proponent, is so seriously flawed that CNSC Commissioners cannot make a sound licensing decision based on the contents of the documents. They have asked that the citizens’ critique be distributed to Commissioners at the hearing on Feb 22 and that all of the flaws, errors and omissions be fully addressed before the Commission is asked to make a decision on the license for the dump. 

The licensing hearings for the giant radioactive waste dump will take place in two parts. Part 1 will take place February 22.  Part 2 will start on May 31, but is expected to take several days as it will include presentations from Indigenous communities, municipal representatives, NGOs and members of the public. Requests to intervene in the hearings must be submitted in writing to the CNSC by April 11, 2022.  See Notice of Public Hearing for details.

– 30 –

Graphic above from Radio Canada Découverte, March 2018, showing the mound overflowing as part of the degradation and erosion process, described by the proponent in its Performance Assessment report.

MEDIA RELEASE: MPs and groups oppose hearings to license Canada’s first permanent radioactive waste dump

hendricksonjones 6 Comments

Le français suit

OTTAWA, February 16, 2022 – Members of Parliament and 50 environmental and citizen groups are opposed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)’s forthcoming hearings to license Canada’s first permanent “disposal” facility for radioactive waste.

A statement calling for suspension of the hearings is signed by three MPs: Laurel Collins, NDP environment critic; Elizabeth May, Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada; and Monique Pauzé, environment spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois. 

Union signatories of the statement include SCFP Québec, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) and Health, safety and environment committee of Unifor Québec.

Other signatories include Friends of the Earth, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, National Council of Women of Canada, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, and Quebec’s Front commun pour la transition énergétique. Ottawa Valley groups include Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Action Climat Outaouais, and Pontiac Environmental Protection, among others.

On January 31, the Kebaowek First Nation asked that the hearings be halted until a consultation framework between them and the CNSC is in place. The hearings are for authorization to build a “Near Surface Disposal Facility” for nuclear waste at Chalk River, Ontario, on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands alongside the Ottawa River.

The CNSC staff report recommends licensing the construction of the mound for 1 million cubic metres of radioactive and toxic wastes accumulated by the federal government since 1945. The CNSC has scheduled licensing hearings on February 22 and May 31. No separate environmental assessment hearing is scheduled.

The proposed facility would be an aboveground mound a kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa and Montréal. 140 municipalities have opposed the project and fear contamination of drinking water and the watershed.

In 2017, the CNSC received 400 submissions responding to its environmental impact statement, the overwhelming majority of them opposed to the plan.

– 30 –

———————————————————————————————-

Des députées et des groupes s’opposent aux audiences pour autoriser la première décharge permanente de déchets radioactifs au Canada

OTTAWA, le 16 février 2022 – Des députées et 50 groupes environnementaux et citoyens s’opposent aux prochaines audiences de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) pour autoriser la première installation permanente de « gestion » de déchets radioactifs au Canada. 

Trois députées ont signé une déclaration appelant à la suspension des audiences : Laurel Collins, porte-parole du NPD en matière d’environnement; Elizabeth May, Chef parlementaire du Parti vert du Canada; et Monique Pauzé, porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois. 

Les signataires syndicaux de la déclaration incluent le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) – Québec, la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) et le Comité de santé, de sécurité et environnement d’Unifor Québec.

On retrouve, parmi les autres signataires, les Amis de la Terre, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, l’Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement, le Conseil national des femmes du Canada, l’Ontario Clean Air Alliance et le Front commun pour la transition énergétique du Québec. Des regroupements de la vallée de l’Outaouais l’ont également signée, dont Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Action Climat Outaouais, et Protection environnementale de Pontiac, entre autres. 

Le 31 janvier, la Première Nation de Kebaowek a demandé que les audiences soient suspendues jusqu’à ce qu’un cadre de consultation entre elle et la CCSN soit mis en place. Les audiences portent sur l’autorisation de construire une « installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface (IGDPS) » pour les déchets nucléaires à Chalk River, en Ontario, sur les terres algonquines Anishinaabeg non cédées le long de la rivière des Outaouais.

Le rapport du personnel de la CCSN recommande d’autoriser la construction du monticule pour 1 million de mètres cubes de déchets radioactifs et toxiques accumulés par le gouvernement fédéral depuis 1945. La CCSN a prévu des audiences d’autorisation les 22 février et 31 mai. Aucune audience d’évaluation environnementale distincte n’est prévue.

L’installation proposée serait un monticule hors sol situé à un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d’Ottawa et de Montréal. 140 municipalités se sont opposées au projet, craignant une contamination de l’eau potable et du bassin versant.

En 2017, la CCSN a reçu 400 soumissions en réponse à son étude d’impact environnemental : la grande majorité d’entre elles s’opposent au plan.

– 30 –

Nuclear waste dump would tip $445b into South Australian ...