The “NSDF,” a giant, above-ground landfill beside the Ottawa River, for one million tonnes of radioactive waste, approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on January 9, is a debacle-in-the-making.
The NSDF fails to meet International safety standards according to experts who for years were in charge of the waste at Chalk River. Industry veterans say much of the waste is too long-lived for permanent emplacement in an above-ground mound.
The facility is expected to leak during operation and break down and release its contents to the environment after 550 years, while many of the dangerous, post-fission, man-made radioactive toxins in the mound will remain hazardous for many millennia. Plutonium and other radioactive pollutants will leak into the Ottawa River that drains into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. This leakage will contaminate drinking water for millions of Canadians. All radioactive contaminants increase risks of cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations in exposed populations. The larger the population exposed, the greater the incidence of maladies.
Ten out of 11 Algonquin First Nations that have lived in the Ottawa River watershed for millennia say they do not consent to the NSDF on their unceded territory. The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 municipalities including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal have passed resolutions of concern and/or opposition to the facility.
We wonder who the beneficiaries of the NSDF would be, besides shareholders of the three multinationals involved: SNC-Lavalin (now called Atkins Réalis), and two Texas-based multinationals, Fluor and Jacobs. The three multinationals comprise the “Canadian National Energy Alliance,” contracted by the Harper government in 2015 to quickly and cheaply reduce Canada’s multibillion dollar federal nuclear waste cleanup liability.
Two legal challenges to the CNSC’s decision have been launched in Federal Court. More may follow if a species-at-risk permit to clearcut the NSDF site is approved .
There is a positive way forward for the Liberal government. The Federal Cabinet could request an ARTEMIS review by the International Atomic Energy Agency. ARTEMIS reviews are expert peer reviews, available to all member states of IAEA.
An ARTEMIS review could provide the Government of Canada with valuable advice about how to manage its legacy radioactive waste. Responsibility for managing this waste was handed over to profit-seeking multinationals in 2015 by the Harper government. Costs to taxpayers have ballooned since then. An ARTEMIS review could advise the Government of Canada on how to get value for money in its radioactive waste management projects while ensuring that safety is the top priority.
House of Commons e-petition 4676 calling for an ARTEMIS review garnered 3000 signatures in 30 days over the recent Christmas and New Years holiday period. The petition also called on the Government of Canada to uphold the principle, from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that “free, prior and informed consent” must be obtained before hazardous waste is stored in the territory of Indigenous people.
We and others have written to the Prime Minister and several Cabinet Ministers urging Cabinet to request an IAEA ARTEMIS review as soon as possible for the benefit of all Canadians and future generations.
Please subscribe to the National Observer using this link, to support the excellent investigative journalism of Natasha Bulowski on the Chalk River nuclear waste.
Former employee at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Kerry Burns (centre right, with a beard and spectacles) at AECL’s Whiteshell Laboratories in Manitoba in 1979. Photo submitted by Kerry Burns
Approval of a nuclear waste disposal site near the Ottawa River hinged on a promise that only low-level radioactive waste would be accepted. But former nuclear industry employees and experts warn some waste slated for disposal contains unacceptably high levels of long-lived radioactive material.
The “near-surface disposal facility” at Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) will store up to one million cubic metres of current and future low-level radioactive waste inside a shallow mound about one kilometre from the river, which provides drinking water to millions of people in the region. But former employees who spent decades working at the labs in waste management and analysis say previous waste-handling practices were inadequate, imprecise and not up to modern standards. Different levels of radioactive material were mixed together, making it unacceptable to bury in the mound.
“Anything pre-2000 is anybody’s guess what the hell they have on their hands,” said Gregory Csullog, a retired waste inventory specialist and former longtime employee of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the Crown corporation that ran the federal government’s nuclear facilities before the Harper government privatized it in 2015.
Gregory Csullog pictured at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in 2001 while employed with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Photo submitted by Gregory Csullog
Csullog described the waste during this earlier time as an unidentifiable “mishmash” of intermediate- and low-level radioactivity because there were inadequate systems to properly label, characterize, store and track what was produced at Chalk River or shipped there from other labs. “Literally, there were no rules,” said Csullog, who was hired in 1982 to develop waste identification and tracking systems.
International safety standards state low-level radioactive waste is suitable for disposal in various facilities, ranging from near the surface to 30 metres underground, depending primarily on how long it remains radioactive. High-level waste, like used fuel rods, must be buried hundreds to thousands of metres underground in stable rock formations and remain there, effectively forever. Intermediate-level waste is somewhere in the middle and should be buried tens to hundreds of metres underground, not in near-surface disposal facilities, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Radioactive waste is recognized by many health authorities as cancer-causing and its longevity makes disposal a thorny issue. Even short-lived radioactive waste typically takes hundreds of years to decay to extremely low levels and some radioactive isotopes like tritium found in the waste — a byproduct of nuclear reactors — are especially hard to remove from water.
What people are reading
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) originally wanted its near-surface disposal facility to take intermediate- and low-level waste when it first proposed the project in 2016. Backlash was swift and concerned groups, including Deep River town council and multiple experts, argued it would transgress international standards to put intermediate-level waste in that type of facility. In 2017, CNL changed its proposal and promised to only accept low-level waste. The announcement quelled the Deep River town council’s concern, but some citizen groups, scientists, former employees and many Algonquin Nations aren’t buying it.
CNL says its waste acceptance criteria will ensure all the waste will be low-level and comply with international and Canadian standards. Eighty seven per cent of the waste will be loose soil and debris from environmental remediation and decommissioned buildings. The other 13 per cent “will have sufficiently high radionuclide content to require use of packaging” in containers, drums or steel boxes in the disposal facility, according to CNL.
Approval of a nuclear waste disposal site near the Ottawa River hinged on a promise that only low-level radioactive waste would be accepted. #ChalkRiverLabs
However, project opponents note that between 2016 and 2019, about 90 per cent of the intermediate-level waste inventory at federal sites was reclassified as low-level, according to data from AECL and a statement from CNL. The timing of the reclassification raised the alarm for critics, who took it to mean intermediate-level waste was inappropriately categorized as low-level so it could be stored in the Chalk River disposal facility. CNL said the 2016 estimate was based on overly “conservative assumptions” and the waste was reclassified after some legacy waste was retrieved, examined and found to be low-level.
The disposal facility will also accept waste generated over the next two decades and some shipments from hospitals and universities.
The history of Chalk River Laboratories
To fully understand the nuclear waste problem, you first have to know the history of Chalk River Lab’s operations and accidents, according to Mahdi Khelfaoui, professor of the history of energy, science and technology at the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières and author of multiple articles on the nuclear industry and its history in Canada.
Chalk River Laboratories photographed in 1945. Photo from the National Research Council Canada archives
Chalk River is Canada’s biggest research facility. Built in 1944, it became home to the world’s first recorded nuclear reactor core meltdown in December 1952, followed by another incident in 1958. The 1952 accident was ranked a five on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale of one to seven; Chernobyl was a seven.
The partial reactor meltdown spewed radioactive material into the air and environment. During the year-long cleanup, highly radioactive debris and fuel rods were buried in a sandy area near the Ottawa River and millions of litres of contaminated water were dumped into ditches less than two kilometres from the river.
In this day and age, burying wooden boxes of fuel rods in shallow holes would be unthinkable, said Khelfaoui.
“At the time, the radioactive waste issue was almost synonymous with protecting the [commercial] interests of the nuclear industry,” said Khelfaoui. Public involvement in waste management policy was “nonexistent” before the end of the 1990s, he said.
Keeping accurate information on waste over time is a challenge and there have been inventory discrepancies at Chalk River, he added.
For example, the fuel rods buried in a “rudimentary” fashion after the 1952 meltdown were dug up and moved to safer storage in 2007, said Khelfaoui. AECL expected to find 19 fuel rods and cans in the boxes, but there were actually 32.
Over 75 years, Chalk River Laboratories developed CANDU reactors, did nuclear weapons research, supplied the United States’ nuclear weapons program with plutonium and uranium, and at one time was the world’s largest supplier of medical isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancers.
Chalk River Labs’ isotope separation laboratory in 1948. For 60 years, Chalk River Labs produced medical isotopes used to treat and diagnose diseases like cancer. Photo from the National Research Council Canada archives
Inherent inventory issues
Until the mid-1990s, waste wasn’t even categorized as intermediate, low or high-level, said Csullog, who worked at AECL back when the Crown corporation still ran day-to-day operations at Chalk River Laboratories. Much of it was stored together in what he described as a “mishmash of unsegregated, unmarked, uncharacterized mixture of low- and intermediate-level waste.”
“This mixing and lack of identification would make all these wastes unsuitable for the near-surface disposal facility,” said Csullog.
His main concern is the packaged legacy waste, which includes contaminated protective gear, old mops, rags, tools and lab equipment from former operations. For example, some of this equipment was used to clean up highly radioactive water that leaked out of the site’s two nuclear reactors, said Csullog.
A historic photo of the National Research Experimental Reactor (NRX). NRX began operation in 1947 as Canada’s first large-scale research reactor and played a major role in developing the CANDU reactor. It was used to test fuels and materials and for nuclear physics research in support of the Canadian nuclear power program, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. NRX was shut down on Jan. 29, 1992. Photo courtesy of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
During his 21 years at AECL’s Chalk River Laboratories, Csullog developed programs to label and track all the radioactive waste created or shipped to the site. He later wrote the International Atomic Energy Agency’s guidelines on waste inventory record-keeping systems.
Developing these programs for AECL posed a challenge because many of the logbooks he was given to transcribe at the outset of his work in 1982 had precious little information on where the waste came from, how it was created or its radionuclide content. Csullog described the information in these historical records as “meaningless.” Until the mid-’90s, there weren’t even waste package labels to link waste to the correct paperwork, which also hindered his work, said Csullog.
“We didn’t track it. You can’t throw it all together and say, ‘We’ll use historical information.’ It’s irrelevant,” said Csullog.
In an email statement to Canada’s National Observer, CNL said the radioactivity of the legacy waste packages is based on records from its waste database. “CNL recognizes there are gaps” in this data and said no waste will be placed in the facility based only on historic information. Data on older legacy waste data will be reassessed and “modern analysis techniques” used to ensure there is “enough information on the waste” to make certain it meets the acceptance criteria.
The majority of packaged waste now in storage was generated pre-1995 and there is enough information to classify it as low-level waste “within a reasonable certainty,” a CNL representative told the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) during the licensing process. All waste generators have to submit documents detailing the properties of the waste and then it’s up to CNL to verify the waste matches the documentation before it goes into the disposal facility.
Even after Csullog’s waste identification and tracking program was implemented in the mid-’90s, some waste with higher radioactivity was still compacted with really low-level material when it should have been kept separate, said Csullog.This was done so the radiation emitted by each bale was limited enough for people to handle and move them but in hindsight, was a mistake, he said. At this period in time, the industry was on a learning curve when it came to waste management, said Csullog.
It takes a “very, very small amount of a contaminant that’s long-lived” to make low-level waste transition to intermediate, Csullog emphasized.
By the time Csullog left the Crown corporation in 1999, his final iteration of a waste inventory database was being used for package labelling, validation, inspection and compliance monitoring. While it was a vast improvement on past practices, the program still relied on estimates of waste characteristics and only helped keep tabs on newly created wastes — not the pre-2000’s waste Csullog says is unacceptable for the facility. Estimates are not a substitute for the more involved process of characterization,a process to verify the specific type and concentrations of radionuclides,said Csullog, but it helps identify which waste should be a priority and make a plan to verify its characteristics. Radionuclides are radioactive atoms.
To safely manage, dispose and store waste, it must first be characterized so you know how long the radionuclides take to decay and can then accurately classify waste as low or intermediate level based on their disposal requirements, said Kerry Burns, an expert on radioactive waste characterization methods who worked at AECL for 25 years and the IAEA for eight years.
In either case, Csullog said when he returned to AECL in 2006 after a stint working for the IAEA, his program that estimated waste characteristics and tracked them had been “abandoned.” The outstanding question in Csullog’s mind is what has been done to take its place.
In a detailed submission to the CNSC, Csullog outlined the many problems with waste identification and inventory systems during his time at AECL and the persistent lack of data to verify the radionuclide content of this older waste.
Csullog emphasized he is not against the disposal facility as a whole. He is against CNL putting this particular legacy waste into it. Instead, CNL should put this legacy waste into a deeper facility designed for intermediate-level waste since it will have to dispose of other intermediate-level waste anyway, he said.
A majority of the waste planned for disposal in the near-surface facility is soil and debris from decommissioned buildings. Most of the buildings decommissioned so far were administrative and likely had little contamination and CNL could feasibly have enough information on the radioactive properties, said Csullog. But the site’s wide range of research and development activities exposed lab equipment and some buildings to many different radioactive materials. For example, some labs separated plutonium for the U.S. weapons program, said Burns.
Kerry Burns, longtime AECL employee and radioactive waste characterization expert, outside his home in 2024. Photo submitted by Kerry Burns
Because of the site’s wide-ranging activities, it is unknown exactly what concentrations of radionuclides are in the legacy waste, said Burns.
The radionuclides typically encountered at Chalk River Labs have half-lives ranging from seconds to tens of thousands of years and can give off three different types of radiation. Low-level waste should decay to extremely low levels within roughly 300 years. As radionuclides decay, some of them turn into other radionuclides with different properties, which is vital to know when you’re planning how to store waste, said Burns.
Some controlled activities — like operating a nuclear power plant — produce waste with fairly predictable types and amounts of radionuclides. As long as these predictable waste streams are kept separate, you can often measure, sample and analyze it, said Burns, who spent years at AECL developing radiochemical analysis methods to determine exact properties of waste, and authored multiple articles on these methods.
But these methods only work if the waste is consistent, monitored carefully over time and kept separate from other waste streams, said Burns.
“I am afraid that the legacy and decommissioning wastes at CNL fall into the category of a dog’s breakfast,” said Burns. To know exactly how dangerous and long-lived the materials going into the facility truly are, a detailed analysis of each package and container would be required, said Burns.
According to CNL’s waste acceptance criteria, radiochemical analysis is not part of its minimum verification requirements, though it may be done as an additional verification measure.
Canada’s National Observer asked CNL which waste streams, if any, have had their radionuclide content confirmed using radiochemical analysis.
CNL said radiochemical analysis and background information are used to create “fingerprints” for waste streams based on what background information and past data exist on the waste.
“Some fingerprints have been established, while others are still in development,” said CNL. The company gave no specifics on which waste streams were examined using radiochemical analysis.
All waste will have “sufficient characterization data” to confirm it can be placed in the near-surface disposal facility, according to CNL.
Radiochemical analysis is “prohibitively expensive” and “extremely time-consuming” but is the only way to determine the inventory of long-lived, hard-to-detect radionuclides in thiswaste, said Burns. This chemical analysis becomes even more challenging when waste from different operations is mixed together, as Csullog and Burns said was the case for a great deal of waste pre-2000. If a sample isn’t representative of the whole waste stream, the results won’t reflect everything in it, said Burns.
Canada’s National Observer asked CNL if it has a budget or cost estimate for radiochemical analysis and which wastes will require this analysis. CNL declined to answer.
CNL is responsible for ensuring waste meets its acceptance criteria.CNL is owned by a consortium of private companies (including AtkinsRealis, formerly SNC-Lavalin). AECL receives federal funding and contracts CNL to manage and run the federal sites, including Chalk River.
Minimum requirements for verification include inspecting waste package labels and providing documents on the waste profile and management plan. CNL’s waste acceptance criteria doesn’t specify how often verification takes place. CNL declined to explain how frequently it would verify waste.
Chalk River Laboratories photographed from the Ottawa River in 1945. It was constructed in 1944. Photo from the National Research Council Canada archives
Csullog and Burns can only speak to the waste management practices from their time at Chalk River. Burns’ team at AECL used radiochemical analysis paired with another group’s measurements to characterize the mixed waste that was compacted into bales. These bales are on the lower end of radioactivity compared to other operations waste and the characterization data showed even those are unsuitable for the disposal facility, said Csullog.
CNL could have adequate systems and practices in place to characterize and track waste being generated today, they say, though neither is convinced based on the company’s submissions to the CNSC. But proper waste management today doesn’t change the fact that the Chalk River site is dealing with waste from an era when far less was known about the importance of handling radioactive waste, said Csullog.
“It was a good place to work … but when it came to waste management, it was always sort of the lowest priority,” said Burns, referring to AECL back in his day. “You’re dealing with a research site where people get rewarded for publishing papers, for doing innovative research, not for handling wastes and putting it in storage.”
Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Citizens’ groups from Ontario and Quebec warn that radioactive waste destined for a giant mound beside the Ottawa River must be stored underground
The groups call on the federal government to halt the project and stop all funding for construction
Ottawa, February 5, 2024 — Citizens’ groups have issued an urgent warning about waste slated for disposal in a giant radioactive waste mound one kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal. The groups cite nuclear experts who say the waste will remain hazardous to the public for many thousands of years and needs to be emplaced underground.
In a letter sent on February 4 to elected officials, the citizens’ groups call for the Government of Canada to halt the disposal project and stop all funding for construction. The letter cites evidence that waste destined for the mound is heavily contaminated with very long-lived radioactive materials produced in nuclear reactors, which are capable of causing cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations in exposed populations.
The seven-storey radioactive mound is known as the “Near Surface Disposal Facility” (NSDF). It was recently licenced by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The CNSC is widely perceived to be a captured regulator that promotes the projects it is supposed to regulate, as reported by an Expert Panel in 2017.
If built, the mound will hold one million tons of radioactive and other hazardous waste from eight decades of operations of the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), a highly contaminated federal nuclear research facility owned by the Government of Canada. Commercial waste and waste imported from other federal nuclear sites would also be put into the mound.
The site for the NSDF is on the CRL property, 180 km northwest of Canada’s capital, on the Ottawa River directly across from the Province of Quebec. Studies show the mound would leak during operation and break down due to erosion after a few hundred years, contaminating the Ottawa River, the source of drinking water for millions of Canadians.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility have been opposing the giant radioactive waste mound since 2016. They say there is widespread ignorance about what would go in the mound due to repeated statements by the regulator and the proponent that “it’s only low level waste.”
“If I hear one more time that the mound will hold ‘only low-level’ radioactive waste including mops and shoe covers, I’m going to scream so loud they will hear me at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association. “People need to wake up and realize the truth that this waste is full of deadly long-lived, man-made radioactive poisons such as plutonium that will be hazardous for many thousands of years.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred to by Echlin says waste from research facilities such as Chalk River Laboratories generally belongs to the “Intermediate-level” waste class and must be kept underground, tens of metres or more below the surface.
A former senior manager in charge of “legacy” radioactive waste at Chalk River told the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that, in reality, the waste proposed for emplacement in the NSDF “is ‘intermediate level waste’ that requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by a near surface facility.” He pointed out the mound would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years, and that radiation doses from the facility will, in the future, exceed regulatory limits.
“We believe Cabinet or Parliament has the power to reverse this decision and they need to do so as soon as possible,” said Lynn Jones of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. “It’s clear that the only benefit from the NSDF would go to shareholders of the three multinational corporations involved, AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), Fluor and Jacobs. Everyone else would get only harm—a polluted Ottawa River, plummeting property values, increased health risks, never-ending costs to remediate the mess and a big black mark on Canada’s international reputation.”
The citizens’ groups say Canada should commit to building world class facilities for managing radioactive waste that would keep Canadians safe and provide good jobs in the nuclear industry, safely managing and containing the waste for generations to come.
The cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories site was originally estimated to cost $8 billion in 2015 when a multinational consortium called “Canadian National Energy Alliance”** was contracted by the Harper government to manage the Chalk River site and clean up the radioactive waste there and at other federally owned facilities.
Since the consortium took over, the annual costs to Canadian taxpayers for the operation and cleanup at Canada’s nuclear labs have ballooned from $336 million dollars per year to over $1.5 billion per year.
-30-
**The consortium known as Canadian National Energy Alliance is comprised of AtkinsRéalis(formerly SNC-Lavalin,) which was debarred by the World Bank for 10 years and faced charges in Canada of fraud, bribery and corruption; Texas-based Fluor Corporation, which paid $4 million to resolve allegations of financial fraud related to nuclear waste cleanup work at a U.S. site; and Texas-based Jacobs Engineering, which recently acquired CH2M, an original consortium member that agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle federal criminal charges at the same nuclear cleanup site in the U.S.
Des groupes de citoyens de l’Ontario et du Québec soutiennent que certains déchets destinés à une gigantesque décharge de déchets radioactifs, près de la rivière des Outaouais, devraient être enfouis en profondeur.
Les groupes demandent au gouvernement d’interrompre le projet et de refuser son financement.
Ottawa, le 5 février 2024 — Des groupes de citoyens ont lancé un avertissement urgent au sujet des déchets radioactifs qui seraient enfouis dans une gigantesque décharge sur une colline, à 1 km de la rivière des Outaouais en amont d’Ottawa, Gatineau et Montréal. Ces groupes citent des experts dans le domaine du nucléaire qui affirment que certains déchets seront fortement radioactifs pendant des milliers d’années et que nous devons les enfouir en profondeur pour protéger la population.
La Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a approuvé récemment cette déchargé haute comme un édifice de sept étages, connue sous le nom d’Installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface (IGDPS).
L’IGDPS est sur le site des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (LNC), à 180 km au nord-ouest d’Ottawa, sur la rivière des Outaouais, juste en face de la province de Québec. Des études démontrent que cette décharge de déchets aura des fuites radioactives pendant son exploitation et qu’elle s’effondrera après quelques centaines d’années à cause de l’érosion. Cela contaminera la rivière des Outaouais, source d’eau potable de millions de Canadiens.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, l’Association des propriétaires de chalets d’Old Fort William, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire figurent parmi les nombreux organismes qui critiquent depuis 2016 la conception de cette décharge géante de déchets radioactifs. Selon eux, l’information est trop vague concernant les déchets destinés à l’IGDPS même si la Commission de sureté nucléaire et les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens ont affirmé à plusieurs reprises que seulement des déchets radioactifs de faible activité y seront placés.
” Les installations de gestion des déchets près de la surface ne conviennent pas aux déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité qu’on voulait y mettre au début, “déclare Ginette Charbonneau du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. ” À la suite des protestations du public, les promoteurs du projet disent maintenant que l’IGDPS n’acceptera que des déchets de faible activité. Malheureusement, ce n’est pas crédible. Il est très difficile de séparer des déchets de faible activité et de moyenne activité qui ont été stockés ensemble dans des colis non marqués. Il est donc inévitable qu’il y ait encore des déchets de moyenne activité dans cette décharge en surface. C’est très dangereux “.
Johanna Echlin de l’Association des propriétaires de chalets d’Old Fort William (Québec) mentionne que l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) est l’organisme responsable de la sûreté et de la sécurité nucléaires au niveau mondial. Selon l’AIEA, les déchets hérités par les Laboratoires de Chalk River sont de “moyenne activité ” et ils devraient être enfouis à des dizaines ou des centaines de mètres sous terre.
Les groupes de citoyens citent également les déclarations de James R. Walker (Ph.D), un ancien cadre supérieur responsable des déchets radioactifs hérités des Laboratoires de Chalk River. M. Walker énonce clairement dans ses commentaires à la CCSN que certains déchets destinés à l’IGDPS sont des ” déchets de moyenne activité ” qui nécessitent plutôt un stockage souterrain. Il affirme que la décharge serait dangereusement radioactive pendant des milliers d’années et que les radiations provenant de l’installation dépasseraient les niveaux autorisés.
” Le Cabinet et le Parlement ont le pouvoir et le devoir de renverser cette décision le plus tôt possible “, déclare Lynn Jones de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. ” Il est clair que les actionnaires d’Atkins Realis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin), de Fluor et de Jacobs seront les seuls à bénéficier du projet d’IGDPS. Tous les autres n’en tireraient que des problèmes : pollution de la rivière des Outaouais, risques sanitaires accrus, coûts de nettoyage astronomiques et une grande tache noire sur la réputation internationale du Canada “.
Dans une lettre envoyée le 5 février aux élus et aux responsables locaux, les groupes de citoyens demandent au gouvernement canadien de stopper ce projet et de couper son financement. Les études menées par le promoteur lui-même démontrent clairement que les déchets destinés à l’IGDPS sont fortement contaminés par de grandes quantités de substances radioactives de très longue durée de vie provenant des réacteurs nucléaires, expliquent-ils dans leur lettre. Ces déchets pourraient provoquer des cancers, des malformations congénitales et des mutations génétiques chez les populations exposées.
Le Canada devrait s’engager à construire des installations de gestion des déchets radioactifs de classe mondiale, afin de garantir la sécurité des Canadiens et de créer de bons emplois dans l’industrie nucléaire, tout en gérant les déchets de manière sûre pour les générations futures, disent ces groupes de citoyens.
Le coût de la dépollution du site des Laboratoires de Chalk River a été estimé à 8 milliards de dollars lorsque le site a été confié au secteur privé par le gouvernement Harper en 2015. Le consortium multinational appelé “Canadian National Energy Alliance “**, dirigé par SNC-Lavalin (aujourd’hui appelé Atkins Realis), a remporté le contrat de plusieurs milliards de dollars pour gérer et nettoyer “rapidement et à moindre coût” le site de Chalk River et d’autres sites fédéraux. Depuis que le consortium a pris le relais, les contribuables canadiens ont vu le coût d’exploitation des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (autrefois les Laboratoires de Chalk River) gonfler de 336 millions de dollars par an à plus de 1,5 milliard de dollars par année.
-30 –
**Le consortium connu sous le nom de Canadian National Energy Alliance est composé d’Atkins Realis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin), qui a été radié par la Banque mondiale pendant 10 ans et qui a fait l’objet d’accusations de fraude, de pots-de-vin et de corruption au Canada. La société texane Fluor Corporation a payé 4 millions de dollars pour mettre fin à des allégations de fraude financière liées à des travaux de nettoyage de déchets radioactifs sur un site américain ; et la société texane Jacobs Engineering, qui a récemment acquis CH2M, un membre initial du consortium, a accepté de payer 18,5 millions de dollars pour mettre fin à des accusations criminelles fédérales sur un site de nettoyage de déchets radioactifs aux États-Unis.
“A decision to approve the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility two hours west of Ottawa has led Indigenous leaders, activists and experts to voice concerns about what they describe as fundamental aws within Canada’s nuclear regulator.”
“Critics of the decision believe the recent approval is the latest example of the CNSC prioritizing the nuclear industry over Canadians, which they say stems from a lack of regulatory independence.”
“Bloc Québécois MP Monique Pauzé lamented the approval what she described in French as an “insane and inconceivable project.”
“Ottawa confirms to us the bogus status of the hearings conducted by the CNSC where the Commission heard the opposition of multiple stakeholders only to nally brush them aside in the decision rendered yesterday,” Pauzé said in a statement.”
Ottawa River radioactive waste dump ~ license approved by the CNSC
January 13, 2024
Dear Friends
Yesterday afternoon Canada’s captured nuclear regulator, the CNSC, announced its approval of the license to build the giant above-ground radioactive waste mound beside the Ottawa River, aka the NSDF. See below a few links to good coverage of reactions to the announcement.
There was never any doubt that the CNSC would approve the license. The surprise is how long it took them to do so — seven and a half years! That is a testament to the incredible opposition that mobilized to fight the ill-conceived plan. In a David and Goliath battle, opponents effectively derailed the original plan of the CNSC and the consortium to have shovels in the ground six years ago, in January 2018. That is an accomplishment worth celebrating!
The battle is not over. It will move to the courts now. And along with our allies, we will continue to push for an international ARTEMIS review of the proposal. On that note, thank you to everyone who signed and shared House of Commons e-Petition 4676; the petition just closed for signatures today having been signed by well over 3000 Canadians in just 30 days. A meeting with MP Sophie Chatel about how to move the request for an ARTEMIS review forward will take place soon. Other next steps are in the works and we will keep you posted about them as the plans crystalize.
We are very grateful to our Algonquin brothers and sisters for their strong stand against irresponsible nuclear waste projects in their unceded territory. We look forward to continuing to work with them toward an ultimate victory at some point down the road.
This seems a good time to share the inspiring words of Algonquin Elder Claudette Commanda, delivered during a press conference at 50 Sussex Drive on August 10, 2023. The press conference can be viewed at this link and Claudette’s statement begins at 13 minutes. Here is some of what she said that day, to rousing applause:
“This nuclear waste facility will damage the water and we all know that.
Conscientious people are rising. We must rise together, we are all in that medicine wheel. No matter our colour, our creed or our title, we are all related in the human family and we must stand together
We have a responsibility to our brothers the animals, to our sisters the animals. To the water life and to the land.
We cannot stop the thunder.
We cannot stop the rain from falling.
We cannot stop the lightning from shining
We cannot stop the rivers from flowing
But together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, we can certainly stop the nuclear waste facility from coming here on the Ottawa River.Meegwetch”
Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest and support. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be interested. Good overviews for people new to the issue are here and here.
NUCLEAR WASTE AT CHALK RIVER: KEBAOWEK FIRST NATION CONDEMNS CNSC DECISION AND CALLS ON THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
KEBAOWEK, January 9, 2024 – Despite concerns expressed by First Nations and increased support from over 140 municipalities across Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has granted the license for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) project at Chalk River. In response, the Kebaowek First Nation strongly condemns this decision and calls on the federal government to intervene to stop this environmentally high-risk project.
“The Commission’s decision is unacceptable, notably because it goes against the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental protection. The Canadian government must act promptly and immediately assert the suspension of the project. The Commission’s final decision is totally wrong when it states that the NSDF project will not cause significant environmental effects. While the decision states that CNL will take appropriate measures to safeguard the environment, the health, safety of individuals, and national security and to comply with national obligations, it is undeniable that the safety and health of people and the environment will be profoundly impacted for generations to come through this project, ” reacted Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek.
It is worth noting that the NSDF would release radioactive and hazardous materials into a nearby wetland and the Ottawa River during its operation and after its closure. The mound is expected to degrade through a process of “normal evolution”. The NSDF could also contaminate the river following earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and other extreme weather events. Not only is the Kichi Sibi sacred to the Algonquin Peoples, but the Chalk River site is also close to the sacred Algonquin sites of Oiseau Rock and Baptism Point.
In 2017, the Assembly of First Nations adopted a resolution stating that the CNSC and the Canadian government had not fulfilled their constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate First Nations regarding the NSDF. The Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois caucus issued a joint statement on radioactive waste, asserting that “we must protect the land, water, and all living beings for future generations” and calling for no abandonment of radioactive waste, moving it away from major waterways, and eliminating the practice of importing or exporting radioactive waste.
In addition to the opposition of Algonquin First Nations to the project, over 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, including Gatineau and Montreal, as well as several civil society organizations, have expressed their opposition to the NSDF plan. In 2021, the City of Ottawa adopted a resolution expressing its concern.
The Kebaowek First Nation, committed to defending the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental preservation, expresses its eagerness to collaborate with the government and other stakeholders to ensure a careful consideration of Indigenous concerns and compliance with the obligations of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the context of this project. The First Nation maintains its categorical opposition to the establishment of a permanent NSDF on unceded Anishinabe territory, emphasizing the crucial importance of protecting Indigenous rights, the environment, and cultural heritage. Faced with a lack of trust in the CNSC and its persistent failure to uphold UNDRIP, the First Nation calls on the federal government, including the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, to intervene and end the project.
“I want to be very clear: the Algonquin Peoples did not consent to the construction of this radioactive waste dump on our unceded territory. We believe the consultation was inadequate, to say the least, and that our Indigenous rights are threatened by this proposal. We demand the cancellation of the NSDF project. The focus should instead be on a real and successful cleanup of the site to permanently eliminate old radioactive waste,” explains Chief Haymond.
Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond speaking at a press conference in Ottawa in June 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”.
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.”
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.
2The 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.
5The 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 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
Natural Resources Canada recently announced the release of a new federal radioactive waste policy. It was three years in the making and was only undertaken because of pressure from civil society groups and criticism from an international peer review team who visited Canada in September 2019 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In our view, the new radioactive waste policy is a failure on several counts. For example:
It fails to include a requirement to keep radioactive waste out of the biosphere;
It fails to incorporate input from thousands of Canadians who participated in good faith in the review process. For example, the policy does not include a prohibition on plutonium extraction and it also fails to address calls from citizens and NGOs from across Canada for an independent authority to oversee nuclear waste management and decommissioning;
It fails to address serious problems identified by the IAEA in 2019; eg. the IAEA explicitly said defunct nuclear reactors should not be entombed in place except in extreme circumstances, yet the new policy allows for this and enables projects to abandon reactors beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers to move forward;
It fails to require that “free prior and informed consent” be obtained before radioactive waste is stored or disposed of on lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples as laid out in Article 29(2) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2021, Canada affirmed the UNDeclaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. However a proposed giant radioactive waste mound alongside the Ottawa River in unceded Algonquin traditional territory is close to approval and would violate this principle. The new policy will do nothing to stop this. The final licensing hearing is scheduled for June 27.
Canada’s new radioactive waste policy appears to provide the nuclear industry with exactly what it wanted – license to abandon radioactive waste quickly and cheaply – and to afford Canadians with little protection from radioactive wastes that will remain hazardous for thousands of years.
Our letter of March 2021 to the Hill Times noted that Canada’s nuclear governance regime is inadequate, consisting of one captured, pro-industry regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and one pro-nuclear government department, Natural Resources Canada. Other OECD countries have much more robust nuclear governance regimes that include checks and balances, and multiple, multidisciplinary oversight committees and councils, often including high ranking officials such as the President in the case of France. A detailed review of shortcomings in Canada’s nuclear governance was provided to the Auditor General in 2019 in the form of Petition 427 from our respective citizens’ groups, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area and Concerned Citizens of Manitoba and colleagues in Quebec.
We should not be surprised that Canada’s new radioactive waste policy is a failure, as it is the product of a sorely deficient nuclear governance regime.
In 2021 we asked who would fix Canada’s nuclear governance gaps. Now we must also ask “Who will correct the serious deficiencies in Canada’s new radioactive waste policy?” If these problems are not corrected, the nuclear industry in Canada will proceed to implement bargain basement nuclear waste projects that are out of step with international safety standards. This will lead to permanent radioactive contamination of major Canadian water bodies including the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.
Lynn Jones, MHSc Ottawa, Ont., Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 