Entombed reactors

Photos from the protest flotilla on July 27th

hendricksonjones Leave a comment
IN THIS PHOTO GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE IN PONTIAC (CLAUDE BERTRAND) IS RELEASING MOCK RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES INTO THE RIVER – A SYMBOLIC GESTURE (THESE BALLS WERE REMOVED FROM THE WATER A LITTLE LATER)


Morning meeting: (room was full – approximately 80 people coming from Pontiac, Gatineau, Ottawa and Montreal)  From left to right: Jason Phelps, MC (OFWCA), Elssa Martinez (OFWCA), Ole Hendrickson (Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area), Patrick Nadeau (Executive Director, Ottawa Riverkeeper)Photo taken by: Eva Schacherl, Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River (CANDOR)

    Critical comments from former AECL officials and scientists on CNL Disposal projects

    hendricksonjones 14 Comments

    See also:

    NSDF Licensed Inventory

    National Observer: Waste headed for Ontario site is a radioactive ‘mishmash’: nuclear industry veterans

    Update ~ July 5, 2023

    Three recent submissions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by Dr. J.R. Walker, Canada’s foremost expert on the Government of Canada’s legacy radioactive wastes and how to properly manage them can be accessed  here and here. (Backup source in case CNSC website not working)

    According to his Linked In, Dr. Walker was the Director of Safety Engineering and Licensing at AECL when he retired before the multinational consortium took over management of Chalk River Laboratories. He was identified as “champion” on behalf of AECL in this CNSC protocol for the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program. He states very clearly in his submissions to the CNSC that the wastes proposed for disposal in the NSDF are “intermediate level wastes” that require underground disposal. He says the dump would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years and that radiation doses from the facility would exceed allowable levels.

    Here are some excerpts from Dr. Walker’s final submission to the CNSC dated May 30, 2023: (emphases added)

    “No inventory management system is in place to comprehensively verify that waste packages and unpackaged waste accepted for emplacement comply with the radiological parameters of the stated waste acceptance criteria; 

    “The waste acceptance criteria are insufficiently protective for the material permitted to be emplaced in the proposed Engineered Containment Mound to qualify as low level waste — the radionuclides do not decay to an acceptable level during the time that institutional controls can be relied upon. Consequently, the emplaced material is intermediate level radioactive waste that should not be emplaced in a near surface facility because it requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near surface disposal; 

    “Using the waste acceptance criteria credited in the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement, it possible to calculate when the constituent radionuclides of the stated inventory would decay sufficiently to meet Canada’s regulatory criteria for disposal. This calculation reveals that many radionuclides would not decay sufficiently to meet Canada’s disposal criteria for many thousands of years and, in some cases, for many millions of years. This means that the safety of humans and nonhuman biota would be dependent upon institutional controls in perpetuity.

    “The proposal is non-compliant with International Safety Standards, for example, no verification of the radioactive content of emplaced waste and reliance on institutional controls to ensure long-term safety. Canada is bound by international treaty to have due regard to internationally endorsed criteria and standards concerning radioactive waste management. Consequently, giving approval to the proposed ECM would appear to place Canada in contravention of its international treaty obligations.“

    Original post ~ April 2019

    Fifteen former AECL officials and scientists have submitted critical comments on the CNL nuclear waste disposal projects. These people point out many serious flaws in the proposals and the environmental impact statements.

    These comments were all submitted to CNSC/CEAA. Links are to the CEAA pages for the environmental assessments for the disposal projects
    Most of these former AECL employees identify themselves as “residents of Deep River” or “residents of Pinawa” and do not refer to their employment at AECL in their submissions (but see Michael Stephens’ second NSDF submission).   All are retired, but their former job titles or responsibilities – found through internet searching – are shown in parentheses, below.

    Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the Near Surface Disposal Facility Project:

    Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

    Michael Stephens (2nd submission)

    William Turner (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

    William Turner (2nd submission)

    William Turner (3rd submission)

    William Turner (4th submission)

    William Turner (5th submission)

    John Hilborn (Nuclear physicist, AECL)

    J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

    J.R. Walker (2nd submission)

    J.R. Walker (3rd submission)

    Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord (all retired AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employees)

    Pravin Shah (Manager, Site Landlord Services, AECL)

    Greg Csullog (Manager, Waste Identification Program, AECL)

    Greg Csullog (2nd submission)

    David J. Winfield (30 years’ experience, research reactors and nuclear facilities, AECL)

    Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project:

    William Turner  (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

    William Turner (2nd submission)

    William Turner (3rd submission)

    Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

    J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

    Comments from AECL officials and scientists on the In Situ Decommissioning of the Whiteshell  Reactor #1 Project

    William Turner  (Quality Assurance Specialist and Environmental Assessment Coordinator/Strategic Planner, AECL)

    William Turner (2nd submission)

    William Turner (3rd submission)

    Michael Stephens (Manager, Business Operations, Liability Management Unit; Manager, Strategic Planning, Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program, AECL)

    Michael Stephens (2nd submission)

    Peter Baumgartner (AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employee)

    Peter Baumgartner (2nd submission)

    Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord (all retired AECL Whiteshell Laboratories employees)

    Peter Baumgartner, Dennis Bilinsky, Edward T. Kozak, Tjalle T. Vandergraaf, Grant Koroll, Jude McMurry, Alfred G. Wikjord  (2ndsubmission)

    Leonard Simpson (Director of Reactor Safety Research, AECL)

    J.R. Walker (Director, Safety Engineering & Licensing; Champion, NLLP Protocol, AECL)

    Two nuclear waste dumps threaten the Ottawa River

    hendricksonjones 1 Comment

    A multinational consortium wants to build two nuclear waste dumps alongside the Ottawa River upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau, one at Chalk River, Ontario and the other at Rolphton, Ontario. Both dumps disregard international safety guidelines and would leak radioactive materials into the Ottawa River, endangering drinking water for millions of Canadians living downstream.

    Background:

    In 1944 Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) were established to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Starting in 1952 the Labs were operated by “Atomic Energy of Canada Limited” (AECL).  Besides producing plutonium, the labs established a prototype nuclear power reactor (NPD) upstream of Chalk River at Rolphton, and extracted “medical isotopes” from irradiated fuel. These activities and two serious accidents created large quantities of dangerous radioactive wastes. Cleanup costs are estimated at $8 billion.

    The Harper government radically restructured AECL in 2015, creating a subsidiary called Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and contracting a multinational consortium including SNC Lavalin, to operate the subsidiary and reduce the federal government’s nuclear cleanup liabilities quickly and cheaply. All four consortium members face or have faced criminal charges for fraud and corruption*. Annual costs to taxpayers tripled shortly after restructuring.

    In 2016, CNL proposed to construct a giant, above-ground mound of radioactive waste (NSDF) at Chalk River and to entomb in concrete the NPD reactor at Rolphton. Both proposals disregard International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards and would permanently contaminate the Ottawa River with radioactive materials such as plutonium, caesium, strontium and tritium, some of which will be remain hazardous for over 100,000 years.  CNL is also moving to bring thousands of shipments of radioactive waste (including highly toxic used fuel rods) to Chalk River from other federal sites in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.


    Independent experts, retired AECL scientists, Citizens’ groups, NGOs, 140 Quebec municipalities and several First Nations have been sounding alarm bells about the projects via written comments, resolutions, press conferences, and protests including a boat flotilla on the Ottawa River in August 2017 and a Red Canoe March for Nuclear Safety through the streets of downtown Ottawa in January of 2018.


    In April 2018, CNL was granted a 10-year license despite widespread concern over license changes that would make it easier for the consortium to get its nuclear waste projects approved. Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), granted the new license.  The CNSC is also in charge of environmental assessment (EA) and licensing for nuclear waste projects. The CNSC is perceived to be a “captured” regulator that promotes projects it is charged with regulating, according to Canada’s Expert Panel on EA reform. The CNSC’s mishandling of EAs for the consortium’s nuclear waste projects is described in Environmental Petition 413 to the Auditor General of Canada.

    * The consortium, known as Canadian National Energy Alliance, includes: SNC-Lavalin,debarred by the World Bank for 10 years and facing charges in Canada of fraud, bribery and corruption; CH2M agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle federal criminal charges at a nuclear cleanup site in the U.S.; Fluor paid $4 million to resolve allegations of  financial fraud related to nuclear waste cleanup work at a U.S. site; Rolls-Royce PLC,  parent company of consortium member Rolls-Royce Civil Nuclear Canada Ltd., recently agreed to pay more than CAN$1 billion in fines for bribery and corruptionin the U.K., U.S. and Brazil. **NB** since this post was first published, membership in the consortium has changed. Rolls Royce is no longer listed as a consortium member on the CNEA website and Texas based Jacobs Engineering has recently acquired CH2M.

    Dix choses à savoir sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs au Canada

    hendricksonjones Leave a comment

    English version follows

    (Fiche d’information préparée par les associations Old Fort William Cottager’s Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and area, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et la Coalition contre le dépotoir nucléaire sur la rivière des Outaouais.)

    Trois projets pour gérer l’héritage radioactif du Canada menacent de contaminer de matières radioactives l’eau potable de millions de Canadiens :

    • Le projet de dépotoir nucléaire à Chalk River, en Ontario
    • Le projet de mise en tombeau du réacteur nucléaire de Rolphton, en Ontario
    • Le projet de mise en tombeau du réacteur nucléaire de Whiteshell, au Manitoba

     

    1. Le projet de dépotoir nucléaire abandonnerait un million de mètres cube de déchets radioactifs de faible activité – à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais- source d’eau potable pour des millions de Québécois.
    • Le site choisi pour le dépotoir nucléaire se trouve à flanc de colline, à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, le principal affluent du fleuve Saint-Laurent et la source d’eau potable de millions de Québécois.
    • Il se draine dans une zone marécageuse vers le lac Perch et son ruisseau qui se déverse directement dans la rivière des Outaouais.

     

    1. Le méga-dépotoir aurait une superficie équivalente à la taille de 70 patinoires de hockey de la LNH.
    • Cette installation s’étendrait sur 16 hectares et s’élèverait jusqu’à 18 mètres de hauteur.

     

    1. Le site pour le dépotoir nucléaire se trouve sur une ligne de faille sismique majeure, au-dessus d’un substrat rocheux poreux et fracturé.
    • Des études, menées dans les années 90, ont déterminé que les couches rocheuses sous-jacentes au site étaient poreuses et fracturées, et que les eaux souterraines affluaient vers la rivière des Outaouais.
    • Le site se trouve dans la zone sismique de l’Ouest du Québec. Selon Ressources naturelles Canada, un tremblement de terre peut y atteindre une magnitude de 6 sur l’échelle de Richter.

     

    1. Le méga-dépotoir va contenir des déchets radioactifs de longues durées de vie
    • Les normes de sécurité établies par l’Agence internationale d’énergie atomique (AIEA) prévoient que seuls des déchets radioactifs de « très faible activité » peuvent être enfouis dans une telle instal Selon ces normes, les déchets doivent devenir inoffensifs avant que les revêtements perdent leur intégrité et leur étanchéité.
    • Cependant, certains des déchets faussement classés comme étant de « faible activité» que proposent d’enfouir les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens ont une demi-vie radioactive de plusieurs dizaines de milliers d’années, alors que les membranes géotextiles du dépotoir ont une durée de vie de 500 ans, selon les promoteur

     

    1. Les déchets radioactifs seront exposés à la pluie, à la neige et aux autres intempéries de plus en plus imprévisibles avec les changements climatiques en plus d’interagir entre eux à cause de la radioactivité
    • Durant les cinquante années requises pour remplir le dépotoir, les déchets radioactifs seraient exposés aux précipitations de pluie, de neige et à d’autres intempéries (tornades, etc.).
    • Les promoteurs ont prévu une station de traitement pour les eaux contaminées, mais il n’existe aucun moyen d’éliminer le tritium qui rend l’eau radioactive. De plus, plusieurs substances radioactives peuvent être présentes dans l’eau sans qu’il soit possible de les mesurer.
    • Les interactions critiques et dangereuses entre toutes les substances radioactives contenues dans le dépotoir sont inconnus, surtout à cause des radiations, de la chaleur et de l’humidité.

     

    1. Les projets de mise en tombeau des réacteurs nucléaires de Rolphton (Ontario) et de Whiteshell (Manitoba) vont également contaminer des sources d’eau potable
    • La mise en tombeau des réacteurs nucléaires de Rolphton et de Whiteshell consiste à laisser les réacteurs en place et à les remplir d’un coulis de béton, alors qu’ils sont situés à quelques dizaines de mètres de la rivière des Outaouais, en Ontario et de la rivière Winnipeg, au Manitoba.
    • Les projets contreviennent aux normes de sécurité établies par l’AIEA qui déconseille la mise en tombeau, sauf quand on ne peut faire autrement, à cause d’un accident grave.

     

    1. Ces trois projets dangereux sont présentés par un consortium d’entreprises privées
    • En 2015, le gouvernement Harper a transféré l’exploitation et la gestion des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens à un consortium de sociétés multinationales à but lucratif basées aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et au Canada, selon un modèle de partenariat public-privé. Bien que le dépotoir serait administré par le consortium, le site de Chalk River et son méga-dépotoir, tout comme les réacteurs nucléaires cimentés sur place demeurent la propriété du Gouvernement du Canada.

     

    1. Le processus d’évaluation environnementale en vue de l’approbation de ces trois projets est sous la responsabilité de la même agence qui fait la promotion de l’industrie nucléaire.
    • Depuis les modifications apportées par le gouvernement Harper en 2012 à la Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale, la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN), un organisme non élu, a la responsabilité exclusive de l’approbation des projets nucléaires. Les modifications de la loi, ont notamment aboli l’obligation d’obtenir l’avis d’une commission indépendante pour les projets nucléaires et ont exclu le ministre de l’Environnement de la prise de dé
    • La CCSN a démontré par le passé son incapacité à protéger l’environnement et une tendance à favoriser d’avantage les intérêts de l’industrie nucléaire que la sécurité publique.

     

    1. 9. Les municipalités en aval ont vivement exprimé leur objection contre le dépotoir nucléaire de Chalk River
    • 135 municipalités et MRC québécoises ont adopté des résolutions contre le projet de méga-dépotoir à Chalk River parce que le site et la technologie proposés leur semblent inadéquats.

     

    1. Il faut agir maintenant: citoyens, gouvernements municipaux, provinciaux et Premières Nations doivent concerter leurs actions pour s’opposer aux projets et protéger la rivière des Outaouais et la rivière Winnipeg- sources d’eau potable de millions de Canadiens.

    Actions proposées:

     

    Fiche d’information préparée par les associations Old Fort William Cottager’s Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and area, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et la Coalition contre le dépotoir nucléaire sur la rivière des Outaouais.

     

    Ten Things to Know About Radioactive Waste Management in Canada

     

    Three projects to manage Canada’s radioactive waste heritage threaten to radioactively contaminate the drinking water of millions of Canadians:
    • The radioactive waste dump on the Ottawa River in Chalk River, Ontario
    • The entombment of the nuclear reactor on the Ottawa River in Rolphton, Ontario
    • The entombment of the Whiteshell nuclear reactor on the Winnipeg River in Pinawa, Manitoba

     

    1. The radioactive waste dump project would abandon one million cubic metres of radioactive waste – less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River – a source of drinking water for millions of Quebecers.
    • The site chosen for the nuclear dump will be located on a hillside, less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River, the main tributary of the St. Lawrence River and the source of drinking water for millions of Quebecers.
    • The site is surrounded by a swamp which drains into Perch Lake and Perch creek, which flow directly into the Ottawa River.

     

    2. The mega-dump would be about the size of 70 NHL hockey rinks.
    • This facility would span 16 hectares and be 18 metres in height.

     

    3. The site for the nuclear dump is located on a major seismic fault, above porous and fractured bedrock.
    • Studies in the 1990s determined that the underlying rock layers at the site are porous and fractured, and that groundwater flows into the Ottawa River.
    • The site is in the seismic zone of western Quebec. According to Natural Resources Canada, an earthquake in this area can reach a magnitude of 6 on the Richter scale.

     

    4. The mega-dump will contain long-lived radionuclides.
    • The safety standards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicate that only “very low-level” radioactive waste can be buried in such an installation. According to these standards, the waste must become harmless before the geotextile membrane cover loses its integrity and watertightness.
    • However, some of the waste that is falsely classified as “low activity” that is proposed to be included in this dump by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has a radioactive half-life of several tens of thousands of years, while the geotextile membrane has a duration of 500 years, according to the promoters.

     

    5. Radioactive waste will be exposed to rain, snow and all weather conditions that are increasingly unpredictable with climate change and the wastes will interact with each other due to radioactivity.
    • During the fifty years required to fill the dump, radioactive waste would be exposed to rain, snow and other inclement weather (tornadoes, etc.).
    • Proponents include a water treatment plant for contaminated water, but there is no way to remove the tritium that makes the water radioactive. In addition, several radioactive substances may be present in the water without it being possible to measure them.
    • The critical and dangerous interactions between all radioactive substances in the dump are unknown, mainly because of radiation, heat and humidity.

     

    6. Reactor entombment projects at Rolphton, Ontario, and Pinawa, Manitoba will also contaminate drinking water sources.
    • The entombment of the Rolphton and Whiteshell nuclear reactors consists in leaving the reactors in place and filling them with concrete grout.  These reactors are located  only several hundred metres from the Ottawa River, in Ontario and the Winnipeg River, in Manitoba.
    • Entombment contravenes IAEA safety standards except in the case of a serious accident.

     

    7. These three dangerous projects are presented by a consortium of private companies.
    • In 2015, the Harper Government transferred the operation and management of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to a consortium of for-profit multinational corporations based in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, using a public-private partnership model.  Although the dump would be administered by the consortium, the Chalk River site and its mega-dump, just like the cemented on-site nuclear reactors, remain the property of the Government of Canada.

     

    8. The environmental assessment process for approval of these three projects is the responsibility of the same agency that promotes the nuclear industry.
    • Since the Harper Government’s 2012 amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), an unelected body, has sole responsibility for the approval of nuclear projects. The amendments to the act, in particular, abolished the requirement to obtain the opinion of an independent commission for nuclear projects and excluded the Minister of the Environment from the decision-making process.
    • The CNSC has demonstrated in the past its inability to protect the environment and a tendency to favour the interests of the nuclear industry more than public safety.

     

    9. Downstream Municipalities Strongly Oppose the Chalk River Nuclear Dump.
    • 135 Quebec municipalities and MRCs passed resolutions against the Chalk River mega-dump project because the proposed site and technology seem inadequate.

     

    10. We must act now: citizens, municipal, provincial and First Nations governments must work together to oppose projects and protect the Ottawa River and the Winnipeg River – sources of drinking water for millions of Canadians.
    Proposed actions:
    • Communicate with elected municipal officials, members of Parliament, deputies of the National Assembly to express your opposition to projects.
    • Contact the media and environmental, civic, social and labor groups in your area to raise awareness of the situation and ask them to oppose these foolish projects.
    • Demand that radioactive waste be safely managed for future generations.
    • Request a deep geological site for medium and high activity radioactive waste.
    • Follow us on Facebook and take part in our actions (facebook.com/OFWCARadioactive/ and face-book.com/ralliementcontrelapollutionradioactive/ and facebook.com/RadWasteAlert/Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area).

     

    Fact sheet prepared by the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area,  Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive and the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River.