OTTAWA, February 22, 2022 – Citizens’ groups from Ontario and Quebec provided Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) President Rumina Velshi with a searing critique of CNSC’s case to approve a giant radioactive waste mound alongside the Ottawa River in advance of a February 22nd hearing.
If approved, the giant landfill would stand 60 feet high and hold one million tonnes of mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes. Some of the contents would remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, but the mound itself is only expected to last a few hundred years according to studies produced by the proponent, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, owned by a consortium of multinational corporations. International safety standards prohibit disposing of long-lived radioactive wastes in landfills.
The citizens’ critique of key licensing documents found eleven critical flaws ranging from a failure to provide detailed information about what would go into the dump, as required under the Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations, to a failure to note serious deficiencies in the siting process for the facility.
“You couldn’t find a worse site for this dump if you tried,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, one of the groups that co-authored the citizens’ critique. “The site is on the side of a hill, and is surrounded on three sides by wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River, a kilometre away. The water table is just inches under the surface at that location and the bedrock is highly fractured.”
The site of the proposed facility is also of concern to downstream communities who take their drinking water from the Ottawa River, including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal. The three cities are among the more than 140 municipalities that have passed resolutions of concern about the proposed dump. The Assembly of First Nations has also passed a resolution opposing the facility.
Ole Hendrickson, a scientist and researcher for the group Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area said there are a number of serious errors in the licensing documents including a 1000-fold overestimate of radioactivity in nearby uranium ore bodies. “That gross overestimate is used by the proponent and the regulator to make the case that the giant mound would be less radioactive than surrounding rocks after a few hundred years,” Hendrickson said. “In fact, high-radioactivity waste containers in the dump would exceed levels in surrounding rocks for thousands of years.”
The Quebec-based Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive contributed a number of findings to the critique. The group is very concerned about the presence of cobalt-60, which alone will provide 98% of the initial radioactivity in the dump, even though its radioactivity will decline rapidly thereafter. Used cobalt-60 sources require lead shielding because they emit intense gamma radiation that endangers workers.
Physicist Ginette Charbonneau, a spokeswoman for the Ralliement, says that only low-level cobalt-60 sources could be accepted in an above-ground mound and that the criteria for accepting such waste in the dump must be tightened.
“It is also out of the question that long-lived radioactive substances like plutonium be disposed of in a landfill,” Charbonneau said. “This is simply a senseless proposal, which is not in line with international standards at all,” she added.
The citizens’ groups say the case to approve the giant radioactive landfill, called the NSDF by the proponent, is so seriously flawed that CNSC Commissioners cannot make a sound licensing decision based on the contents of the documents. They have asked that the citizens’ critique be distributed to Commissioners at the hearing on Feb 22 and that all of the flaws, errors and omissions be fully addressed before the Commission is asked to make a decision on the license for the dump.
The licensing hearings for the giant radioactive waste dump will take place in two parts. Part 1 will take place February 22. Part 2 will start on May 31, but is expected to take several days as it will include presentations from Indigenous communities, municipal representatives, NGOs and members of the public. Requests to intervene in the hearings must be submitted in writing to the CNSC by April 11, 2022. See Notice of Public Hearing for details.
– 30 –
Graphic above from Radio Canada Découverte, March 2018, showing the mound overflowing as part of the degradation and erosion process, described by the proponent in its Performance Assessment report.
OTTAWA, February 16, 2022 – Members of Parliament and 50 environmental and citizen groups are opposed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)’s forthcoming hearings to license Canada’s first permanent “disposal” facility for radioactive waste.
A statement calling for suspension of the hearings is signed by three MPs: Laurel Collins, NDP environment critic; Elizabeth May, Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada; and Monique Pauzé, environment spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois.
Union signatories of the statement include SCFP Québec, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) and Health, safety and environment committee of Unifor Québec.
Other signatories include Friends of the Earth, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, National Council of Women of Canada, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, and Quebec’s Front commun pour la transition énergétique. Ottawa Valley groups include Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Action Climat Outaouais, and Pontiac Environmental Protection, among others.
On January 31, the Kebaowek First Nation asked that the hearings be halted until a consultation framework between them and the CNSC is in place. The hearings are for authorization to build a “Near Surface Disposal Facility” for nuclear waste at Chalk River, Ontario, on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands alongside the Ottawa River.
The CNSC staff report recommends licensing the construction of the mound for 1 million cubic metres of radioactive and toxic wastes accumulated by the federal government since 1945. The CNSC has scheduled licensing hearings on February 22 and May 31. No separate environmental assessment hearing is scheduled.
The proposed facility would be an aboveground mound a kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa and Montréal. 140 municipalities have opposed the project and fear contamination of drinking water and the watershed.
In 2017, the CNSC received 400 submissions responding to its environmental impact statement, the overwhelming majority of them opposed to the plan.
– 30 –
———————————————————————————————-
Des députées et des groupes s’opposent aux audiences pour autoriser la première décharge permanente de déchets radioactifs au Canada
OTTAWA, le 16février 2022 – Des députées et 50 groupes environnementaux et citoyens s’opposent aux prochaines audiences de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) pour autoriser la première installation permanente de « gestion » de déchets radioactifs au Canada.
Trois députées ont signé une déclaration appelant à la suspension des audiences : Laurel Collins, porte-parole du NPD en matière d’environnement; Elizabeth May, Chef parlementaire du Parti vert du Canada; et Monique Pauzé, porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois.
Les signataires syndicaux de la déclaration incluent le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) – Québec, la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) et le Comité de santé, de sécurité et environnement d’Unifor Québec.
On retrouve, parmi les autres signataires, les Amis de la Terre, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, l’Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement, le Conseil national des femmes du Canada, l’Ontario Clean Air Alliance et le Front commun pour la transition énergétique du Québec. Des regroupements de la vallée de l’Outaouais l’ont également signée, dont Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Action Climat Outaouais, et Protection environnementale de Pontiac, entre autres.
Le 31 janvier, la Première Nation de Kebaowek a demandé que les audiences soient suspendues jusqu’à ce qu’un cadre de consultation entre elle et la CCSN soit mis en place. Les audiences portent sur l’autorisation de construire une « installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface (IGDPS) » pour les déchets nucléaires à Chalk River, en Ontario, sur les terres algonquines Anishinaabeg non cédées le long de la rivière des Outaouais.
Le rapport du personnel de la CCSN recommande d’autoriser la construction du monticule pour 1 million de mètres cubes de déchets radioactifs et toxiques accumulés par le gouvernement fédéral depuis 1945. La CCSN a prévu des audiences d’autorisation les 22 février et 31 mai. Aucune audience d’évaluation environnementale distincte n’est prévue.
L’installation proposée serait un monticule hors sol situé à un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d’Ottawa et de Montréal. 140 municipalités se sont opposées au projet, craignant une contamination de l’eau potable et du bassin versant.
En 2017, la CCSN a reçu 400 soumissions en réponse à son étude d’impact environnemental : la grande majorité d’entre elles s’opposent au plan.
Nous nous opposons à la tenue d’audiences d’autorisation pour la construction d’une « installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface » (IGDPS) à Chalk River, en Ontario, sur les terres algonquines Anishinaabeg non cédées le long de la rivière des Outaouais.
Récemment, le personnel de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a recommandé l’approbation de ce dépotoir controversé pour un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs et dangereux mixtes. La CCSN a prévu des audiences sur les permis demandés les 22 février et 31 mai 2022.
Nous appuyons la Première Nation de Kebaowek qui a demandé que les audiences soient suspendues jusqu’à ce qu’un cadre de consultation entre elle et la CCSN soit en place. Il s’agit d’une demande de longue date de la Première Nation de Kebaowek, et elle demeure en suspens. La réconciliation et un dialogue significatif doivent être le point de départ de toute décision gouvernementale affectant les terres et les droits autochtones.
Le Comité parlementaire permanent de l’environnement et du développement durable vient d’entreprendre un « examen complet de la gouvernance des déchets radioactifs au Canada et de ses impacts sur l’environnement ». Une vérification sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs est actuellement en cours par le vérificateur général du Canada. Nous exigeons que les deux processus soient terminés avant toute audience d’autorisation pour les installations de gestion des déchets radioactifs.
L’Assemblée des Premières Nations et plus de 140 municipalités en aval, dont la Ville de Gatineau et le Conseil municipal de Montréal, ont adopté des résolutions s’opposant au plan de l’IGDPS.
Des citoyens et des groupes environnementaux ont relevé de graves lacunes et omissions dans le rapport d’évaluation environnementale (EE) de la CCSN. Quand l’installation aura des fuites et commencera à se décomposer, les déchets radioactifs et autres contamineront les eaux souterraines, les terres humides et la rivière des Outaouais, la source d’eau potable de millions de personnes, de la capitale nationale et de la communauté métropolitaine de Montréal.
Le rapport d’EE ne tient pas compte d’autres emplacements ou types d’installations qui protégeraient mieux l’environnement. Le site choisi a une nappe phréatique élevée et un risque d’inondation et est également sujet aux tremblements de terre.
Le rapport néglige les risques pour les travailleurs qui manipuleront des sources de cobalt 60 dans la décharge. De plus, il néglige la pollution par le plomb et par d’autres déchets industriels dangereux qui se déverseraient dans la rivière des Outaouais.
L’installation est proposée par les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC), exploités par un consortium de SNC-Lavalin et de sociétés multinationales. Ils dirigent les Laboratoires nucléaires du Canada en vertu d’un contrat signé par le gouvernement fédéral Harper en 2015.
En 2021, la Ville d’Ottawa a adopté une résolution exhortant la CCSN et les LNC à cesser de transporter des déchets radioactifs provenant d’autres provinces vers Chalk River, à renforcer les mesures de protection pour la rivière des Outaouais pendant les activités de démolition du site et de transfert des déchets, et à empêcher les précipitations de pénétrer dans l’IGDPS. La ville a également demandé une évaluation régionale des projets de déchets radioactifs dans la vallée de l’Outaouais en vertu de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact, mais la demande a été rejetée par le ministre fédéral de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique.
Pour toutes ces raisons, nous demandons au gouvernement du Canada de mettre fin aux audiences pour l’autorisation de licence pour le projet de l’IGDPS et de mettre sur pied un organisme indépendant pour aborder le problème des déchets radioactifs du Canada d’une manière qui soit socialement acceptable et qui ne compromette pas la sécurité des générations futures.
SIGNERS/SIGNATAIRES
Elected representatives
Laurel Collins, MP, Critic for the Environment and Climate Change, New Democratic Party
Elizabeth May, Chef parlementaire du Parti vert du Canada
Monique Pauzé, Députée et porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois
Theresa Kavanagh, Ottawa City Councillor
Catherine McKenney, Ottawa City Councillor
National organizations
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Friends of the Earth
National Council of Women of Canada
Nuclear Waste Watch
Prevent Cancer Now
Organizations based in Ontario
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
Council of Canadians – Kitchissippi-Ottawa Valley Chapter
Council of Canadians – Ottawa Chapter
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital
Integral North
Northwatch
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Petawawa Point Cottagers’ Association
Pontiac Environment Protection
United Church Water Care Allies
Watershed Sentinel Educational Society
Westboro Beach Community Association
Organizations based in Québec/N.B.
Action Climat Outaouais
Action Environnement Basses-Laurentides
AmiEs de la Terre – Québec
Artistes pour la Paix
Association Canadienne des Médecins pour l’Environnement
Association québécoise des médecins pour l’environnement
Association Québécoise de Lutte contre la Pollution Atmosphérique
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
Coalition Verte/Green Coalition
Collectif Femmes pour le climat
Comité de santé, sécurité et environnement d’Unifor Québec
Eau Secours
Extinction Rebellion Québec
Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)
Fondation Rivières
Front commun pour la transition énergétique
Lucie Sauvé, professeure émérite, UQAM
Laurence Brière, professeure, UQAM
Mouvement d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec
Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association
Oxygène Laval en amont
Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive
Regroupement des citoyens de Saraguay
Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire
Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec
Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes
Santé Cannabis
Sauvons la falaise
Sierra Club – chapitre Québec
Société pour vaincre la pollution
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) – Québec
We oppose the holding of licensing hearings for the construction of a Near Surface Disposal Facility for nuclear waste at Chalk River, Ontario, on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands alongside the Ottawa River.
Recently, staff of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) recommended approval of this controversial above-ground nuclear waste dump for one million tonnes of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste. The CNSC has scheduled licensing hearings on February 22 and May 31, 2022.
We stand with the Kebaowek First Nation who has asked that the hearings be halted until a consultation framework between them and the CNSC is in place. This has been a longstanding request from Kebaowek First Nation, and it remains outstanding. Reconciliation and meaningful dialogue must be a starting point for any government decision affecting Indigenous lands and rights.
The parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has just begun a “comprehensive review of the governance of nuclear waste in Canada and its impacts on the environment.” An audit on nuclear waste management is currently underway by the Auditor General of Canada. We call for both processes to be completed before any licensing hearings for nuclear waste disposal facilities.
The Assembly of First Nations and more than 140 downstream municipalities, including the City of Gatineau and the Montreal Municipal Council, have passed resolutions opposing the NSDF plan.
Citizen and environmental groups have identified serious flaws and omissions in the CNSC’s environmental assessment (EA) report. When the facility leaks and eventually disintegrates, as expected, radioactive and other wastes will contaminate groundwater, wetlands and the Ottawa River, the source of drinking water for millions of people, the National Capital and the metropolitan community of Montreal.
The EA report fails to consider other locations or types of facilities that would better protect the environment. The chosen site has a high water table and risk of flooding and is also earthquake prone.
The report overlooks risks to workers who will handle industrial cobalt-60 devices that will go into the dump. In addition, it neglects pollution by lead and other hazardous industrial wastes that would leak into the Ottawa River.
The facility is proposed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), operated by a consortium of SNC-Lavalin and multinational corporations. They run Canada’s nuclear laboratories under a contract signed by the Harper federal government in 2015.
In 2021, the City of Ottawa passed a resolution urging the CNSC and CNL to stop importing radioactive waste from other provinces to Chalk River, to increase safeguards to protect the Ottawa River during site demolition and waste transfer activities, and to prevent precipitation from entering the NSDF. The city also called for a regional assessment of radioactive disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley under the Impact Assessment Act, but the request was turned down by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
For all of these reasons, we call on the Government of Canada to halt licensing hearings for the NSDF and to set up an independent body to address Canada’s radioactive waste problem in ways that are socially acceptable and will not compromise the safety of future generations.
SIGNERS/SIGNATAIRES
Elected representatives
Laurel Collins, MP, Critic for the Environment and Climate Change, New Democratic Party
Elizabeth May, Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada
Monique Pauzé, Députée et porte-parole de l’environnement pour le Bloc Québécois
Theresa Kavanagh, Ottawa City Councillor
Catherine McKenney, Ottawa City Councillor
National organizations
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
Friends of the Earth
National Council of Women of Canada
Nuclear Waste Watch
Prevent Cancer Now
Organizations based in Ontario
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
Council of Canadians – Kitchissippi-Ottawa Valley Chapter
Council of Canadians – Ottawa Chapter
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital
Integral North
Northwatch
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Petawawa Point Cottagers’ Association
Pontiac Environment Protection
United Church Water Care Allies
Watershed Sentinel Educational Society
Westboro Beach Community Association
Organizations based in Québec/N.B.
Action Climat Outaouais
Action Environnement Basses-Laurentides
AmiEs de la Terre – Québec
Artistes pour la Paix
Association Canadienne des Médecins pour l’Environnement
Association québécoise des médecins pour l’environnement
Association Québécoise de Lutte contre la Pollution Atmosphérique
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
Coalition Verte/Green Coalition
Collectif Femmes pour le climat
Comité de santé, sécurité et environnement d’Unifor Québec
Eau Secours
Extinction Rebellion Québec
Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ)
Fondation Rivières
Front commun pour la transition énergétique
Lucie Sauvé, professeure émérite, UQAM
Laurence Brière, professeure, UQAM
Mouvement d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec
Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association
Oxygène Laval en amont
Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive
Regroupement des citoyens de Saraguay
Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire
Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec
Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes
Santé Cannabis
Sauvons la falaise
Sierra Club – chapitre Québec
Société pour vaincre la pollution
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) – Québec
TerraVie
Vigilance OGM
Déclaration pour suspendre les audiences d’autorisation d’un monticule de déchets radioactifs au bord de la rivière des Outaouais
Nous nous opposons à la tenue d’audiences d’autorisation pour la construction d’une « installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface » (IGDPS) à Chalk River, en Ontario, sur les terres algonquines Anishinaabeg non cédées le long de la rivière des Outaouais.
Récemment, le personnel de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a recommandé l’approbation de ce dépotoir controversé pour un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs et dangereux mixtes. La CCSN a prévu des audiences sur les permis demandés les 22 février et 31 mai 2022.
Nous appuyons la Première Nation de Kebaowek qui a demandé que les audiences soient suspendues jusqu’à ce qu’un cadre de consultation entre elle et la CCSN soit en place. Il s’agit d’une demande de longue date de la Première Nation de Kebaowek, et elle demeure en suspens. La réconciliation et un dialogue significatif doivent être le point de départ de toute décision gouvernementale affectant les terres et les droits autochtones.
Le Comité parlementaire permanent de l’environnement et du développement durable vient d’entreprendre un « examen complet de la gouvernance des déchets radioactifs au Canada et de ses impacts sur l’environnement ». Une vérification sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs est actuellement en cours par le vérificateur général du Canada. Nous exigeons que les deux processus soient terminés avant toute audience d’autorisation pour les installations de gestion des déchets radioactifs.
L’Assemblée des Premières Nations et plus de 140 municipalités en aval, dont la Ville de Gatineau et le Conseil municipal de Montréal, ont adopté des résolutions s’opposant au plan de l’IGDPS.
Des citoyens et des groupes environnementaux ont relevé de graves lacunes et omissions dans le rapport d’évaluation environnementale (EE) de la CCSN. Quand l’installation aura des fuites et commencera à se décomposer, les déchets radioactifs et autres contamineront les eaux souterraines, les terres humides et la rivière des Outaouais, la source d’eau potable de millions de personnes, de la capitale nationale et de la communauté métropolitaine de Montréal.
Le rapport d’EE ne tient pas compte d’autres emplacements ou types d’installations qui protégeraient mieux l’environnement. Le site choisi a une nappe phréatique élevée et un risque d’inondation et est également sujet aux tremblements de terre.
Le rapport néglige les risques pour les travailleurs qui manipuleront des sources de cobalt 60 dans la décharge. De plus, il néglige la pollution par le plomb et par d’autres déchets industriels dangereux qui se déverseraient dans la rivière des Outaouais.
L’installation est proposée par les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC), exploités par un consortium de SNC-Lavalin et de sociétés multinationales. Ils dirigent les Laboratoires nucléaires du Canada en vertu d’un contrat signé par le gouvernement fédéral Harper en 2015.
En 2021, la Ville d’Ottawa a adopté une résolution exhortant la CCSN et les LNC à cesser de transporter des déchets radioactifs provenant d’autres provinces vers Chalk River, à renforcer les mesures de protection pour la rivière des Outaouais pendant les activités de démolition du site et de transfert des déchets, et à empêcher les précipitations de pénétrer dans l’IGDPS. La ville a également demandé une évaluation régionale des projets de déchets radioactifs dans la vallée de l’Outaouais en vertu de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact, mais la demande a été rejetée par le ministre fédéral de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique.
Pour toutes ces raisons, nous demandons au gouvernement du Canada de mettre fin aux audiences pour l’autorisation de licence pour le projet de l’IGDPS et de mettre sur pied un organisme indépendant pour aborder le problème des déchets radioactifs du Canada d’une manière qui soit socialement acceptable et qui ne compromette pas la sécurité des générations futures.
OTTAWA, February 3, 2022 – Staff of Canada’s nuclear regulatory agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), have recommended approval of a controversial giant above-ground nuclear waste dump for one million tonnes of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste alongside the Ottawa River. The recommendation was contained in a licensing document and environmental assessment report released on January 25. Citizens’ groups say the document is seriously flawed and vow to fight the recommendation in licensing hearings scheduled for February 22 and May 31, 2022.
Ole Hendrickson, scientist and researcher for the group Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, said the CNSC “has failed to assess the project in an objective and scientifically credible manner.” Hendrickson noted a number of “critical omissions in the document” that he says “make it impossible for the Commission to make a sound decision about whether or not to license the dump.”
“The recommendation to approve this dump, given that it would leak and eventually disintegrate, is reckless and irresponsible on the part of CNSC staff,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association. “The CNSC is supposed to protect Canadians from radioactive pollution created by the nuclear industry, not enable it,” she added.
Some of the critical omissions in the environmental assessment report noted by citizens’ groups include the following:
Failure to consider future human exposures to nuclear waste packages containing plutonium and other long-lived substances that will remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years
No identification of the impacts of constructing a pipeline to discharge contaminated effluent into Perch Lake, which drains into the Ottawa River; presented un-ironically as a “mitigation measure”
Failure to seriously consider alternative sites that would avoid rapid discharge of radioactive and hazardous substances to a major water body, and avoid placing wastes in an area of high water table with risk of flooding
Inadequate consideration of alternative facility types that would not expose wastes to rain, wind, and snow; and that would not require unproven water treatment and “weather cover structure” technologies
No consideration of risks to workers from accidents involving highly-radioactive industrial cobalt-60 irradiator wastes
Failure to consider contamination of groundwater from the hundreds of tonnes of lead required to shield these highly-radioactive commercial wastes
Astonishingly, the environmental assessment report contains no references
The report fails to address the fact that the mound would degrade and that mixed radioactive and hazardous industrial wastes (arsenic, beryllium, mercury, benzene, dioxins, PCBs, etc.) would leak into the Ottawa River, essentially forever.
Echlin and Hendrickson point to previous studies by the dump proponent that identified many ways the mound would leak, and described the inevitable disintegration of the mound within 400 years through a process of “normal evolution.” Leakage from the dump is expected to flow into surrounding wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River less than a kilometre away, contaminating a drinking water source for millions of Canadians downstream.
(Photo above from Radio Canada Découverte, March 2018, showing the mound overflowing as part of the degradation and erosion process, described by the proponent in its Performance Assessment report.)
According to Hendrickson, “CNSC has outdone itself in promoting the dump project. This is an object lesson in what happens when government agencies are captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate.”
The release of the environmental assessment report marks the end of a long “underground” phase of the licensing process for the giant radioactive dump, called the “NSDF” by the proponent, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, owned by a consortium of multinational corporations that run Canada’s nuclear laboratories under a contract initiated by the Harper government in 2015.
Opportunities for public comments on the project’s environmental impacts ended in August 2017 after a flood of negative comments and concerns from First Nations communities, civil society groups, municipalities, independent scientists and individuals.
The Assembly of First Nations, and more than 140 downstream municipalities have passed resolutions opposing the dump plan. Members of the public will have their final opportunity to submit concerns about the proposed project at the “Part 2 licensing hearing” that is scheduled to begin on May 31, 2022.
“Interventions at that point are very unlikely to influence the Commission’s decision,” says Hendrickson, adding that “it is basically a rubber stamping process.” A planned environmental assessment hearing that was to have preceded the licensing hearing was canceled by the CNSC.
April 11 is the deadline to apply to “intervene” inn the May 31 public hearing. Interventions can be oral or written. Information about the intervention process is available here. If you are submitting written comments, your final intervention must be submitted with your application. If you wish to make an oral presentation at the hearing, you need to submit an outline of your presentation by April 11.
OTTAWA, November 10, 2021 – The recent announcement of licensing hearings in February and May 2022 for a controversial nuclear waste dump beside the Ottawa River got a strong reaction from citizens’ groups who have been fighting the plan for five years. The groups say the environmental assessment has not been properly conducted and licensing hearings should be stopped because there are so many serious flaws in the plan.
The license would authorize a giant above-ground mound (called NSDF by the proponent) for more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste beside the Ottawa River, upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau.The Chalk River site is right beside a drinking water source for millions of Canadians and underlain with porous and fractured bedrock.
Many citizens’ groups, along with NGOs, First Nations, and more than 140 downstream municipalities are opposed to the plan. Many say it fails to meet international guidelines for keeping radioactive waste out of the biosphere. As a disposal facility, it will eventually be abandoned.
“The facility would not keep radioactive waste out of the environment,” according to Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area researcher Ole Hendrickson. “The proponent’s own studies identify many ways the mound would leak, and suggest the mound would disintegrate within 400 years and its contents would flow into surrounding wetlands that drain into the Ottawa River less than a kilometre away,” he said. Hendrickson also noted that the groundwater table would be right at the base of the mound, disregarding an Ontario standard for waste disposal sites that protects aquifers.
A fact sheet produced by Concerned Citizens, based on the information prepared by the dump proponent, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, identifies materials that would be disposed of. They include:
Radioactive materials such as tritium, carbon-14, strontium-90, four types of plutonium (one of the most dangerous radioactive materials if inhaled or ingested), and several tonnes of uranium and thorium. Twenty-five of 30 radionuclides listed in the reference inventory for the mound are long-lived. This suggests the dump would remain radioactive for 100,000 years.
A very large quantity of cobalt-60 in disused radiation devices used in food irradiation and medical procedures. These materials would give off so much intense gamma radiation that workers would need lead shielding to avoid dangerous radiation exposures while handling them. The International Atomic Energy Agency says high-activity cobalt-60 is “intermediate-level waste” and must be stored underground.
Dioxins, PCBs, asbestos, mercury, and up to 13 tonnes of arsenic and 300 tonnes of lead would go into the dump. It would also contain up to 7000 tonnes of copper, 3500 tonnes of iron and 66 tonnes of aluminum, tempting scavengers to dig into the mound after closure.
“The so-called environmental assessment of this project has been a sham from day one,” says Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association (OFWCA) based in Sheenboro, Quebec.
Echlin says the serious flaws in the assessment process include failure to properly consult Indigenous Peoples, failure to properly consult the public, failure to consider substantive input at the project description and scoping stage, and changing the rules in midstream to benefit the proponent.
In an August 2020 letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, the Kebaowek First Nation and the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council called for suspension of the environmental assessment, stating that “the CNSC’s approach does not even meet the Government of Canada’s modernized standards of consultation, engagement and reconciliation with First Nations.”
“The fact that dates have now been set for licensing the radioactive waste mound is a sign of failure by the Government of Canada to listen to First Nations and hundreds of intervenors in the environmental assessment. It is past time for the government to step up and stop this licensing process and prevent permanent contamination of the Ottawa River,” Echlin says.
Echlin and others characterize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the agency responsible for the assessment and licensing of the dump project, as “a captured regulator” that acts more like a “nuclear industry cheerleader” than a protector of the public and the environment.
Echlin added that “It’s not just us saying that the CNSC is widely seen to be a captured regulator — the Expert Panel on Environmental Assessment noted the same in its final report to the Trudeau government in 2017.” A document obtained by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility notes that the CNSC has never refused to grant a license in its 20-year history.
The import of radioactive waste into the Ottawa Valley from other federal sites to be placed in the facility is a big red flag for citizens’ groups and First Nations.They say the Chalk River site is not suitable for long term storage of nuclear waste. According to a Joint Declaration from the Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus, “Rivers and lakes are the blood and the lungs of Mother Earth. When we contaminate our waterways, we are poisoning life itself. That is why radioactive waste must not be stored beside major water bodies for the long-term.”
Importation of radioactive waste to the Ottawa Valley was also opposed by a City of Ottawa resolution in April 2021.
The economics of the project are also fraught with problems according to Hendrickson, whose study concluded the facility would not reduce Canada’s $8 billion nuclear waste cleanup liability and could even increase it.
Citizens’ groups have also called into question the Government-owned Contractor-operated model for Canada’s nuclear facilities brought in by the Harper government in 2015 and renewed by the Trudeau government in 2020. Under the model, costs to the Canadian taxpayer have skyrocketed, and decisions about Canadian nuclear waste are being made by foreign nationals and corporations. The groups have called for cancellation of the contract and creation of a radioactive waste management organization in Canada, independent of the nuclear industry, similar to what exists in a number of European countries.
OTTAWA, September 16, 2021 – Community organizations opposed to the construction of a massive aboveground radioactive waste dump near the Ottawa River are finding support among some federal electoral candidates.The groups asked candidates in the 2021 federal election in 13 ridings in West Quebec, Eastern Ontario and Ottawa if they would initiate a regional assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act to look into radioactive waste, nuclear decommissioning and the remediation of contaminated lands in the Ottawa Valley. Seven candidates from the NDP and Green Party and one Independent agreed to push for a regional assessment.
In May 2021, the City of Ottawa wrote to federal Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson asking for a regional assessment on nuclear waste in the Ottawa Valley, but the minister declined the request.
Ottawa CentreGreen Party candidate Angela Keller-Herzog said: “The fact that a regional assessment has been requested by the Council of the City of Ottawa and then declined by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change is disturbing. These decisions will affect residents and the environment for thousands of years. I will continue to press for a comprehensive assessment.”
The groups also asked the candidates if they would oppose the current plans for a million-cubic-metre radioactive waste disposal facility at Chalk River and a reactor entombment at Rolphton, Ont., both next to the Ottawa River.
Of the 16 candidates who replied, almost three-quarters (11) said they oppose the current plans or had serious concerns. They included Greens Keller-Herzog, Jennifer Purdy (Kanata-Carleton) and Gordon Kubanek (Nepean), NDPer Konstantine Malakos (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell), independent candidate Stefan Klietsch (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke), the Bloc’s Geneviève Nadeau and PPC’s Mathieu St-Jean (both in Gatineau).
Directly across the Ottawa River from the proposed waste facilities, candidates in the Quebec riding of Pontiac (where former Liberal MP Will Amos is not running) all responded, including:
· NDP candidate Denise Giroux pledged to work tirelessly to oppose these “irresponsible” waste management plans and added she would “refuse to stand idly by, as the former MP did, while these projects forge ahead. Nearly 40 Indigenous groups, along with 6 million people downstream from these projects. . .have tried to voice their opposition to these plans.”
· Bloc Québécois candidate Gabrielle Desjardins said her party is opposed to “any risk for Quebec of contamination with nuclear waste from projects such as the Chalk River dump, along the Ottawa River. . . .The option as proposed at Chalk River is not acceptable and is not sufficiently safe.” [Translated from French]
· “It’s time to rethink the plan to build Canada’s first permanent nuclear waste dump less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River,” said Shaughn McArthur of the Green Party. “The near surface waste mound uses geomembranes and a cover that will disintegrate over time, whereas the waste can be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.”
· Conservative candidate Michel Gauthier, said he is opposed to the nuclear waste facility at Chalk River: “This project is far from achieving the standard of social acceptability and should not go ahead until a serious study of alternative sites, far from populated regions, has been made and the population has been clearly informed.” [Translated from French]
· Liberal candidate Sophie Chatel did not oppose the waste dump but said she would monitor the project “extremely closely” if elected, and called for it to be “rigorously monitored to ensure that no radioactive materials leach into the Ottawa River.”
The radioactive waste facility and entombment of an old reactor are proposals of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which is owned by a private-sector consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two Texas corporations under contract to the federal government. The contract was signed in 2015 by the Harper government during the federal election campaign and was renewed last year by the Liberal government.
As shown in Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) annual reports, contractual amounts spent by the federal government on radioactive waste management, nuclear decommissioning and contaminated sites, through the CNL contract, have tripled from $332 million in 2016 to $955 million in 2020.
The questionnaire was organized by the Council of Canadians – Ottawa Chapter, the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River (CANDOR) and the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association. The candidates’ full responses can be read here on the website of the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
– 30 –
Media contact:Eva Schacherl Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River (CANDOR)613-316-9450candorottawa@gmail.com
Chalk River Laboratories on the Ottawa River, site of proposed giant radioactive waste mound.
Certains candidats et candidates s’opposent à la décharge de déchets radioactifs près de la rivière des Outaouais et demandent une évaluation fédérale régionale
OTTAWA, le 16 septembre 2021 – Des groupes communautaires opposés à la construction d’un immense monticule de déchets radioactifs près de la rivière des Outaouais trouvent du soutien chez certains candidats et candidates aux élections fédérales.
Les groupes ont demandé aux candidats et candidates fédéraux dans 13 circonscriptions de l’ouest du Québec, de l’est de l’Ontario et d’Ottawa s’ils entreprendraient une évaluation régionale en vertu de la Loi sur l’évaluation d’impact fédérale pour examiner les déchets radioactifs, le déclassement des installations nucléaires, et l’assainissement des terres contaminées dans la région. Sept candidats du NPD et du Parti vert et un indépendant ont accepté de faire pression pour une évaluation régionale.
En mai 2021, la Ville d’Ottawa a écrit au ministre fédéral de l’Environnement Jonathan Wilkinson pour demander une évaluation régionale des déchets nucléaires dans la vallée de l’Outaouais; le ministre a refusé la demande.
La candidate du Parti vert d’Ottawa-Centre, Angela Keller-Herzog, a déclaré : « Le fait qu’une évaluation régionale ait été demandée par le Conseil de la Ville d’Ottawa puis refusée par le ministre fédéral de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique est inquiétant. Ces décisions affecteront les résidents et l’environnement pour des milliers d’années. Je continuerai à faire pression pour une évaluation complète. »
Les groupes ont également demandé aux candidats s’ils s’opposeraient aux projets actuels d’un dépotoir nucléaire d’un million de mètres cubes à Chalk River et de mise en tombeau d’un réacteur à Rolphton, en Ontario, tous deux aux abords de la rivière des Outaouais.
Sur les 16 candidats qui ont répondu, près des trois quarts (11) ont déclaré qu’ils s’opposaient aux plans actuels ou avaient de sérieuses inquiétudes. Parmi eux, on compte les Verts Keller-Herzog, Jennifer Purdy (Kanata-Carleton) et Gordon Kubanek(Nepean), Konstantine Malakos du NPD (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell), le candidat indépendant Stefan Klietsch (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke), la bloquiste Geneviève Nadeau et Mathieu St-Jean du PPC (tous deux à Gatineau).
De l’autre côté de la rivière des Outaouais, juste en face des projets proposés, les candidats et candidates de la circonscription québécoise de Pontiac (où l’ancien député libéral Will Amos ne se présente pas) ont tous répondu, notamment :
• La candidate du NPD Denise Giroux s’est engagée à travailler sans relâche pour s’opposer à ces plans de gestion de déchets « irresponsables » et a ajouté qu’elle « refuse de rester les bras croisés, comme l’a fait l’ancien député, alors que ces projets vont de l’avant. Près de 40 groupes autochtones, ainsi que 6 millions de personnes en aval de ces projets. . . ont tenté d’exprimer leur opposition à ces plans. »
• La candidate du Bloc québécois Gabrielle Desjardins a déclaré que son parti s’oppose à « tout risque pour le Québec de contamination aux déchets nucléaires qu’impliquent des projets comme le dépotoir de Chalk River, le long de la rivière des Outaouais. . . L’option telle que proposée à Chalk River n’est pas acceptable et n’est pas suffisamment sécuritaire. »
• « Il est temps de repenser le plan de construction du premier dépotoir permanent de déchets nucléaires au Canada à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais », a déclaré Shaughn McArthur du Parti vert. « Le monticule de déchets en surface utilise des géomembranes et une couverture qui se désintégreront avec le temps, alors que les déchets peuvent être dangereux pendant des centaines de milliers d’années. »
• Le candidat conservateur Michel Gauthier s’est dit opposé à l’installation de déchets nucléaires de Chalk River : « Ce projet est loin d’obtenir la norme de l’acceptabilité sociale et ne doit pas aller de l’avant tant et aussi longtemps qu’une étude sérieuse de sites alternatifs, loin des régions peuplées, n’aura été faite et que la population aura été clairement informée. »
• La candidate libérale Sophie Chatel ne s’est pas opposée au dépotoir, mais a déclaré qu’elle suivrait « de très près » le projet si elle était élue, et a demandé qu’il soit « rigoureusement surveillé pour assurer qu’aucune matière radioactive ne s’infiltre dans la rivière des Outaouais. »
Le dépotoir et la mise en tombeau d’un ancien réacteur sont des propositions des Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC), qui appartiennent à un consortium du secteur privé composé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux sociétés texanes sous contrat avec le gouvernement fédéral. Le contrat a été signé en 2015 par le gouvernement Harper lors de la campagne électorale fédérale et a été renouvelé l’an dernier par le gouvernement libéral.
Selon les rapports annuels d’Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL), les montants dépensés par le gouvernement fédéral pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs, le déclassement nucléaire et les sites contaminés, dans le cadre du contrat des LNC, ont triplé, passant de 332 millions de dollars en 2016 à 955 millions de dollars en 2020.
Le questionnaire a été organisé par le Conseil des Canadiens – Section d’Ottawa, la Coalition contre les décharges nucléaires sur la rivière des Outaouais (CANDOR) et la Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association. Les réponses complètes des candidats se trouvent sur le site Web de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA) is an incorporated, non-profit organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for 40+ years. Our current focus is nuclear waste, in particular the proposed giant mound for one million cubic meters of radioactive waste at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories, and the proposed “entombment” of the federal Nuclear Power Demonstration reactor at Rolphton, Ontario.
A modernized radioactive waste policy should state Canada’s intent to fully meet its obligations pursuant to international legal instruments developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), specifically the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
The modernized policy should explicitly state Canada’s intent to meet its obligations under Article 4 (Implementing Measures) and Article 5 (Reporting) of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, and under Article 12 (Existing Facilities and Past Practices) and Article 32 (Reporting) of the Joint Convention.
With regard to Article 32, Canada should require that all owners and generators of radioactive waste maintain full inventories of waste volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides. Where only estimates of volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides are available, the methods and assumptions used in preparing these radioactive waste inventory estimates should be described in sufficient detail that an independent body can verify the estimates.
Radioactive waste inventories should be updated regularly and be made publicly available on an ongoing (e.g., annual) basis.
A national body – a national radioactive waste authority – should be established with a legislated mandate to maintain records, knowledge and memory of radioactive waste. The authority should be charged with maintaining a national radioactive waste inventory.. It should have a capacity and legal mandate to inspect nuclear facilities and independently verify inventory information provided by waste generators and owners. The national authority should be independent of other bodies — whether government or private sector — that regulate, utilize or promote nuclear energy.
The radioactive waste authority should ensure traceability of radioactive waste, including any transfers of waste for processing, storage, or disposal. Responsibility for traceability and maintenance of records, knowledge and memory related to radioactive waste should not rest with Canada’s nuclear regulator.
When any proposal is submitted to Canada’s nuclear regulator for a new nuclear facility or activity (such as decommissioning) that would generate, store, dispose of, or transfer wastes, the proponent should also be required to submit estimates of the volume or mass, activity and specific radionuclides in the radioactive wastes associated with that facility or activity to Canada’s national radioactive waste authority.
In the case of any proposed new nuclear reactors – such as “small modular reactors” – this should include a full accounting of activation products created by neutron bombardment of reactor components, fission products and transuranics in the fuel, and wastes associated with fuel fabrication, processing, and reprocessing.
The proponent of a new nuclear facility or activity (such as decommissioning) should also be required to submit a detailed management plan for wastes arising to the national authority. Acceptance of the waste estimates and the management plan by Canada’s national radioactive waste authority should be required prior to approval of any new facility or activity by Canada’s nuclear regulator.
Canada’s modernized radioactive waste policy should state explicitly that the protection of human health by avoiding radiological exposure shall be given the highest priority in radioactive waste management, and cannot be compromised by economic considerations of “cost-effectiveness”. It should state explicitly that radioactive waste generation shall be minimized. It should state explicitly that every effort shall be made to minimize the waste burden imposed on future generations.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly that radioactive waste shall be contained and isolated from the biosphere.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly that the public shall have full access to information about radioactive waste.
Canada’s modernized policy should state explicitly the principle of justification as described in the IAEA Fundamental Safety Principles: that “facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks must yield an overall benefit,” and that the benefit must “outweigh the radiation risks to which they give rise.”
The national radioactive waste authority should be given the mandate to ensure that generators and owners of radioactive waste adhere to these principles.
At present, Canada’s 143-word “Radioactive Waste Policy Framework” (RWPF) – in calling only for “waste disposal plans” – ignores the internationally agreed pre-disposal requirements for radioactive waste found in the IAEA General Safety Requirements (GSR) Part 5, Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste. Requirements of GSR Part 5 that are not addressed in the RWPF include 2 on “National policy and strategy on radioactive waste management,” 8 on “Radioactive waste generation and control,” 9 on “Characterization and classification of radioactive waste,” 11 on “Storage of radioactive waste”, and 20 on “Shutdown and decommissioning of facilities.”
Canada is currently on a slippery slope to radioactive waste abandonment, with risks of undocumented waste transfers and illegal dumping, exposing future generations to unknown radiological hazards. The emphasis on disposal in the RWPF creates an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality.
Much of Canada’s current radioactive waste legacy has been created by the Government of Canada itself. The federal government has failed to acknowledge its own responsibilities as waste generator and owner. It remains an active promoter of nuclear energy under a Nuclear Energy Act that gives the Minister of Natural Resources powers to “utilize, cause to be utilized and prepare for the utilization of nuclear energy.”
The RWPF, in stating the “polluter pays” principle, is fundamentally at odds with Government of Canada assertions that nuclear energy is “clean”.
A national radioactive waste authority that is accountable to elected public officials but independent of government or industry bodies that promote or utilize nuclear energy is an essential complement to a modernized radioactive waste policy.
As owner of Canada’s only licensed commercial radioactive waste storage facility at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), the federal government has assumed ownership of significant inventories of industrial, hospital, and university wastes.
Some industrial wastes stored at CRL are imports from foreign countries. Canadian companies are major manufacturers of cobalt-60 “sealed sources”. Canada’s Seventh National Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management says “Canada remains a global leader in the production and export of Category 1 cobalt-60 radioactive sealed sources, supplying approximately 95 percent of the global demand.”
Article 28 of the Joint Convention says
A Contracting Party shall allow for re-entry into its territory of disused sealed sources if, in the framework of its national law, it has accepted that they be returned to a manufacturer qualified to receive and possess the disused sealed sources.
Canada has not to our knowledge accepted the return of sealed sources in the framework of its national law; nonetheless, Canadian companies such as Nordion, Best Theratronics, and SRB Technologies are doing a brisk trade in waste imports in the form of disused sealed sources and expired self-luminous tritium devices..
These companies do not necessarily limit their imports to devices of their own manufacture. Imported radioactive wastes are being sent to CRL, where they become the property of the Government of Canada.
Canada’s modernized radioactive waste policy should ban radioactive waste imports.
A national radioactive waste authority should have the mandate to track the inventory of private sector waste transferred to Government of Canada ownership. The authority should collect payments that are adequate for the long-term management of transferred wastes. It should assume the management of the fund currently overseen by the federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. It should be responsible for developing appropriate management strategies for federal nuclear wastes.
Responsibility for management of wastes owned by the Government of Canada should not be in the hands of a body with a mandate to promote and utilize nuclear energy
With regard to Canada’s obligations under Article 12 (Existing Facilities and Past Practices) of the Joint Convention, the national radioactive waste authority should be responsible for remediation of areas contaminated by past practices. Canada’s obligations in this regard are described in requirement 49 (“Responsibilities for remediation of areas with residual radioactive material”) of the IAEA GSR Part 3, Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources.
Areas with “residual radioactive material” include those contaminated by uranium mines and processing facilities formerly owned by the Government of Canada (including those in the Port Hope area) as well as federally-owned nuclear facilities (such as the Chalk River Laboratories).
GSR Part 3 requirements for areas contaminated by past practices include a remedial action plan, appropriate record keeping, a strategy for managing wastes arising, and public involvement in planning, implementation and verification of remedial actions.
These requirements should be met by a national radioactive waste authority – a body that does not have a mandate to promote and utilize nuclear energy.
The federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not the appropriate body to meet these requirements.
Of particular concern to our group is that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is allowing private companies under contract to transfer radioactive and other hazardous wastes from federal nuclear facilities in Manitoba, southern Ontario, and Quebec to the Chalk River Laboratories. This is being done under an unapproved “Integrated Waste Strategy”. There is no long-term management plan for the transferred wastes, nor is there a remedial action plan for the Chalk River Laboratories.
We submit that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is acting in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner and showing disrespect for the Government of Canada’s obligations to Indigenous rights holders and to the public at large.
With regard to lack of transparency of activities related to radioactive waste transport, processing and storage, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is allowing Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private company owned by a consortium of multinational engineering firms, to make its own determinations regarding a range of activities at the Chalk River Laboratories that may have significant adverse environmental impacts but are not being adequately disclosed or reviewed under the Impact Assessment Act.
During the period November 2020 to March 2021, numerous “section 82” waste-related projects were posted on the Impact Assessment Registry with essentially no information other than the following headings:
81139 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Cask Facility Project 81177 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Intermediate Level Waste Storage Area 81178 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Bulk Storage Laydown Area 81209 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Material Pit Expansion Project 81375 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Building Demolition Project 81389 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Waste Management Area Modification Project 81403 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Heel Storage Removal Project 81424 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Effluent Monitoring Stations Upgrade Project 81443 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Multi-Purpose Waste Handling Facility
For each of these projects, a “Notice of Determination” has now been issued. All have been similar to the one for project 81443:
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) has determined that the proposedMulti-Purpose Waste Handling Facility Project at AECL’s Chalk River site is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects… Therefore, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada may carry out the project, exercise any power, perform any duty or function, or provide financial assistance to enable the project to be carried out in whole or in part.
Beginning on April 1, 2021, our group sent repeated e-mails asking for information on these projects to the contact person listed in the Impact Assessment Registry: Patrick Quinn, Director, Corporate Communications, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Mr. Quinn has sent e-mails in reply promising to provide information, but no information has been forthcoming to date. In the meantime, the 30-day deadlines for public comments on all these projects have passed.
We question the acceptability of a process by which Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a privately-owned company, makes its own determinations that its projects, carried out on federal land, are not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
We brought this to the attention of Nana Kwamena, Ph.D., Director, Environmental Assessment Division, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, on April 8th. She replied:
The projects listed below are activities that CNL is authorized to conduct under its current licence. No additional authorization or assessment is required by CNSC. Therefore, I recommend reaching out directly to CNL to receive additional information about these projects.
We also brought this to the attention of Mr. David McGovern, President of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), We asked “Is Canadian Nuclear Laboratories a federal authority for the purposes of section 81 of the [Impact Assessment] Act? If so, how should we proceed in obtaining information that will allow us to submit comments on this company’s projects?”
On April 16th the IAAC replied that AECL “is the federal authority responsible for making the environmental effects determination required by section 82 of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) as it is a Crown corporation,” and AECL “indicated that they work with the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) in implementing their obligations.” IAAC added that “we have been assured that AECL or CNL will be in touch with you shortly to provide answers to any questions you may have on these projects” However, neither AECL nor CNL provided details on the projects prior to the date of this submission.
Lack of transparency and lack of opportunities for public input related to radioactive waste-related activities on federal lands is unacceptable. Full transparency must be a foundational principle of Canada’s radioactive waste policy. It is particularly troubling that the Government of Canada itself is violating this principle.
We note that the Government of Canada has provided $50.5 million to Moltex Energy Canada Inc., to develop a process to “recycle” – extract plutonium from — used nuclear fuel. Moltex has announced that it is partnering with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to “design, build and optimize the test apparatus used to process the used fuel.”
Waste and nuclear weapons proliferation issues related to reprocessing used fuel to extract plutonium for use in small modular reactors have received considerable media attention in recent days. Our group is very concerned that research on this process will be carried out at Chalk River Laboratories, very likely without transparency.
Canada’s radioactive waste policy should prohibit reprocessing of nuclear fuel waste.
Problems identified in this submission — non-transparency, lack of full waste accounting, undocumented waste transport, lack of waste traceability, waste imports from foreign countries, the slippery slope toward waste abandonment, nuclear weapons proliferation risks of plutonium reprocessing, lack of remedial action plans for areas contaminated through past practices, avoidance of environmental assessment – should be addressed in a modernized policy, and through creation of a national radioactive waste authority, independent and arms-length from any government department, crown corporation or agency whose mandate includes the utilization or promotion of nuclear energy.
On April 14, 2021 the City of Ottawa council passed a resolution of concern about the Chalk River and Rolphton radioactive waste disposal projects, joining more than 140 municipalities, the Anishinabek Nation and Iroquois Caucus, and the Assembly of First Nations.
Prior to being passed by the full Ottawa City Council, the resolution was studied and passed unanimously by the City’s environment committee after an eight hour meeting on March 30, 2021 which can be viewed here. Among other things, the resolution calls on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to initiate a regional assessment of Ottawa Valley radioactive disposal projects under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019. (See Mayor Jim Watson’s letter to Minister Wilkinson here.)
Here are five reasons to support the City of Ottawa’s call to Minister Jonathan Wilkinson:
1. Radioactive waste in the Ottawa Valley is a very large and complex problem. It makes up the lion’s share of federally-owned “legacy” radioactive wastes, an $8 billion liability for the citizens of Canada.
The radioactive wastes currently on site at the Chalk River Laboratories, upstream of Ottawa-Gatineau, make up most of the Government of Canada’s eight billion dollar nuclear liability. This federal radioactive cleanup liability exceeds the sum total of 2000 other federal environmental liabilities . As Canada’s largest and most complex federal environmental liability, this challenge is worthy of the best and most thorough assessment available under the new Impact Assessment Act.
2. Proposed Ottawa Valley radioactive disposal projects are substandard, highly controversial, and would NOT address many parts of the needed cleanup.
The proposed Chalk River Mound (“Near Surface Disposal Facility”) and Rolphton Reactor Tomb (“NPD Closure Project”) are low budget, inadequate proposals meant to quickly and cheaply reduce Canada’s federal nuclear liabilities. The two projects were proposed five years ago by a consortium of private companies contracted by the Harper government in 2015. The proposals ignore safety standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency and have been found wanting in thousands of critical comments submitted by Indigenous communities, municipalities, former AECL scientists and managers, NGOs, citizens’ groups and individuals.
The projects are expected to leak radioactive contaminants into the Ottawa River for millennia, according to Environmental Impact Statements produced by the proponent. The giant Chalk River Mound is expected to disintegrate as part of a process of “normal evolution” according to the proponent’s “performance assessment” study.
3. Environmental assessments of the giant mound and reactor tomb are being badly fumbled.
The environmental assessments of the NSDF and NPD closure projects were initiated in 2016 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Numerous problems with the CNSC’s handling of the EAs were identified in Environmental Petition 413 to the Auditor General of Canada in January 2018. Problems have continued to arise including lack of opportunity for public input, lack of transparency, and lack of firm deadlines for completion of the assessments. The EAs have been ongoing for far longer than is normal or reasonable for such assessments.
4. The complex challenge of nuclear waste in the Ottawa Valley is NOT addressed by the assessments that are currently ongoing.
Again, the eight billion dollar federal radioactive cleanup liability is the biggest and most expensive federal environmental challenge by far. The vast majority of the wastes comprising this liability are already in the Ottawa Valley at the Chalk River Laboratories. For an indication of the complexity of this challenge at Chalk River see the Ottawa Citizen article by Ian McLeod, Chalk River’s Toxic Legacy. Radioactive wastes not addressed by the mound and the tomb proposals include the three reactor cores dumped in the sand at Chalk River (including one from the 1952 NRX partial meltdown), the highly radioactive solidified medical isotope production wastes (including weapons-grade uranium-235), the tanks of intermediate- and high-activity liquid wastes at the ‘Waste Tank Farm”, the spent fuel from the NRX, NRU and NPD reactors, and the NRX and NRU reactors themselves.
The private sector consortium running Canadian Nuclear Laboratories plans to consolidate the federal governments’s radioactive waste from across Canada in the Ottawa Valley and is already shipping radioactive wastes from Manitoba, Quebec and elsewhere in Ontario to Chalk River. There are serious concerns about consolidating federal nuclear wastes at the Chalk River site, in a seismically-active area, beside a major river (The Kitchissippi/ Ottawa) that provides drinking water for millions of Canadians. Serious concerns about long term storage of radioactive waste in close proximity to water bodies are noted in the Joint Declaration of the Anishinabek Nation Iroquois Caucus on transport and abandonment of radioactive waste. Consolidation of federal government nuclear wastes in the Ottawa Valley and First Nations’ guidance to store waste away from major water bodies are not addressed by the current NSDF and NPD environmental assessments.
CCRCA recently learned that the consortium is going ahead with radioactive waste projects such as a new cask facility to receive shipments of highly-radioactive spent fuel from the Whiteshell (MB) and Gentilly-1 (QC) reactors, and a new intermediate-level waste storage facility that would likely contain dangerous commercial wastes. The consortium is making determinations about the significance of the impacts of these projects on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) with no transparency or public input. Assessment of the risks and implications of these projects should be done through a transparent public process. AECL, which has been reduced from thousands of employees to around 40, appears to be shirking its role of overseeing its contract with the consortium.
The cumulative impacts of all wastes and all current and future projects need to be considered together. A regional assessment could do this.
5. A regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley could address all problems noted above.
A regional assessment could:
make existing baseline data publicly accessible and produce a broad-based analysis of the problem
look at cumulative impacts of all the current and proposed management strategies for Ottawa Valley radioactive wastes, and transport of wastes from Manitoba, southern Ontario and Quebec to Chalk River.
address leaking waste management areas at the Chalk River Labs, radioactive waste imports to the Ottawa Valley and the potential creation of new wastes associated with the proposed new “small modular” reactor research and development
incorporate Indigenous knowledge and priorities
look at the big picture including the need to protect drinking water, property values and tourism and provide secure long-term employment opportunities for Ottawa Valley communities.
provide assurance to the federal government and other levels of government that the largest federal environmental cleanup liability is being properly addressed.
To support the City of Ottawa’s call, please consider writing to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada For your reference, Mayor Jim Watson’s letter to Minister Wilkinson is available for download here.
with cc to: OttawaValley-ValleeOutaouais (IAAC/AEIC) <iaac.ottawavalley-valleeoutaouais.aeic@canada.ca> Please be sure to state that you letter is Re: Canadian Impact Assessment Registry reference number 81624, “Potential regional assessment of radioactive waste disposal in the Ottawa Valley”
The Minister is required to respond to Ottawa’s request by July 31, 2021, so send your letters as soon as possible. But don’t hesitate to send them after July 31st too, as this issue is not going away any time soon.
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area 