Ottawa River

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

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Published in the Hill Times Monday August 21, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hendricksonjones 6 Comments

June 29, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obstacles to “meaningful public participation”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ole Hendrickson, CCRCA researcher

Problems with the “Administrative Protocol” document

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

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

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

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

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

And finally…

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

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

Should the CNSC be responsible for environmental assessment?

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

Photo below by Robert Del Tredici, August 2018, Ottawa

Hill Times ~ Canada’s failed radioactive waste policy is no surprise given our country’s deficient nuclear governance regime

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

This letter to the editor was published on June 12, 2023~ 

Canada’s failed radioactive waste policy is no surprise given our country’s deficient nuclear governance regime: letter writers

Natural Resources Canada recently announced the release of a new federal radioactive waste policy. It was three years in the making and was only undertaken because of pressure from civil society groups and criticism from an international peer review team who visited Canada in September 2019 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In our view, the new radioactive waste policy is a failure on several counts. For example:

  • It fails to include a requirement to keep radioactive waste out of the biosphere;
  • It fails to incorporate input from thousands of Canadians who participated in good faith in the review process. For example, the policy does not include a prohibition on plutonium extraction and it also fails to address calls from citizens and NGOs from across Canada for an independent authority to oversee nuclear waste management and decommissioning;
  • It fails to address serious problems identified by the IAEA in 2019; eg. the IAEA explicitly said defunct nuclear reactors should not be entombed in place except in extreme circumstances, yet the new policy allows for this and enables projects to abandon reactors beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers to move forward;
  • It fails to require that “free prior and informed consent” be obtained before radioactive waste is stored or disposed of on lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples as laid out in Article 29(2) of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 2021, Canada affirmed the UN Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law. However a proposed giant radioactive waste mound alongside the Ottawa River in unceded Algonquin traditional territory is close to approval and would violate this principle. The new policy will do nothing to stop this. The final licensing hearing is scheduled for June 27.

Canada’s new radioactive waste policy appears to provide the nuclear industry with exactly what it wanted – license to abandon radioactive waste quickly and cheaply –  and to afford Canadians with little protection from radioactive wastes that will remain hazardous for thousands of years.

Our letter of March 2021 to the Hill Times noted that Canada’s nuclear governance regime is inadequate, consisting of one captured, pro-industry regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and one pro-nuclear government department, Natural Resources Canada. Other OECD countries have much more robust nuclear governance regimes that include checks and balances, and multiple, multidisciplinary oversight committees and councils, often including high ranking officials such as the President in the case of France. A detailed review of shortcomings in Canada’s nuclear governance was provided to the Auditor General in 2019 in the form of Petition 427 from our respective citizens’ groups, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area and Concerned Citizens of Manitoba and colleagues in Quebec.

We should not be surprised that Canada’s new radioactive waste policy is a failure, as it is the product of a sorely deficient nuclear governance regime. 

In 2021 we asked who would fix Canada’s nuclear governance gaps. Now we must also ask “Who will correct the serious deficiencies in Canada’s new radioactive waste policy?”  If these problems are not corrected, the nuclear industry in Canada will proceed to implement bargain basement nuclear waste projects that are out of step with international safety standards. This will lead to permanent radioactive contamination of major Canadian water bodies including the Ottawa and Winnipeg  Rivers. 

Lynn Jones, MHSc
Ottawa, Ont., Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Anne Lindsey, OM, MA

Winnipeg, Man., Concerned Citizens of Manitoba


A call for World-class Cleanup at Chalk River Laboratories

hendricksonjones 7 Comments

April 2022

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

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

What do experts say is needed?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

WORLD-CLASS NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP would involve: 

Thoroughly characterizing all wastes

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

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

Regional mapping to locate a site with stable bedrock 

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

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

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

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

hendricksonjones 3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

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

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

hendricksonjones 6 Comments

Le français suit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

———————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– 30 –

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

Statement on suspension of licensing hearings for a radioactive waste dump beside the Ottawa River

hendricksonjones 9 Comments

February 16, 2022

Le français suit

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.

MEDIA RELEASE: Nuclear regulator recommends approval of giant radioactive waste dump beside the Ottawa River; citizens’ groups say report is flawed and recommendation to approve dump is irresponsible

hendricksonjones 1 Comment

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.

-30-

MEDIA RELEASE: Citizens’ groups say licensing hearings for the giant Chalk River nuclear waste dump beside the Ottawa River should be stopped

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

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. 

–  30  –

Additional resources:

The environmental assessment registry for the giant mound (NSDF) can be found at this link: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80122

Open Letter: To Prime Minister Trudeau and members of the federal cabinet ~ Stop the Ottawa River radioactive waste dump

Kitchissippi (Ottawa River) Summer 2021, photo by Frank Style