radioactive waste

Groups warn : radioactive waste piled in a giant mound beside the Ottawa River will remain hazardous for many millennia

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

February 5, 2024

Le français suit

For immediate release

Citizens’ groups from Ontario and Quebec warn that radioactive waste destined for a giant mound beside the Ottawa River must be stored underground

The groups call on the federal government to halt the project and stop all funding for construction

Ottawa, February 5, 2024 — Citizens’ groups have issued an urgent warning about waste slated for disposal in a giant radioactive waste mound one kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal. The groups cite nuclear experts who say the waste will remain hazardous to the public for many thousands of years and needs to be emplaced underground.

In a letter sent on February 4 to elected officials, the citizens’ groups call for the Government of Canada to halt the disposal project and stop all funding for construction. The letter cites  evidence that waste destined for the mound is heavily contaminated with very long-lived radioactive materials produced in nuclear reactors, which are capable of causing cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations in exposed populations.

The seven-storey radioactive mound is known as the “Near Surface Disposal Facility” (NSDF). It was recently licenced by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). The CNSC is widely perceived to be a captured regulator that promotes the projects it is supposed to regulate, as reported by an Expert Panel in 2017. 

If built, the mound will hold one million tons of radioactive and other hazardous waste from eight decades of operations of the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), a highly contaminated federal nuclear research facility owned by the Government of Canada. Commercial waste and waste imported from other federal nuclear sites would also be put into the mound. 

The site for the NSDF is on the CRL property, 180 km northwest of Canada’s capital, on the Ottawa River directly across from the Province of Quebec. Studies show the mound would leak during operation and break down due to erosion after a few hundred years, contaminating the Ottawa River, the source of drinking water for millions of Canadians.

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility have been opposing the giant radioactive waste mound since 2016. They say there is widespread ignorance about what would go in the mound due to repeated statements by the regulator and the proponent that “it’s only low level waste.”

“If I hear one more time that the mound will hold ‘only low-level’ radioactive waste including mops and shoe covers, I’m going to scream so loud they will hear me at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association. “People need to wake up and realize the truth that this waste is full of deadly long-lived, man-made radioactive poisons such as plutonium that will be hazardous for many thousands of years.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred to by Echlin says waste from research facilities such as Chalk River Laboratories generally belongs to the “Intermediate-level” waste class and must be kept underground, tens of metres or more below the surface.

A former senior manager in charge of “legacy” radioactive waste at Chalk River told the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that, in reality, the waste proposed for emplacement in the NSDF “is ‘intermediate level waste’ that requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by a near surface facility.” He pointed out the mound would be hazardous and radioactive for many thousands of years, and that radiation doses from the facility will, in the future, exceed regulatory limits.

“We believe Cabinet or Parliament has the power to reverse this decision and they need to do so as soon as possible,” said Lynn Jones of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. “It’s clear that the only benefit from the NSDF would go to shareholders of the three multinational corporations involved, AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), Fluor and Jacobs. Everyone else would get only harm—a polluted Ottawa River, plummeting property values, increased health risks, never-ending costs to remediate the mess and a big black mark on Canada’s international reputation.”

The citizens’ groups say Canada should commit to building world class facilities for managing radioactive waste that would keep Canadians safe and provide good jobs in the nuclear industry, safely managing and containing the waste for generations to come. 

The cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories site was originally estimated to cost $8 billion in 2015 when a multinational consortium called “Canadian National Energy Alliance”** was contracted by the Harper government to manage the Chalk River site and clean up the radioactive waste there and at other federally owned facilities. 

Since the consortium took over, the annual costs to Canadian taxpayers for the operation and cleanup at Canada’s nuclear labs have ballooned from $336 million dollars per year to over $1.5 billion per year.

-30-

**The consortium known as Canadian National Energy Alliance is comprised of AtkinsRéalis(formerly SNC-Lavalin,) which was debarred by the World Bank for 10 years and faced charges in Canada of fraud, bribery and corruption; Texas-based Fluor Corporation, which paid $4 million to resolve allegations of financial fraud related to nuclear waste cleanup work at a U.S. site; and Texas-based Jacobs Engineering, which recently acquired CH2M, an original consortium member that agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle federal criminal charges at the same nuclear cleanup site in the U.S.

Background

Ten Things Canadians need to know about the giant radioactive waste mound coming to the Ottawa River 

~~~~~~~~~~

Communiqué:

Des groupes de citoyens de l’Ontario et du Québec soutiennent que certains déchets destinés à une gigantesque décharge de déchets radioactifs, près de la rivière des Outaouais, devraient être enfouis en profondeur.

Les groupes demandent au gouvernement d’interrompre le projet et de refuser son financement.

Ottawa, le 5 février 2024 — Des groupes de citoyens ont lancé un avertissement urgent au sujet des déchets radioactifs qui seraient enfouis dans une gigantesque décharge sur une colline, à 1 km de la rivière des Outaouais en amont d’Ottawa, Gatineau et Montréal. Ces groupes citent des experts dans le domaine du nucléaire qui affirment que certains déchets seront fortement radioactifs pendant des milliers d’années et que nous devons les enfouir en profondeur pour protéger la population.

La Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) a approuvé récemment cette déchargé haute comme un édifice de sept étages, connue sous le nom d’Installation de gestion des déchets près de la surface (IGDPS).

En 2017, le rapport d’un comité d’experts a mentionné les perceptions selon lesquelles la CCSN est en relation trop étroite avec l’industrie nucléaire et qu’elle promeut des projets qu’elle devrait réglementer.

Si elle était construite, l’IGDPS contiendrait plus d’un million de tonnes de déchets radioactifs et d’autres déchets dangereux résultant de 80 ans d’exploitation des Laboratoires de Chalk River ; cette installation de recherche nucléaire contaminée appartient au gouvernement fédéral. Des déchets radioactifs commerciaux et provenant d’autres sites du gouvernement fédéral y seront placés.

L’IGDPS est sur le site des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (LNC), à 180 km au nord-ouest d’Ottawa, sur la rivière des Outaouais, juste en face de la province de Québec. Des études démontrent que cette décharge de déchets aura des fuites radioactives pendant son exploitation et qu’elle s’effondrera après quelques centaines d’années à cause de l’érosion. Cela contaminera la rivière des Outaouais, source d’eau potable de millions de Canadiens.

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, l’Association des propriétaires de chalets d’Old Fort William, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire figurent parmi les nombreux organismes qui critiquent depuis 2016 la conception de cette décharge géante de déchets radioactifs. Selon eux, l’information est trop vague concernant les déchets destinés à l’IGDPS même si la Commission de sureté nucléaire et les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens ont affirmé à plusieurs reprises que seulement des déchets radioactifs de faible activité y seront placés.

” Les installations de gestion des déchets près de la surface ne conviennent pas aux déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité qu’on voulait y mettre au début, “déclare Ginette Charbonneau du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. ” À la suite des protestations du public, les promoteurs du projet disent maintenant que l’IGDPS n’acceptera que des déchets de faible activité. Malheureusement, ce n’est pas crédible. Il est très difficile de séparer des déchets de faible activité et de moyenne activité qui ont été stockés ensemble dans des colis non marqués. Il est donc inévitable qu’il y ait encore des déchets de moyenne activité dans cette décharge en surface. C’est très dangereux “.

Johanna Echlin de l’Association des propriétaires de chalets d’Old Fort William (Québec) mentionne que l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA) est l’organisme responsable de la sûreté et de la sécurité nucléaires au niveau mondial. Selon l’AIEA, les déchets hérités par les Laboratoires de Chalk River sont de “moyenne activité ” et ils devraient être enfouis à des dizaines ou des centaines de mètres sous terre.

Les groupes de citoyens citent également les déclarations de James R. Walker (Ph.D), un ancien cadre supérieur responsable des déchets radioactifs hérités des Laboratoires de Chalk River. M. Walker énonce clairement dans ses commentaires à la CCSN que certains déchets destinés à l’IGDPS sont des ” déchets de moyenne activité ” qui nécessitent plutôt un stockage souterrain. Il affirme que la décharge serait dangereusement radioactive pendant des milliers d’années et que les radiations provenant de l’installation dépasseraient les niveaux autorisés.

” Le Cabinet et le Parlement ont le pouvoir et le devoir de renverser cette décision le plus tôt possible “, déclare Lynn Jones de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. ” Il est clair que les actionnaires d’Atkins Realis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin), de Fluor et de Jacobs seront les seuls à bénéficier du projet d’IGDPS. Tous les autres n’en tireraient que des problèmes : pollution de la rivière des Outaouais, risques sanitaires accrus, coûts de nettoyage astronomiques et une grande tache noire sur la réputation internationale du Canada “.

Dans une lettre envoyée le 5 février aux élus et aux responsables locaux, les groupes de citoyens demandent au gouvernement canadien de stopper ce projet et de couper son financement. Les études menées par le promoteur lui-même démontrent clairement que les déchets destinés à l’IGDPS sont fortement contaminés par de grandes quantités de substances radioactives de très longue durée de vie provenant des réacteurs nucléaires, expliquent-ils dans leur lettre. Ces déchets pourraient provoquer des cancers, des malformations congénitales et des mutations génétiques chez les populations exposées.

Le Canada devrait s’engager à construire des installations de gestion des déchets radioactifs de classe mondiale, afin de garantir la sécurité des Canadiens et de créer de bons emplois dans l’industrie nucléaire, tout en gérant les déchets de manière sûre pour les générations futures, disent ces groupes de citoyens.

Le coût de la dépollution du site des Laboratoires de Chalk River a été estimé à 8 milliards de dollars lorsque le site a été confié au secteur privé par le gouvernement Harper en 2015. Le consortium multinational appelé “Canadian National Energy Alliance “**, dirigé par SNC-Lavalin (aujourd’hui appelé Atkins Realis), a remporté le contrat de plusieurs milliards de dollars pour gérer et nettoyer “rapidement et à moindre coût” le site de Chalk River et d’autres sites fédéraux. Depuis que le consortium a pris le relais, les contribuables canadiens ont vu le coût d’exploitation des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (autrefois les Laboratoires de Chalk River) gonfler de 336 millions de dollars par an à plus de 1,5 milliard de dollars par année. 

-30 –

 **Le consortium connu sous le nom de Canadian National Energy Alliance est composé d’Atkins Realis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin), qui a été radié par la Banque mondiale pendant 10 ans et qui a fait l’objet d’accusations de fraude, de pots-de-vin et de corruption au Canada. La société texane Fluor Corporation a payé 4 millions de dollars pour mettre fin à des allégations de fraude financière liées à des travaux de nettoyage de déchets radioactifs sur un site américain ; et la société texane Jacobs Engineering, qui a récemment acquis CH2M, un membre initial du consortium, a accepté de payer 18,5 millions de dollars pour mettre fin à des accusations criminelles fédérales sur un site de nettoyage de déchets radioactifs aux États-Unis.

Contexte

Dix choses que les Canadiens doivent savoir sur le monticulede déchets radioactifs en bordure de la rivière des Outaouais

Evidence is accumulating that wastes proposed for disposal in the NSDF are “Intermediate Level”

hendricksonjones 3 Comments

January 22. 2024

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

An NSDF media kit on the website of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states that

“Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) has been authorized to construct an engineered facility, called a near surface disposal facility (NSDF), to dispose of low-level radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) site in Deep River, Ontario. Low-level radioactive waste includes contaminated building materials, soils, and operational equipment (for example, protective shoe covers, clothing, rags, mops, equipment and tools).” (emphasis added)

On page 88 of the transcript of the final licensing hearing for the NSDF on August 10, 2023, Meggan Vickerd, CNL deputy vice-president of Integrated Waste Services is quoted as saying this:

“It is important to restate that only low-level radioactive waste from Canadian sources will be accepted. This waste consists of building demolition debris from current decommissioning activities at the Chalk River Laboratories site, legacy wastes and associated impacted soils, as well as general waste items such as mops and rags generated from our ongoing operations.” (emphasis added)

In Paragraph 39 of its Record of Decision for the NSDF license approval, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission states: “The NSDF will contain only LLW.”

The statements above that the NSDF would only contain low-level waste do not stand up to scrutiny. The use of examples like “mops and rags and shoe covers” is misleading.

Consider that:

Much of the legacy waste at the Chalk River Labs site was created during plutonium production for the US nuclear weapons program and other activities involving “post-fission” radioactive waste ie. waste produced in a nuclear reactor. This post-fission waste includes very long-lived radioactive materials that are difficult to manage. Some of this waste can actually become more radioactive over time due to the complex decay chains of long-lived alpha emitters.

According to the  International Atomic Energy Agency, waste from research facilities such as Chalk River Laboratories generally belongs to the “Intermediate-level” waste class and must be kept underground, tens of metres or more below the surface.

Twenty-five out of the 31 radionuclides listed in the reference inventory for the mound are long-lived with half-lives from thousands to millions of years.

A former senior manager at AECL told the CNSC that the waste would not decay to unconditional clearance levels for thousands of years. The design life of the facility is only 550 years. He also said that “the emplaced material is intermediate level radioactive waste that should not be emplaced in a near surface facility because it requires a greater degree of containment and isolation than that provided by near surface disposal.” (emphasis added) (more info)

It is becoming increasingly clear that long-lived radioactive materials that predominate in the NSDF licensed inventory, would outlive the facility by thousands of years.

Background

During the public comment period on the Environmental Impact Statement for the NSDF in 2017, many groups and individuals expressed concern about intermediate level waste being placed in an above ground mound.

The Town of Deep River and its then mayor Joan Lougheed were among those concerned about intermediate level waste being put into the NSDF. Mayor Lougheed was quoted in a 2017 Globe and Mail article, “Ontario town slams proposal for nuclear-waste facility,” as saying the town had concerns about the intermediate-level radioactive material that requires isolation and containment for more than several hundred years.

Shortly after the Globe and Mail article was published, CNL publicly announced that it would not put intermediate level waste in the mound. However CNL’s final Environmental Impact Statement says, “It is not practical, technical, or economical, to separate the long-lived radionuclides from the waste streams…”  

According to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, most of the radionuclides in the proposed inventory for the NSDF have half-lives longer than 10,000 years, and their proposed quantities are very large.

According to the former director of Safety Engineering and Licensing at AECL and former Champion of the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities project, in his April 6, 2022 submission to the CNSC:

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

and

CNL’s proposal is not a disposal facility for low level radioactive waste:
Proposal is an Engineered Containment Mound comprising a large and unverified quantity of intermediate-level waste;  (Slide 12)

‘We have a broken nuclear governance system’ ~ Regulator comes under fire for approving waste facility at Chalk River (iPolitics)

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

January 11, 2024

Excerpts:

“A decision to approve the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility two hours west of Ottawa has led Indigenous leaders, activists and experts to voice concerns about what they describe as fundamental aws within Canada’s nuclear regulator.”

“Critics of the decision believe the recent approval is the latest example of the CNSC prioritizing the nuclear industry over Canadians, which they say stems from a lack of regulatory independence.”

“Bloc Québécois MP Monique Pauzé lamented the approval what she described in French as an “insane and inconceivable project.”

“Ottawa confirms to us the bogus status of the hearings conducted by the CNSC where the Commission heard the opposition of multiple stakeholders only to nally brush them aside in the decision rendered yesterday,” Pauzé said in a statement.”

e28098we-have-a-broken-nuclear-governance-system_-regulator-comes-under-fire-for-approving-waste-facility-at-chalk-river-_-ipoliticsDownload

Letter to CCRCA members and friends

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Ottawa River radioactive waste dump ~ license approved by the CNSC

January 13, 2024

Dear Friends

Yesterday afternoon Canada’s captured nuclear regulator, the CNSC, announced its approval of the license to build the giant above-ground radioactive waste mound beside the Ottawa River, aka the NSDF. See below a few links to good coverage of reactions to the announcement. 

There was never any doubt that the CNSC would approve the license. The surprise is how long it took them to do so — seven and a half years! That is a testament to the incredible opposition that mobilized to fight the ill-conceived plan. In a David and Goliath battle, opponents effectively derailed the original plan of the CNSC and the consortium to have shovels in the ground six years ago, in January 2018. That is an accomplishment worth celebrating!

The battle is not over. It will move to the courts now. And along with our allies, we will continue to push for an international ARTEMIS review of the proposal. On that note, thank you to everyone who signed and shared House of Commons e-Petition 4676; the petition just closed for signatures today having been signed by well over 3000 Canadians in just 30 days. A meeting with MP Sophie Chatel about how to move the request for an ARTEMIS review forward will take place soon. Other next steps are in the works and we will keep you posted about them as the plans crystalize. 

We are very grateful to our Algonquin brothers and sisters for their strong stand against irresponsible nuclear waste projects in their unceded territory. We look forward to continuing to work with them toward an ultimate victory at some point down the road. 🙂

This seems a good time to share the inspiring words of Algonquin Elder Claudette Commanda, delivered during a press conference at 50 Sussex Drive on August 10, 2023. The press conference can be viewed at this link and Claudette’s statement begins at 13 minutes. Here is some of what she said that day, to rousing applause:

“This nuclear waste facility will damage the water and we all know that. 

Conscientious people are rising. We must rise together, we are all in that medicine wheel. No matter our colour, our creed or our title, we are all related in the human family and we must stand together

We have a responsibility to our brothers the animals, to our sisters the animals. To the water life and to the land.

We cannot stop the thunder.

We cannot stop the rain from falling.

We cannot stop the lightning from shining

We cannot stop the rivers from flowing

But together as human beings, as brothers and sisters, we can certainly stop the nuclear waste facility from coming here on the Ottawa River.Meegwetch”

Thank you everyone for your ongoing interest and support. Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be interested. Good overviews for people new to the issue are here and here. 

Best wishes,

Lynn

concernedcitizens.net

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/RadWasteAlert

X https://twitter.com/RadWasteAlert

Photo above of Kitchi Sibi on November 15, 2023, by Bev Moses

Radioactive waste site in Chalk River a go (National Observer, Natasha Bulowski)

Déchets nucléaires à Chalk River : « aucune surprise » pour Dylan Whiteduck, (Radio Canada)

Une installation de déchets nucléaires autorisée à Chalk River | Radio-Canada (Julien David-Pelletier, Radio Canada)

Kebaowek First Nation condemns CNSC decision to license the Chalk River nuclear waste dump and calls on the federal government to intervene

Kebaowek First Nation condemns CNSC decision to license the Chalk River nuclear waste dump and calls on the federal government to intervene

hendricksonjones 2 Comments

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NUCLEAR WASTE AT CHALK RIVER: KEBAOWEK FIRST NATION CONDEMNS CNSC DECISION AND CALLS ON THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT

KEBAOWEK, January 9, 2024 – Despite concerns expressed by First Nations and increased support from over 140 municipalities across Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has granted the license for the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) project at Chalk River. In response, the Kebaowek First Nation strongly condemns this decision and calls on the federal government to intervene to stop this environmentally high-risk project.

“The Commission’s decision is unacceptable, notably because it goes against the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental protection. The Canadian government must act promptly and immediately assert the suspension of the project. The Commission’s final decision is totally wrong when it states that the NSDF project will not cause significant environmental effects. While the decision states that CNL will take appropriate measures to safeguard the environment, the health, safety of individuals, and national security and to comply with national obligations, it is undeniable that the safety and health of people and the environment will be profoundly impacted for generations to come through this project, ” reacted Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek.

It is worth noting that the NSDF would release radioactive and hazardous materials into a nearby wetland and the Ottawa River during its operation and after its closure. The mound is expected to degrade through a process of “normal evolution”. The NSDF could also contaminate the river following earthquakes, wildfires, floods, and other extreme weather events. Not only is the Kichi Sibi sacred to the Algonquin Peoples, but the Chalk River site is also close to the sacred Algonquin sites of Oiseau Rock and Baptism Point.

In 2017, the Assembly of First Nations adopted a resolution stating that the CNSC and the Canadian government had not fulfilled their constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate First Nations regarding the NSDF. The Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois caucus issued a joint statement on radioactive waste, asserting that “we must protect the land, water, and all living beings for future generations” and calling for no abandonment of radioactive waste, moving it away from major waterways, and eliminating the practice of importing or exporting radioactive waste.

In addition to the opposition of Algonquin First Nations to the project, over 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, including Gatineau and Montreal, as well as several civil society organizations, have expressed their opposition to the NSDF plan. In 2021, the City of Ottawa adopted a resolution expressing its concern.

The Kebaowek First Nation, committed to defending the rights of Indigenous peoples and environmental preservation, expresses its eagerness to collaborate with the government and other stakeholders to ensure a careful consideration of Indigenous concerns and compliance with the obligations of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the context of this project. The First Nation maintains its categorical opposition to the establishment of a permanent NSDF on unceded Anishinabe territory, emphasizing the crucial importance of protecting Indigenous rights, the environment, and cultural heritage. Faced with a lack of trust in the CNSC and its persistent failure to uphold UNDRIP, the First Nation calls on the federal government, including the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, to intervene and end the project.

“I want to be very clear: the Algonquin Peoples did not consent to the construction of this radioactive waste dump on our unceded territory. We believe the consultation was inadequate, to say the least, and that our Indigenous rights are threatened by this proposal. We demand the cancellation of the NSDF project. The focus should instead be on a real and successful cleanup of the site to permanently eliminate old radioactive waste,” explains Chief Haymond.

Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond speaking at a press conference in Ottawa in June 2023

For more information: https://www.stopnuclearwaste.com/ 

To obtain the Board’s decision: https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resources/news-room/nsdf-media-kit.cfm  

-30-

Source: 

Kebaowek First Nation

For information and interview requests: 

Mathilde Robitaille-Lefebvre 

Media Relations 

m.robitaille-lefebvre@seize03.ca 

819-852-4762

Justin Roy

Advisor 

Kebaowek First Nation 

Jroy@kebaowek.ca 

819-627-3309

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