nuclear-news

Northern Ontario residents oppose plan to dump radioactive material near drinking water source.

By Angela Gemmill, July 15, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/northern-ontario/article/northern-ont-residents-oppose-plan-to-dump-radioactive-material-near-drinking-water-source/

Residents in Nairn and Hyman and surrounding communities met Monday to discuss concerns about a plan by the province to transfer radioactive material into the area.

Concerns were first raised last summer after a local municipal councillor noticed newer back roads and inquired about the upgrades.

That’s when the township discovered that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Mines were planning to move 18,000 cubic metres of niobium radioactive materials from Nipissing First Nation to the tailings area at Agnew Lake.

Agnew Lake is 27 kilometres from the township’s drinking water.

“We felt we really hadn’t been consulted,” Nairn and Hyman Mayor Amy Mazey told the crowd.

“We were told the ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’ was just like gravel.”

Last September, the municipality asked the province for more specific information about the project, which was scheduled to begin this summer.

“This is not ‘NORM ‘–naturally occurring radioactive material,” Mazey said.

“It contains hazardous heavy metals — uranium, niobium, radium 226, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, silver and manganese.”

In April, both ministries provided the township with a massive report filled with technical and scientific details. So the township hired environmental consultants Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. to interpret the report — and determine what science was missing.

That information was presented to residents on Monday, who were then asked for feedback and suggestions on what to do next.

Mazey said there are eight studies missing from the report.

“The two most important are a cumulative risk assessment — what’s going to happen when you put uranium tailings on top and niobium tailings together,” she said.

What will happen? And also a drainage study — so where is the water going to go, how is it going to leech? All of those things that were outlined that should have been done already, we just haven’t seen them.”

Township CAO Belinda Ketchabaw said what it boils down to is that the province wants to put radioactive materials in a lake that’s already struggling.

“(Agnew Lake) site is already in crisis, and they want to bring in more radioactive material to ‘fix’ the site,” Ketchabaw said.

“It doesn’t really add up to me. When the science isn’t there, there’s no trust. We need to trust what is best for our community.”

Safe outcome

Ketchabaw said they’ve learned that some of the niobium material will be taken to a Clean Harbors facility near Sarnia, made for hazardous waste.

She said it raises the question that if the material is hazardous enough to be sent to this facility, shouldn’t it all be sent there?

“Let’s just bring it all there and have a safe outcome for everyone,” Ketchabaw said.

Furthering distrust, Mazey said the two ministries often give the community contradictory information.

“It just raises a lot of red flags,” she said.

“I hope that the Ontario government listens to the residents and takes us seriously that this isn’t an easy fix … Just because this is the most convenient solution for the province, it doesn’t mean that it’s the best solution.”

Margaret Lafromboise, who lives close to the Spanish River, said she’s concerned about having “an unsafe radioactive site increased in volume.”

“I think the most constructive and practical thing to do would be to see if the municipality could get financial help to hire a lawyer and initiate an injunction to stop the action immediately,” Lafromboise said.

“As a society, as a province, we are not taking good enough care of our environment, the water and I don’t believe our current government is willing to take the action that is required.”

Representatives from the provincial ministries were not invited to Monday’s town hall.

July 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Protest against Chalk River nuclear waste disposal project

It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.

Pierre Chapdelaine de Montvalon, Radio-Canada, Espaces Autochtones, May 26, 2025-https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2167618/chalk-river-kebaowek-dechet-nucleaire

Opposition to the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site continues unabated. A coalition of Aboriginal leaders and elected officials met Monday morning in Montreal to denounce the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River.

For nearly 10 years, the community of Kebaowek, in Témiscamingue, has been fiercely opposed to the construction of such a site, and is leading a court battle against the organization responsible for the project, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL).

At a press conference, First Nation Chief Lance Haymond reiterated his community’s fears about the risks of water contamination and the effects on biodiversity of such a project, which he said would not respect First Nations’ rights.

Several speakers added their voices to call on the governments of Quebec and Canada to reject the project.

For the new Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Francis Verreault-Paul, such a project is a threat to our waters, our rights, our cultures and our traditional ways of life.

“Where is the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations, which is at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?” he asked at a press conference.

It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.

The Quebec government challenged

Manon Massé, Aboriginal Affairs spokesperson for the Québec solidaire party, took advantage of the press conference to directly challenge Quebec Premier François Legault, Environment Minister Benoit Charette and Ian Lafrenière, Minister responsible for relations with First Nations and Inuit.

“What do you mean, these people should not react against such a project? It’s immoral and inhuman to allow Quebecers to be put at risk like this.”

At the time of publication, the office of the Minister of the Environment had not responded to our questions.

“It makes no sense for such a project to be so close to such an important water resource,” added Rébecca Pétrin, Director of Eau secours. “Why aren’t our governments opposed to this?”

A Long Term Project

The proposed near-surface waste management facility is a project launched in 2016 by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private-sector consortium [of multinational corporations] responsible for managing federal nuclear sites.
The corporation’s proposed site would house low-level radioactive waste from the Chalk River Laboratories site, Canada’s largest nuclear science research complex, and other Canadian sites.
This waste includes contaminated soil and discarded items such as mops, protective clothing and rags that have been slightly contaminated.

LNC claims in its documentation that the project poses no contamination risk to the river.
“The NSDF is designed to protect the Ottawa River, not harm it. Drinking water downstream is not at risk,” states the LNC reference document.
The organization also assures us that radioactivity at the site will return to naturally occurring levels in a hundred years, and that the site will be monitored for hundreds of years.

Preventing long-term contamination

The president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, insisted at the press conference that such waste should not be stored near any watercourse, and feared long-term contamination. 

[14 of the 31 radioactive waste materials to be stored in the NSDF have half-lives of more than 100,000 years, and 22 of them have half-lives of more than 5,000 years.]

The octogenarian activist cited the example of a disused salt mine in Germany, which had been used as a dump for low-level nuclear waste.

After 20 years, radioactive pollutants began to seep into the environment and contaminate the ground water, despite all the precautions taken.

“Instead of pretending that this is not a problem, or that it’s a problem that has been solved, we need to consider that we have an intergenerational responsibility. We shouldn’t be thinking of simply abandoning this waste permanently. I don’t think we have sufficient scientific knowledge to do that,” he explains in an interview.

In early 2024, the Chalk River site was found to be discharging toxic wastewater.

A project challenged in court

In 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced that it was giving the green light to construction of the NSDF.

This decision was successfully challenged in court by the Kebaowek Algonquin community.The Federal Court first ruled in favor of the Kebaowek on the government’s failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent in the case, which runs counter to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted and codified by Ottawa in 2021.

“We never gave our consent to the project, and we were never consulted,” said Chief Lance Haymond.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has appealed the court’s decision, but has also initiated a consultation process with the First Nation.
“It’s difficult to talk to CNL representatives about the parameters of a consultation process, when on the other hand, their lawyers are fighting us in court,” lamented Lance Haymond in an interview.

“The government can’t talk about reconciliation while appealing court decisions.” 

– Lance Haymond, Chief of Kebaowek First Nation

In writing, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) states that it is committed to working with Kebaowek First Nation and CNL to implement the court’s directive in a transparent and judicious manner. “We are working with the Kebaowek First Nation and the CNL to develop a collaborative consultation process consistent with the court’s directive.”

The Federal Court also recognized that the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories had not sufficiently examined other options for the location of the nuclear waste dump. [This is required by law because of several species at risk that have been identified by Kebaowek.] CNL has also appealed the decision.

A third lawsuit by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the project was dismissed by the Federal Court.

Nine other Anishnabeg Algonquin communities support Kebaowek’s fight against the development of the NSDF, as do dozens of Quebec municipalities.

Pikwakanagan, an Anishnabe community on the other side of the Ottawa River in Ontario, supports the project.

May 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Coalition urges Carney to drop nuclear from energy plan

by Abdul Matin Sarfraz, National Observer, May 23, 2025

A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his “energy superpower” strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks.

In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action.

“We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,” reads the letter.

During the federal election campaign, Carney pledged to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower,” focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government’s agenda and ministers’ mandates.

While Carney’s plan doesn’t mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders’ debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management…………………………………………..

In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage.

The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank — has committed $970 million in low-cost financing to Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada’s first grid-scale small modular reactor. 

The federal government also invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy, a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy. 

Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste.

“We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,” Finet said. 

Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table.

“In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,” Edwards said. “Canada hasn’t built new reactors in decades. There’s no practical experience left, and what’s being proposed now is largely speculative.”

“We’re very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,” Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them. 

International concerns echo at home

Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns.

In the US, two nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear — now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco. Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in Georgia came in at $48 billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history.

In the UK and Europe, new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays, budget overruns, or outright cancellations.

………………………………ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.” 

Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. 

Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.

“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,”  Winfield added in an email. ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.” 

Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. 

Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.

“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,”  Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.” 

Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. 

Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.

“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,”  Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.” 

Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. 

Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.

“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,”  Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.” 

Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production. 

Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.

“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,”  Winfield added in an email. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/23/news/civil-society-first-nations-groups-carney-nuclear-energy-plan?nih=cCuxV9ZjIGLlEj3vVOQpRJBIfmNu0W4xzKEBn8bDrx8&utm_source=National+Observer&utm_campaign=d2c908330f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_05_23_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-d2c908330f-277064766

May 26, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment