nuclear-news

Ottawa medical manufacturer giving up nuclear licence after defying regulator

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ordered Best Theratronics to comply over a year ago.

COMMENT.There are questions about lack of financial guarantee in the case where the plant in Kanata is decommissioned, i.e. cost of cleaning up the radioactive materials at the site. Next step is the CNSC is waiting for the decommissioning preliminary plan. The owner is moving the business to the U.S. and India, he says.

Campbell MacDiarmid · CBC News · Dec 14, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-medical-manufacturer-giving-up-nuclear-licence-after-defying-regulator-9.7014006

A storied Kanata medical manufacturer is in the process of relinquishing its nuclear licence, more than a year after Canada’s nuclear regulator placed it under orders for violating the terms of that certificate.

On Friday, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) confirmed that Best Theratronics is in the process of offloading the nuclear material it used to manufacture cancer treatment devices.

“Best Theratronics Limited has obtained an export licence to ship its Cobalt 60 sealed sources, as well as an export licence to ship its Cesium 137 sealed sources,” said Andrew McAllister, director of the CNSC’s nuclear processing facilities division, during a public meeting.

Best Theratronics was once a Crown agency that created the world’s first cancer treatment machine, but it has struggled in recent years under the private ownership of overseas businessman Krishnan Suthanthiran.

Suthanthiran says he has lost millions of dollars since buying the company from MDS Nordion in 2007. More recently, the company faced a protracted labour dispute that saw workers strike for nearly 10 months to demand better pay.

Last November, the CNSC issued orders against Best Theratronics after noticing that its financial guarantee had lapsed. The industry regulator ordered the company to make $1.8 million available to cover any cleanup costs in the event that its site was decommissioned.

But Suthanthiran never complied, telling CBC in October that the CNSC was in the wrong and that he lacked the funds to restore the guarantee.

Instead, Suthanthiran said he would give up his nuclear licence and shift the company toward activities that don’t involve nuclear materials.

CBC asked Suthanthiran whether staff at Best Theratronics would would be out of work as a result of the company surrendering its nuclear licence.

In an email, he wrote that he was being forced “to relocate to the USA and India” and that would result in “the loss of 200 high-tech jobs.” He also cited the high yearly cost of having the nuclear licence.

The CNSC has required Best Theratronics to submit monthly reports relating to its progress in offloading its nuclear material. But the company missed its December deadline, submitting its report several days later, McAllister said.

Manny Subramanian, a representative of Best Theratronics, told the CNSC the delay was due to Suthanthiran’s absence.

“One particular report, you know, we ended up sending about a day late or two days late because Krish, the president of the company, was travelling. We couldn’t get ahold of him,” Subramanian said.

The next deadline facing Best Theratronics comes Tuesday when it’s due to submit a preliminary plan for decommissioning its plant in Kanata.

December 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

On the road with radioactive waste: Canada’s roads are not safe.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it involves moving materials that remain hazardous to human health and the environment for centuries to millennia. Even under ideal conditions, risks cannot be fully eliminated — accidents, mechanical failures, weather events, security threats, or human error can all result in the release or exposure of radioactive materials.

Unlike other hazardous goods, radioactive waste cannot simply be cleaned up with standard emergency response measures; contamination can render land unusable, water unsafe, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Every shipment is a high-stakes event, and the impacts of even a single failure could be irreversible for the communities and lands along the transport route.

by Mayara Gonçalves e Lima,  December 11, 2025

Canada is decommissioning a nuclear power plant for the first time, marking a new chapter in the country’s nuclear history. The decommissioning of Gentilly-1 in Bécancour, Quebec — on the St. Lawrence River in Wabanaki territory — is a milestone in the country’s reckoning with its radioactive legacy, setting a precedent that will influence how future projects are approached across Canada.

The implications extend far beyond Quebec. How Gentilly-1 is dismantled, how its waste is transported, and how oversight is conducted will set precedents for future decommissioning projects across the country.

For New Brunswick, these decisions will shape the expectations, policies, and protections in place when it comes time to decommission Point Lepreau — a process that will carry even higher stakes for this province.

The threat of radioactive waste on the move

Gentilly-1 recently entered its active dismantling phase, with the removal of remaining radioactive and structural components, including equipment, piping, cabling, and control panels from the service and turbine buildings.

Under the current dismantling plan, the resulting radioactive waste is expected to be transferred to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories at Chalk River, Ontario, for interim storage.

This planned transfer follows an earlier shipment of Gentilly-1 used fuel to Chalk River that occurred without publicity or demonstrated compliance with regulatory requirements.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it involves moving materials that remain hazardous to human health and the environment for centuries to millennia. Even under ideal conditions, risks cannot be fully eliminated — accidents, mechanical failures, weather events, security threats, or human error can all result in the release or exposure of radioactive materials.

Unlike other hazardous goods, radioactive waste cannot simply be cleaned up with standard emergency response measures; contamination can render land unusable, water unsafe, and ecosystems damaged for generations. Every shipment is a high-stakes event, and the impacts of even a single failure could be irreversible for the communities and lands along the transport route.

These risks are compounded by the fact that current storage solutions for Gentilly-1 nuclear waste are only temporary. Neither Canada nor any country in the world has a permanent solution for radioactive waste — meaning the waste will eventually need to be moved again, effectively doubling both the risks and costs associated with its handling and transportation.

Bloc Québécois urges halt to radioactive waste shipments to Chalk River

On October 17, 2025, amid growing national debate over nuclear waste transport, the Bloc Québécois formally called on Federal Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson to immediately halt the transfer of radioactive materials from Gentilly-1 to the Chalk River Laboratories.

To reinforce their position, the Bloc Québécois has launched a petition allowing the public to voice their opposition to the project. It underscores the environmental risks of transporting radioactive waste and storing it so close to a major drinking water source, as well as the lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous communities.

The Bloc’s petition also highlights a separate proposal for the Chalk River site: the construction of a nuclear waste landfill known as the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF). This project also has become a major source of controversy. The Kebaowek First Nation, along with more than 140 municipalities in Quebec and Ontario, has voiced strong opposition to placing large volumes of radioactive waste near the Kichi Sibi (Ottawa River) and its tributaries.

Whistleblowers raise alarm over secretive transport practices

More than 60 groups, with the Passamaquoddy Nation among them, have endorsed a letter sent to the Prime Minister and key members of Cabinet on December 2, 2025, sounding the alarm about the federal government’s management of radioactive waste transport in Canada.

The signatories state that they are “blowing the whistle” on a practice that has remained largely hidden from public view: the movement of radioactive waste along public roads, bridges, and through First Nations territories without consultation, notification, or parliamentary oversight.

The letter focuses on Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ decision to consolidate federally-owned radioactive waste at the Chalk River Laboratories site. The signatories emphasize that Chalk River is an unsuitable and inherently vulnerable location due to its proximity to the Ottawa River and its exposure to seismic activity.

In response to these escalating concerns, the signatories call for three concrete actions: an immediate cessation on shipments of radioactive waste to Chalk River; a full ban on the import of radioactive waste; and a strategic assessment under section 95 of the Impact Assessment Act to evaluate the cumulative and long-term risks of transporting radioactive waste on public highways.

Such an assessment, they argue, is essential to ensuring informed, democratic decision-making and to guiding future reviews of nuclear facilities, reactor decommissioning projects, and federal waste policies.

Canada’s radioactive waste crisis demands action

Canada urgently needs to halt the practice of transporting radioactive waste over public roads, through municipalities, across public bridges, and over Indigenous territories without meaningful consultation, public notification, or clear regulatory justification.

These shipments — often occurring quietly and without community awareness — pose risks that are collectively borne by the public while decisions are made by a small number of government and industry actors.

The lack of transparency erodes trust and fails to meet even the basic standards of democratic governance, environmental protection, or respect for Indigenous rights. Communities have the right to know when hazardous materials are moving through their homelands, and they deserve a real voice in determining whether and how such shipments occur.

The Age of Nuclear Waste is only beginning, and Canada is unprepared to manage the growing challenges of transporting, importing, and exporting radioactive materials.

As reactors age, decommissioning accelerates, and new nuclear projects emerge, waste shipments will only increase — but federal oversight remains fragmented, inconsistent, and insufficiently accountable to the public.

Without a coherent national policy grounded in precaution, transparency, and genuine consultation — especially with First Nations whose territories are routinely crossed — Canada risks locking in a legacy of poorly governed radioactive waste movements.

Canada must act now to establish responsible oversight and build a safer, more accountable framework before today’s shortcomings become tomorrow’s crises.

At times like these, we’re reminded that every chapter of Canada’s nuclear history carries lasting responsibilities: our nuclear past has left behind a trail of toxic legacy that no technology, no policy, and no promise can safely contain for the timescales required.

Mayara Gonçalves e Lima works with the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group Inc., focusing on nuclear energy. Their work combines environmental advocacy with efforts to ensure that the voice of the Passamaquoddy Nation is heard and respected in decisions that impact their land, waters, and future.

December 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

Opponents ‘vehemently disagree’ on omitting transport from nuclear assessment.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says its initial project description is to cover the waste repository project only, not the transportation of radioactive materials.

Matt Prokopchuk, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Dec 3, 2025, https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-journalism-initiative-lji/opponents-vehemently-disagree-on-omitting-transport-from-nuclear-assessment-11567432

IGNACE — The transportation of radioactive materials should be included in the impact assessment for a proposed nuclear waste repository, environmental groups say.

But the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is working to develop the deep geological repository in the Revell Lake area between Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, says existing regulations govern that aspect of the plan.

“They see it as falling within that framework and not needing further examination,” Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer and spokesperson with the We the Nuclear Free North coalition told Newswatch. “And, of course, we vehemently disagree.”

Carolyn Fell, the NWMO’s manager of impact assessment communications, told Newswatch that its initial project description to the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada “pertains to new projects and not activities that are already subject to regulation and licensing standards.”

“The transportation of used nuclear fuel is jointly regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Transport Canada,” Fell added.

The initial project description for the proposed deep geological repository, or DGR, describes a project’s need and purpose, offers an assessment of potential impacts, and proposals to avoid and mitigate them.

The years-long impact assessment process will start with the NWMO submitting the description to, and its public posting by, the federal assessment regulator.

That process, according to the NWMO, is expected to last into 2030, and will include soliciting public feedback. The assessment regulator greenlighting the waste management organization’s proposal is one essential piece for construction of the DGR to start.

The initial submission, Fell said, is expected “sometime in the near future.”

Environmental groups concerned about the hauling of high-level radioactive waste hundreds and thousands of kilometres from Canada’s nuclear plants into Northwestern Ontario, say the existing regulations in place cover the transportation of nuclear waste that is much less dangerous — and a lot less of it.

Should the DGR be built and accept the high-level waste, O’Connor said, it will amount to two to three loads of the spent fuel being transported by truck, and possibly train, per day for 50 or more years.

“Something like this has never happened in Canada,” she said. “Something like this has never been proposed or carried out.”

That, said Dodie LeGassick, the nuclear lead for Environment North, means more attention should be paid to this aspect of the entire proposal — by project proponents and the public.

“It takes the emphasis off transportation,” she said of omitting the issue from the initial project description. “Where, in fact, all along the routes it is the major concern.”

If you’re living along the route, you’re not as concerned about the DGR site as you are about the train or the trucks coming through.”

Fell said existing regulations around nuclear waste transport are “very stringent,” adding that “ninety-three per cent of shipments are moved on roads under strict regulations that ensure they pose very little threat.”

O’Connor said comparing what’s on the roads nowadays to what is being proposed is “disingenuous.”

“The scale is exponentially bigger than anything they’ve done before.”

O’Connor said she and her colleagues were surprised to learn the initial project description wouldn’t include transportation.

“When (the NWMO has) given information on the transportation component, they’ve always presented that as part and parcel of the project as a whole, which was appropriate,” she said. “They gave information as they had it on the trucking, the containment materials, et cetera, which we’ve looked at and sometimes critiqued.”

“So, we’re used to seeing this as a package, and the transportation, as we see it, is integral to the project as a whole — which also includes the deep geological repository and its surface facilities.”

O’Connor said her group is encouraging people to sign up with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to receive emails about project information, including public comment periods, and to make their concerns heard.

December 7, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, safety | Leave a comment