nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

PM Trudeau dismisses Algonquin concerns over Chalk River nuclear waste dump

COMMENT. This is a sad day when we witness so clearly who Trudeau sides with in regard to nuclear waste, as well as the betrayal to Indigenous peoples about authentic reconciliation as per the violations related to UNDRIP.

Thank heavens that various news media, including CBC, are beginning to pay increasing attention to the folly of nuclear waste disposal and how the CNSC absolutely fails to protect human health and the natural environment.

Attention also must be solicited among the news media about the proposed NWMO DGR, because if it is not stopped at this autumn’s site selection stage, I have no faith or trust in what would follow, namely, a federal environmental assessment (EA), because the EA would be controlled by the CNSC.

Trudeau touts nuclear safety commission’s expertise as Bloc leader allies with First Nations

Brett Forester · CBC News · Feb 14, 2024

Algonquin leaders are finding the Canadian government largely unmoved, but they continue to fight construction of a radioactive waste dump on unceded territory near Deep River, Ont., roughly one kilometre from the Ottawa River.

First Nations chiefs have allied with Bloc Québécois and federal Green Party leaders, joined forces with concerned civil society groups, and launched a legal fight against the project. On Wednesday they all rallied on Parliament Hill to voice their united opposition.

“The time to act is now, for the sake of our environment, our communities and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” said Lance Haymond, chief of Kebaowek First Nation, at a news conference outside the House of Commons.

While legally non-binding, the UN declaration, or UNDRIP, outlines minimum human rights standards, including against storing hazardous materials in Indigenous territories without their consent.

Last month, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) authorized construction of a “near surface disposal facility” at the government-owned, Second World War-era Chalk River nuclear laboratory, about 190 kilometres northwest of Ottawa. 

Kebaowek applied for judicial review of that decision earlier this month, relying largely on UNDRIP. Three citizens’ groups applied for judicial review the same day.

Later on Wednesday in question period, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed the concerns, swatting away questions from Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet, who picked up the cause.

“This is not a political decision. On this side of the House, we trust our experts,” said Trudeau in French.

Trudeau touted the commission as an independent, science-driven, quasi-judicial expert panel that consults with First Nations. But Haymond suggested Trudeau, always keen to recognize how Parliament Hill sits on unceded Algonquin land, is failing to live up to his promises.

“Actions speak louder than words. Reconciliation is a series of actions, and not words,” Haymond told reporters.

“So if this government is serious about reconciliation with the Anishinaabe people, we’ve given him and his government a golden opportunity.”

Run by private sector

Regulatory filings describe the disposal facility as similar to a municipal landfill, with added features for hazardous material, such as a base liner, cover, leak-detection system and wastewater treatment plant.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), a private-sector consortium contracted to manage federal nuclear sites, intends to bury a million cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste in the giant hillside mound.

The commission concluded the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the environment or Indigenous peoples, provided CNL implements mitigation and monitoring measures.

Ten out of 11 federally recognized Algonquin First Nations oppose the project, while the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, roughly 150 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, is the lone community to consent.

Before hosting a rally outside, Haymond and other Algonquin leaders joined Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Bloc MP Sébastien Lemire, and Ole Hendrickson, spokesperson for the citizens’ groups that launched a court challenge. 

May accused the government of ignoring UNDRIP in the interests of industry. She singled out AtkinsRéalis, a member of the CNL consortium better known by its former name SNC Lavalin, the engineering giant that pleaded guilty to fraud in a 2019 corruption scandal.

“They are the powerful corporate lobbying interest behind ignoring UNDRIP, ” May told reporters………………………

Tritium in Perch Lake

Hendrickson warned the mound “would release pollutants into the Ottawa River during and after operation, according to the proponent’s own study. This makes it an issue for millions of people.”…………………………………https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/prime-minister-chalk-river-nuclear-waste-1.7115467

February 16, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

First Nations urge Environment Minister not to green light Chalk River nuclear waste dump.

MARIE WOOLF, OTTAWA, Globe and Mail, 15 Feb 24

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault was urged by First Nations chiefs Wednesday not to issue a permit to allow a nuclear waste dump on a forested site northwest of Ottawa where a variety of wildlife, including “at risk” wolves, live.

Ten chiefs and members of First Nations in Quebec and Ontario travelled to Parliament to urge the federal government to halt the Chalk River Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF), which the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approved for construction last month.

First Nations, supported by environmentalists and Bloc Québécois and Green MPs, said the site of the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ planned nuclear waste dump is too near the Ottawa River, which supplies drinking water to the country’s capital. They fear it could be polluted with a radioactive substance running off the site.

Kebaowek First Nation last week filed a Federal Court application for a judicial review of the Jan. 9 decision by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, alleging the government breached its duty to consult Indigenous people.

At a press conference, preceding a rally with First Nations on Parliament Hill, Kebaowek Chief Lance Haymond urged the Prime Minister to intervene and halt the project saying First Nations had not been properly consulted.

Chief Dylan Whiteduck of Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation told The Globe and Mail that an inadequate assessment of the impact on plants and mammals – including black bears hibernating in dens on the site – was conducted before approval was given.

First Nations spent several months surveying the site and found it rich with wildlife, but he said they were not given long enough, and a more extensive survey is needed.

Mr. Haymond said if Mr. Guilbeault were to issue a permit under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) it would pre-empt an assessment his department is carrying out on upgrading to a threatened species eastern wolves that roam on the site………………………………………………………………

In 2015, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada reassessed the status of the eastern wolf as threatened.

If the wolves are classed as threatened, their habitat would need to be protected, which could put on hold plans to build the waste dump on territory where they roam.

The eastern wolf, also known as the Algonquin wolf, numbers between an estimated 236 and 1,000 adults, and is confined to forests in Central Ontario and Southwestern Quebec. It is currently listed as a species of special concern.

The federal government published the proposed uplisting of the eastern wolf to a threatened species in November last year, carrying out a month-long consultation. It has until August to make a decision.

The proposed order amends Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act “to support the survival and recovery of the eastern wolf in Canada by uplisting it from a species of special concern to threatened.”………………………  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-first-nations-urge-environment-minister-not-to-green-light-chalk-river/

February 16, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Small Nuclear Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Consent in Saskatchewan: What You Haven’t Been Told

Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan: What You Need To Know―Four-Part Webinar Series Webinar #2: February 13th, 2024,

Small Nuclear Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Consent in Saskatchewan: What You Haven’t Been Told Everyone is welcome to attend this webinar series that will help you know more about what is happening with uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan. While many people have been busy in survival mode and exhausted from the pandemic, wars around the world, and the extreme rising cost of living, uranium mining lobbyists and governments have been taking advantage, passing industry-favourable laws that will further degrade and threaten freshwater systems already desperately overburdened by farming and mining use and wastewater byproducts.

Hosted by Tori Cress Guests: Paul Belanger, Keepers of the Water Science Advisor. Dr. Gordon Edwards, President and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Benjamin Ralston BA, JD, LLM, Assistant Professor at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Technical support: Beverly Andrews Paul Belanger works on the Keepers of the Water team as our Science Advisor and is also an environmentalist – entrepreneur, and designer. Paul founded his first environmental organization in 1987, then went on to mentor with scientists and operate an oil field supply and safety company. After more education and some research, Paul began an ecological design company called Living Design Systems – which is still active. Paul holds much knowledge and will now take us through a brief history of uranium mining in Saskatchewan.

Benjamin Ralston is an assistant professor at the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan. Some of his research areas include Aboriginal rights, Canadian constitutional law, environmental law, human rights law, and natural resource law. Benjamin has worked at the U of S in various capacities since 2014. Including for the first year of the Nunavut law program in Iqaluit. He taught law courses in the Kanawayihetaytan Askiy (kaun-a-way-taa-tan-ah-ski) Program for Indigenous land managers and continues to teach a graduate course on environmental law and policy for the School of Environment and Sustainability. He is completing his Ph.D. at the College of Law with a dissertation investigating the intersection between environmental assessment practices and Indigenous rights in Canada. No registration is required. We will be broadcasting live from our Facebook Event Page here, https://fb.me/e/4cpZppDBU and on our YouTube channel here, https://youtube.com/live/f6TOoWU-w5A?…

February 15, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Canada citizens challenge environmental safety of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission waste facility near Ottawa River

Pitasanna Shanmugathas | Vermont Law & Graduate School, US, FEBRUARY 9, 2024  https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/02/canada-citizens-challenge-environmental-safety-of-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-waste-facility-near-ottawa-river/

A group of Canadian citizens launched a legal challenge against the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on Thursday over the commission’s recent approval of the construction of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) near the Ottawa River. Led by the Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the challenge encompasses a broad array of environmental and public health concerns surrounding the NSDF’s potential impacts.

At the core of this legal action is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. The challenge targets the CNSC’s decision, dated January 8, approving Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) application to amend the Nuclear Research and Test Establishment Operating License for the Chalk River Laboratories sites. This amendment would authorize the construction of the NSDF, classified as a Class IB Nuclear Facility—a project not previously sanctioned under the existing license.

Represented by Nicholas Pope, the applicants seek an order to quash the decision to amend the license for NSDF construction.

The NSDF is envisaged as a nuclear waste disposal facility designed to contain up to one million cubic meters of radioactive waste. Its anticipated lifespan comprises several phrases, including a construction phase, operation phase, closure phase, institutional control period, and post-institutional control period. Of potential concern to the applicants is the potential for rainwater infiltration during the operation phase, which could lead to the leaching of radioactive materials into the environment. Moreover, plans to mitigate this risk by discharging treated wastewater into Perch Lake, a tributary of the Ottawa River, have raised further alarm.

To secure the license amendment, CNL underwent a rigorous approval process, which required an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, compliance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), and consultation with Indigenous communities. However, the applicants raised concerns about the CNL’s fulfillment of these requirements.

Of particular contention is the inclusion of an override section within the Waste Acceptance Criteria documented submitted by CNL. This provision, if implemented, would ostensibly permit the disposal of waste that does not meet the established acceptance criteria, thereby eroding any assurances of stringent waste management standards and rendering the safety case effectively null and void. Moreover, concerns persist regarding the efficacy of waste verification processes to ensure compliance with the acceptance criteria.

Assertions have been made that the CNL failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of alternative wastewater discharge methods, including the proposed pipeline to Perch Lake.

In a comment to JURIST, Pope asserted:

According to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the proponents of the project, even if all goes according to plan and there are no disruptive events, the public will still be subjected to radiation doses that are one and a half times the regulated standard for radioactive material that have been released from regulatory controls. And, if a disruptive event does occur, the public could receive up to fourteen times the legal limit of a radiation dose. So this surface level facility has been designed to only last for 550 years before it erodes and only be under institutional control for 300 years yet the materials they are planning on placing in this mound have half-lives of thousands of years and will remain radioactive for thousands of years—well beyond when it is no longer under governmental control and when the cover has eroded away so the materials will be free to be released into the environment.

The applicants also raised concerns about CNL’s compliance with consultation requirements with Indigenous nations, particularly Kebaowek First Nation, whose traditional territory encompasses the proposed NSDF site.

February 10, 2024 Posted by | Canada, environment, Legal, wastes | Leave a comment

The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play

MARK WINFIELD, THE GLOBE AND MAIL, 5 Feb 24

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. He is also co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press, 2023).

The Ontario government’s announcement last week of its intention to pursue the refurbishment of the Pickering B nuclear power plant on the shore of Lake Ontario between Toronto and Pickering represents a strategic triumph for the provincially owned Ontario Power Generation utility. The project would significantly reinforce the utility’s already dominant position in the province’s electricity system.

How well the decision serves the interests of Ontario residents, taxpayers and electricity ratepayers, and advances the sustainable decarbonization of the province’s electricity system, is another question altogether.

A Pickering B refurbishmenthad been assessed as uneconomic in 2010 and the plant scheduled to close in 2018. The facility is located in what is now a densely populated urban area where approval of a new plant would be unlikely.

New plans for that refurbishment are part of larger nuclear expansion strategy being pursued by OPG and the province. The plans include the refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce Nuclear facility (also owned by OPG) and four reactors at the OPG Darlington facility. There are also proposals for four large new reactors totalling 4,800 MW in capacity at Bruce and four new 300 MW reactors at Darlington.

The total costs of these plans are unknown at this point, but an overall estimate in excess of $100-billion ($13-billion Darlington refurbishment; $25-billion Bruce refurbishment; $15-billion Pickering B refurbishment; $50-billion for Bruce new build; Darlington new build $10-billion or more) would not be unrealistic. Even that figure would assume that things go according to plan, which they rarely do with nuclear construction and refurbishment projects. This could constitute the largest nuclear construction program in the Americas or Europe.

Under the current legislative and policy regime for electricity in Ontario, none of these plans are subject to any external review or regulatory oversight in terms of costs, economic and environmental rationality, or availability of lower-cost and lower-risk pathways for meeting the province’s electricity needs and decarbonizing its electricity system. Rather, the system now runs entirely on the basis of ministerial directives that agencies in the sector – including the putative regulator, the Ontario Energy Board – are mandated to implement.

The government has justified its plans on the expectation of dramatic growth in electricity demand over the next few decades. This would be the result of population and economic growth, the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, the electrification of space heating – principally via heat pumps – and expectations of industrial development in areas like the hydrogen economy

There are serious grounds on which to question these projections. Growth in electricity demand in the province has been virtually flat these past two decades despite sustained population and economic growth. The province has no plans of its own for the electrification of transportation or space heating. In fact, it is currently proposing legislation to facilitate the expansion of natural gas service to new housing developments. Many of the anticipated industrial developments, particularly around things like hydrogen, are speculative at best……………………………………..

While nuclear energy may offer a low-carbon energy source, it fails in virtually every other dimension of sustainability: costs; the production of high-volume, toxic and radioactive waste streams that require management on timescales of hundreds, if not thousands, of millennia; and security, catastrophic accident and weapons proliferation risks that simply do not exist in relation to other energy technologies.

These considerations mean that nuclear projects need to be options of last resort in efforts to decarbonize energy systems. This is precisely the opposite of the approach now being taken by Ontario. These are choices that Ontarians and Canadians may come to regret for decades, if not centuries, if they are not subject to some form of serious external review before it is too late to reconsider  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-power-plant-refurbishment/

February 9, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | 2 Comments

‘All we can do is hope for the best’: Concerns persist about Canada’s planned radioactive waste disposal site

dilution is not a solution to pollution. It just means that millions of people are going to be exposed to much smaller doses. When it comes to cancer-causing materials, the number of people exposed “is very important” because when even a small dose of tritium or any other radioactive material is allowed to enter the drinking water for millions of people, the number of expected cancers and genetic mutations is magnified by the size of the population”

By Natasha Bulowski | NewsOttawa Insider | February 6th 2024

Everyone agrees a safe solution is needed for Canada’s current and future radioactive waste. But whether a recently approved disposal facility in Deep River, Ont., is the answer is the subject of hot debate.

The “near-surface disposal facility” (NSDF) will see up to one million cubic metres of radioactive waste buried in a shallow mound at Chalk River Laboratories (CRL), about 190 kilometres northwest of Ottawa. Project proponents argue Canada must find a way to store low-level nuclear waste, some of which is currently not well-managed…….

Opponents argue the project, a kilometre from the Ottawa River, poses risks to the drinking water supply for millions, will not safely contain the waste and the company failed to adequately consult many Algonquin Nations. Representatives from six concerned groups recently wrote an open letter to the federal government urging it to halt the project. The waste contains long-lived radionuclides, which many experts say require far more robust containment than this facility will offer.

Radionuclides are unstable, radioactive atoms. Some will remain radioactive for thousands or millions of years, while others are short-lived and decay quickly. The Environmental Protection Agency and other health organizations classify all radionuclides as cancer-causing.

Of the radionuclides present in the waste destined for the NSDF, 19 of 29 listed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) have half-lives of more than a thousand years. This means they’ll be present for more than 10,000 years, said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, in his 2022 submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Another 12 on the list have half-lives of more than 100,000 years, so they will remain in the NSDF for well over a million years, wrote Edwards, a retired professor of mathematics and science with over 45 years serving as a consultant on nuclear issues.

Several groups and many Algonquin Nations are worried about the radionuclides, particularly one called tritium. This radioactive form of hydrogen is a carcinogen most dangerous when ingested because it enters the waterways with ease and can’t be filtered out with water treatment methods either at CRL or at the municipal level, notes Edwards.

These long-lived radionuclides are in “limited” quantities and “intrinsically part of the radiological fingerprints of waste streams at CRL and other CNL sites,” reads CNL’s submission. “It is not practical, technical, or economical to separate the long-lived radionuclides” because much of the waste is in the form of soil and building debris, it says.

CNL is run by a consortium of private companies (including AtkinsRéalis, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin) and contracted by the federal government to operate its laboratories and deal with waste.

When completed, CNL says the facility will resemble a huge grassy mound the size of 10 soccer fields. The bottom and top of the mound will be lined with synthetic membranes to keep water from getting in, according to CNL.

Construction is expected to take three years and cost $475 million, along with an estimated $275 million in operating costs over 50 years. During that time, CNL will verify all waste placed in the hollowed-out depression in the hillside meets the waste acceptance criteria.

The loose soil and smaller building debris will be compacted into layers and larger debris and waste packaged in drums and containers will be placed in the mound. Water that contacts areas where waste is stored or handled will be routed through a wastewater treatment plant and discharged in nearby Perch Lake. Once all the waste is inside, the final cover of earthen materials and a synthetic membrane go on top to keep precipitation away from the mound.

According to CNL’s draft monitoring plan, wastewater treatment will continue for 30 years and after that, it will be up to the liner and facility design to contain the mound’s contents. Some surveillance will take place to verify the facility is meeting environmental requirements. The top and bottom liners — which are supposed to “remain functional” for 500 years — will eventually erode.

However, it is “a critical flaw” that CNL didn’t plan for waste to be retrieved if something goes wrong later, the Canadian Environmental Law Association argued at the 2022 licensing hearings.

A retrieval plan is important because it gives future generations access to the waste for monitoring, repairs, to move it to a safer location or take advantage of safer technologies in the future, said Tanya Markvart, the law association’s environmental consultant.

“We really don’t know what’s going to happen over the next 100 to 500 or 2,000 years,” said Markvart.

CNL says there’s no plan to retrieve the waste because the facility design will safely manage it long term, but notes nothing is stopping future generations from retrieving its contents. But the law association says it is “unjust to shift the burden” to future generations, who neither created nor benefited from activities that made the radioactive waste………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Water worries

The NSDF’s proximity to the Ottawa River concerns environmentalists, many Algonquin leaders and more than 140 municipalities downstream. CNL materials indicate the facility’s base will be 50 metres above the current water levels of the Ottawa River and on bedrock sloping away from the river.

“Any site anywhere in the Ottawa Valley eventually drains to the river. That’s just basic hydrogeology,” said Mayor D’Eon, a member of CNL’s environmental stewardship council, when asked about opponents’ concern for the river.

“So whether you put it on that military base, which some people have said, or five kilometres away, hydrogeology takes everything to the Ottawa River,” she said.

The bedrock slopes towards Perch Lake, which has a creek that feeds directly into the Ottawa River and in the event of an overflow or other design failure, it wouldn’t take long for contaminated water to reach the lake, according to the Ottawa Riverkeeper, a charity focused on the health of the river and its tributaries. Hydrologist Wilf Ruland reviewed the NSDF proposal for Ottawa Riverkeeper and noted the location has “unfavourable geology” and will rely entirely on the NSDF’s engineered features to contain, collect and treat contaminated water leaching from the mound and prevent it from contaminating groundwater and surface water flow systems. The Ottawa Riverkeeper is also concerned about the presence of chemical contaminants and heavy metals, not just radioactivity.

………………………………. Edwards doesn’t think the waste would cause “a huge kill-off,” after all, “the Ottawa River is huge and the stuff does get diluted,” he told Canada’s National Observer in an interview.

“But we’ve learned over the years that dilution is not a solution to pollution. It just means that millions of people are going to be exposed to much smaller doses.” When it comes to cancer-causing materials, the number of people exposed “is very important” because when even a small dose of tritium or any other radioactive material is allowed to enter the drinking water for millions of people, the number of expected cancers and genetic mutations is magnified by the size of the population, added Edwards.

Pontiac County, Que., made up of 18 municipalities, is right across the river from the facility. Unlike Deep River, which calls itself the “proud home of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories,” Pontiac has opposed the project location from the get-go, said Jane Toller, head of the county council, in an interview with Canada’s National Observer………………………………………………………………………………………….

Toller supports Kitigan Zibi and Kebaowek First Nations, which are currently pressuring the federal government to deny CNL permits required under the Species at Risk Act. Toller says the CNSC’s decision is a “cut-and-dry” violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says no hazardous material can be stored on Indigenous land without prior, free and informed consent. While Pikwakanagan First Nation — the Algonquin nation closest to the facility — signed an agreement with CNL, Kitigan Zibi and Kebaowek say they were not adequately consulted and do not consent to the facility.

“I just don’t know why our federal government has not paid attention to that,” said Toller.

The CNSC’s recent decision only granted CNL a licence to construct the facility. The company still must apply for an operating licence.

Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/02/06/news/all-we-can-do-hope-best-concerns-persist-about-radioactive-waste-site

February 8, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

To be responsible does not mean being intimidated in favor of nuclear power


Jean-François Nadeau
, February 5, 2024, https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/806606/chronique-etre-responsable

Thus, nothing prevents relaunching the nuclear reactor in Gentilly, according to the very words of a study commissioned by Hydro-Québec .

Nothing. Otherwise money. A lot of money. 

Nothing. Otherwise common sense.

It would not be before 2035, we are told. Given the time it takes to get this type of operation underway, it’s tomorrow. 

The study was carried out by AtkinsRéalis. A firm previously known as SNC-Lavalin. They are the prime contractors for Canada’s CANDU nuclear reactors. Basically, it’s a bit like asking the oil industry to comment on the appropriateness of oil wells.

When will the day come when foxes will be invited, for their part, to explain to us what we should think of henhouses? 

In August 2023, the new management of Hydro-Québec affirmed, against all expectations,  that it would be “irresponsible at this time” not to closely consider the relaunch of nuclear power on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Irresponsible? 

Minister Fitzgibbon, the man who claims not to be buyable for only $100, immediately gave several signs of satisfaction, while formulating considerations favorable to nuclear power. 

It is difficult to imagine that, in the name of reason, we are not totally mobilized against the absurdity of such nuclear energy production programs in Quebec. Are we to believe that the idea of ​​progress, at least for some, does not necessarily lead to progress of the mind?

The reactors have improved, they say. However, accidents or incidents are always possible, as current events have continued to prove to us. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are not nothing. In Japan, more than a million cubic meters of contaminated water have just been thrown into the ocean, due to a lack of space to store it  ad vitam aeternam . What will be the consequences on marine life?

In May 1977, the Gentilly 1 reactor was shut down due to a breakdown. Ten tons of heavy water, loaded with 31,000 curies of tritium, escaped from the power plant into the St. Lawrence River. After only five years of activity, Gentilly 1 was finished. However, it was necessary to wait until 1984 to remove the fuel, without resolving the issue of radioactive waste. In all, Gentilly 1 only operated for the equivalent of 183 days. This plant cost $128 million to build, the equivalent of more than $900 million in 2024.

The new power plant, Gentilly 2, will replace it. Small iodine tablets are distributed to the surrounding population. Until 2012, citizens were instructed to swallow them, in the event of a problem, to try to save at least their thyroid gland… Too expensive, the site was finally closed in 2012. But it would be necessary to wait until 2060 for it to be completely secure. Here again, the question of radioactive waste proves to be an impossible puzzle. 

In Ontario, in Chalk River, the green light has just been given, despite objections, to the construction of a facility to  manage nuclear waste . There, two serious nuclear accidents occurred in 1952 and 1958. They required the intervention of the army. It was close for everything to slide towards the worst. Among the specialists rushed to the site was a future president of the United States: Jimmy Carter. More than half a century later, the soldiers who worked, like Carter, on the decontamination of Chalk River were offered by Ottawa — as long as they were still alive — a large check for… $24,000. 

Justified in pirouettes in the name of the fight against climate change , the enthusiasm for nuclear energy is not about to diminish. Neither are its risks. At what price ? In the summer of 2023, the Canadian government indicated that it wanted to revise upwards the compensation regime adopted in 2016 in the event of a nuclear accident. Ottawa now committed to paying $1 billion as a compensation ceiling rather than the $75 million initially planned. An increase commensurate with awareness of the risks. 

An irradiated body, shaken by nausea, doomed to wither from the conjunction of cancers, how is it truly “compensated”? 

Nuclear power constitutes a danger and a burden on the future of humanity that Quebec can very well do without. 

I hear from here saying this: “Oh! Mr. Nadeau… You are exaggerating so much! Civilian nuclear power plants, after all, are not to be confused with nuclear weapons. Let’s see, Mr. Nadeau! » 

Radiations do not know whether they are military or civilian. They always put us within death’s reach, no matter in the name of which flag they are produced. Who will deny today that the nuclear technology transferred by Canada to India allowed this country to develop bombs? Has Canada therefore become friends with New Delhi?

The Zaporizhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is not a military site. Despite disregard for life, she nevertheless serves as a target in the conflict with Russia. 

Who will tomorrow be the new leaders capable of contemplating, like those of today, the destruction of humanity without flinching? Should we ignore the fact that Nero, Genghis Khan and Napoleon have constantly found themselves reincarnated until today? 

Even complete strangers can have designs that are dangerous to say the least. In 1982, an Israeli-Swiss engineer, Chaïm Nissim, launched an attack on a nuclear site in France. He was armed with a rocket launcher. What could happen like this now, at a time when low-cost drones make it possible to discreetly carry fire and death everywhere from a clear blue sky?

Being responsible does not mean bowing down or being intimidated in favor of nuclear power in front of hired engineers or passing politicians.

February 7, 2024 Posted by | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry veterans warn some radioactive waste destined for Ontario disposal facility should not be accepted 

Observer, Natasha Bulowski  •   Feb 16, 2024  •

Approval of a nuclear waste disposal site near the Ottawa River hinged on a promise that only low-level radioactive waste would be accepted. But former nuclear industry employees and experts warn some waste slated for disposal contains unacceptably high levels of long-lived radioactive material. 

The “near-surface disposal facility” at Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) will store up to one million cubic metres of current and future low-level radioactive waste inside a shallow mound about one kilometre from the river, which provides drinking water to millions of people in the region. But former employees who spent decades working at the labs in waste management and analysis say previous waste-handling practices were inadequate, imprecise and not up to modern standards. Different levels of radioactive material were mixed together, making it unacceptable to bury in the mound. 

“Anything pre-2000 is anybody’s guess what the hell they have on their hands,” said Gregory Csullog, a retired waste inventory specialist and former longtime employee of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the Crown corporation that ran the federal government’s nuclear facilities before the Harper government privatized it in 2015. 

 Csullog described the waste during this earlier time as an unidentifiable “mishmash” of intermediate- and low-level radioactivity because there were inadequate systems to properly label, characterize, store and track what was produced at Chalk River or shipped there from other labs. “Literally, there were no rules,” said Csullog, who was hired in 1982 to develop waste identification and tracking systems. 

International safety standards state low-level radioactive waste is suitable for disposal in various facilities, ranging from near the surface to 30 metres underground, depending primarily on how long it remains radioactive. High-level waste, like used fuel rods, must be buried hundreds to thousands of metres underground in stable rock formations and remain there, effectively forever. Intermediate-level waste is somewhere in the middle and should be buried tens to hundreds of metres underground, not in near-surface disposal facilities, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

Radioactive waste is recognized by many health authorities as cancer-causing and its longevity makes disposal a thorny issue. Even short-lived radioactive waste typically takes hundreds of years to decay to extremely low levels and some radioactive isotopes like tritium found in the waste — a byproduct of nuclear reactors — are especially hard to remove from water. 

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) originally wanted its near-surface disposal facility to take intermediate- and low-level waste when it first proposed the project in 2016. Backlash was swift and concerned groups, including Deep River town council and multiple experts, argued it would transgress international standards to put intermediate-level waste in that type of facility. In 2017, CNL changed its proposal and promised to only accept low-level waste. The announcement quelled the Deep River town council’s concern, but some citizen groups, scientists, former employees and many Algonquin Nations aren’t buying it. 

CNL says its waste acceptance criteria will ensure all the waste will be low-level and comply with international and Canadian standards. Eighty seven per cent of the waste will be loose soil and debris from environmental remediation and decommissioned buildings. The other 13 per cent “will have sufficiently high radionuclide content to require use of packaging” in containers, drums or steel boxes in the disposal facility, according to CNL. 

However, project opponents note that between 2016 and 2019, about 90 per cent of the intermediate-level waste inventory at federal sites was reclassified as low-level, according to data from AECL and a statement from CNL. The timing of the reclassification raised the alarm for critics, who took it to mean intermediate-level waste was inappropriately categorized as low-level so it could be stored in the Chalk River disposal facility. CNL said the 2016 estimate was based on overly “conservative assumptions” and the waste was reclassified after some legacy waste was retrieved, examined and found to be low-level. 

The disposal facility will also accept waste generated over the next two decades and some shipments from hospitals and universities. 

The history of Chalk River Laboratories 

To fully understand the nuclear waste problem, you first have to know the history of Chalk River Lab’s operations and accidents,…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.pembrokeobserver.com/news/local-news/nuclear-industry-veterans-warn-some-radioactive-waste-destined-for-ontario-disposal-facility-should-not-be-accepted Natasha Bulowski is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter working out of Canada’s National Observer. LJI is funded by the Government of Canada. 

February 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Radioactive waste beside Ottawa River will remain hazardous for thousands of years: Citizens’ groups

Toula Mazloum, CTV News Ottawa Digital Multi-Skilled Journalist, Feb. 5, 2024

Citizens’ groups from Ontario and Quebec have issued a warning saying that the radioactive waste destined for a planned nuclear waste disposal facility in Deep River, Ont., one kilometre from the Ottawa River, will remain hazardous for thousands of years.

The disposal project — a seven-storey radioactive mound known as the “Near Surface Disposal Facility” (NSDF) – was licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) last month.

The CNSC said it determined the project is not likely to cause significant adverse effect, “provided that [Canadian Nuclear Laboratories] implements all proposed mitigation and follow-up monitoring measures, including continued engagement with Indigenous Nations and communities and environmental monitoring to verify the predictions of the environmental assessment.”

The groups sent a letter Sunday to the federal government, asking to stop all funding for the project and to look for alternate ways to dump the waste underground.

In the letter, the groups warned that waste destined for the mound is “heavily contaminated with very long-lived radioactive materials” that puts the public at risk of developing cancer, birth defects and genetic mutations.

“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.”

One million tons of radioactive and other hazardous waste from eight decades of operations of the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) will be held if the project is completed, according to the group.

The groups say that according to scientists and after a few hundred years, “the mound would leak during operation and break down due to erosion,” contaminating drinking water in the Ottawa River.

The controversial project has been concerning for many residents and organizations since 2016, including residents of Renfrew County and Area, the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive and the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, the groups say.

“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,” said Johanna Echlin of the Old Fort William (Quebec) Cottagers’ Association.

Waste from CRL is classified as an “Intermediate-level” waste class, which means it must be kept tens of metres underground, says the International Atomic Energy Agency

“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,” the groups noted.

Citizens’ groups want Canada to commit to building world class facilities not only for managing radioactive waste that would keep Canadians safe, but also for safely managing the waste for generations to come.

CTV News has reached out to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) for comments.

In a statement to CTV News Ottawa, the CNSC said it will ensure that CNL meets all legal and regulatory requirements as well as licence conditions, through regular inspections and evaluations.

“The purpose of the NSDF Project is to provide a permanent disposal solution for up to 1 million cubic metres of solid low-level radioactive waste, such as contaminated personal protective clothing and building materials,” the statement said. “The majority of the waste to be placed in the NSDF is currently in storage at the Chalk River Laboratories site or will be generated from environmental remediation, decommissioning, and operational activities at the Chalk River Laboratories site. Approximately 10% of the waste volume will come from other AECL-owned sites or from commercial sources such as Canadian hospitals and universities.”

CNSC says its Jan. 10 decision applies to the construction of the NSDF project only. 

“Authorization to operate the NSDF would be subject to a future Commission licensing hearing and decision, should CNL come forward with a licence application to do so. No waste may be placed in the NSDF during the construction phase of the project,” the regulator said.

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.

February 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

History repeats — and radiation radiates

I look on with amazement after retiring from the university, at the same unproven scheme we had protested against in our college days, soon becoming a reality. We felt at that time a repository would ultimately host nuclear waste from around the world and I have no doubt this is what the future holds.

By: Dave Taylor,  https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2024/02/05/history-repeats-and-radiation-radiates

This year, a community will consent to host Canada’s first nuclear waste repository.

It will be hewn out of the granite in a shaft 500 metres underground and it will aspire to keep containers full of deadly radioactive spent fuel rods separated from the water that runs through it. The owners of the waste were federally appointed to convince a local population it would be safe for generations to come.

A massive PR campaign with a substantial financial hook has focused on two regions in Ontario, one adjacent to Ignace and the other near the South Bruce Peninsula. Nuclear waste is problematic for the industry and without some panacea for the spent fuel problem, building new reactors or refurbishing older ones would be untenable. Canada, along with 20 other countries, are desperate for any solution as they have called for the tripling of nuclear energy by 2050, and Ontario is planning a multibillion-dollar refurbishment of its 50-year-old reactors.

My first encounter with this bold and untested mineshaft proposal was 40 years ago in Lac du Bonnet, Man., where my parents had a small tract of land. Nestled on 10 acres and surrounded by towering pines, the farmhouse sat on a foundation of granite, part of the Pre-Cambrian Shield. It overlooked the Pinawa channel, a manmade tributary of the Winnipeg River dynamited out of the rock in the early 1900s to power a hydroelectric dam. The fishing and wildlife were abundant; great grey owls, bear and timber wolves often passed through the property.

The toings and froings of vehicles with Ontario licence plates navigating our dead-end gravel road became cause for concern. We knew that the nuclear research site near the town of Pinawa had been quietly conducting experiments since the ’60s, but were not aware that it had teamed up with Ontario Hydro to build an Underground Research Laboratory just down our road.

As a college student, I had been taught to be skeptical of biased literature, so when literature was distributed preaching nuclear power or extinction, and referring to those against nuclear power as “Kremlin inspired,” it raised my hackles.

We knew that this excavation in the rock had the potential to be easily transformed into an operating repository. A loose coalition of university students and local residents formed the Concerned Citizens of Manitoba in hopes of countering what we referred to as “Outhouse Technology” — digging a hole, throwing in the waste and covering it up for eternity. A hard-rock miner who knew first hand the permeability of the rock, a former disillusioned member of the U.S. nuclear industry who with his wife bought a cabin downstream from the site and eventually published a book entitled Getting the Shaft, as well as several keen and creative environmentalists formed a loose affiliation.

We sought to examine any relevant documents, but soon ascertained that the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), had an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act and many of their files were classified. The secrecy surrounding the Manhattan project, so brilliantly captured in the movie Oppenheimer, persisted in thwarting our pursuit of the truth.

We decided our best strategy was to follow the lead of Greenpeace and to reach the public and media through street theatre. We had many questions about the long-term plans for the shaft that we wanted straight answers to, as well as scantily referenced leaks at the reactor in Pinawa.

Using elaborate props, we re-enacted rolling a risky dice down the steps of the legislature, placed an outhouse in front of government hearings, and even demonstrated how nuclear salesmen were getting their feet in the door using an actual door frame. These protests were made for the age of television and drew the attention of viewers.

We became so effective at calling out secrecy and untruths that a public relations employee at AECL launched a defamation slap suit, based on a private email which was surreptitiously published on a chat page.

Our most effective demonstration occurred as we attempted to inform communities on or near the border that shipments of nuclear waste could be transported down their highways.

Using a borrowed flatbed truck and a number of painted barrels clearly marked Simulation, we donned our knock-off radiation suits and headed to small towns in North Dakota. Upon returning, the cameras were waiting for us at the Emerson border stop. We had filled the barrels marked “radioactive” with water and punched holes in them so they appeared to be leaking.

Thinking the coverage was done, we returned home with water spilling onto the road in front of our house. Before long, the sound of fire engines and emergency vehicles echoed through the neighbourhood.

An off-duty fireman had failed to see the simulation sign and had called the fire department assuming a radioactive spill had occurred.

Needless to say there was great consternation among the editorial writers who felt we should pay for the false alarm, however the public uproar persuaded the provincial government to enact the Manitoba’s High-Level Radioactive Waste Act with fines of up to $1 million a day for disposing of nuclear waste in the province.

Under the guise of research, the labyrinth of tunnels through the granite did get built but it was short-lived. The Underground Research Laboratory was eventually backfilled after a decade of running pumps 24-7 to rid the so-called “impermeable” shaft of groundwater. The Manitoba law we had fought so hard for, excluded our province from being considered a candidate for a repository.

Water, however, knows no boundaries and Ignace is on the Lake Winnipeg watershed.

I look on with amazement after retiring from the university, at the same unproven scheme we had protested against in our college days, soon becoming a reality. We felt at that time a repository would ultimately host nuclear waste from around the world and I have no doubt this is what the future holds.

An elder who testified at the Seaborn hearings years ago related that the rock of the Canadian Shield was sacred, the grandfather of the Earth, and he warned, “Don’t put poison in your grandfather.”

Forty years later blasting the shield will start again and a community will soon be getting the shaft.

Dave Taylor writes from Winnipeg. You can see his blog of published works on the subject at manitobanuclea.wordpress.com.

February 6, 2024 Posted by | Canada, history, opposition to nuclear, PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

Ontario counts nuclear power as “Green”.

Ontario to include nuclear power projects in its green bonds, JEFF GRAYQUEEN’S PARK REPORTER, TORONTO, 2 Feb 24

Ontario has rewritten the rules for its multibillion-dollar green bond program and will now for the first time be able to use the proceeds for nuclear-power projects, the latest in a series of pro-nuclear moves made by the Progressive Conservative government.

The Ontario Financing Authority, which issues the province’s bonds, unveiled a new framework on Thursday for green bonds, which Ontario offers when it borrows money to finance capital projects that advance environmental goals.

While the program previously funded a range of infrastructure, it specifically excluded nuclear power. The new framework now includes a provision for “the deployment of nuclear energy to generate electricity and/or heat.”…….

The province has just pledged several large, and costly, expansions of nuclear power as it seeks to expand its electricity grid to meet future demand. This week, it announced the refurbishment of four 40-year-old reactors at Ontario Power Generation’s aging Pickering power station east of Toronto. That project is expected to take more than a decade and cost billions, although the government released no total cost estimate and a feasibility study is not being released to the public……………

The change made on Thursday is not the first time a debt issuer has tested whether the global market for so-called green bonds is willing to embrace nuclear power. Privately held Bruce Power, which operates the province’s largest nuclear power plant, on the shores of Lake Huron, in Tiverton, Ont., issued what was billed as the world’s first nuclear green bond back in 2021, as it sought financing for a massive refurbishment project. Provincially owned Ontario Power Generation has also recently issued a nuclear green bond.

The federal government moved to include nuclear in its green bond program late last year, after objections from the nuclear industry when Ottawa initially failed to include the sector. The European Union has made similar changes, and is being challenged over them in court by the environmental group Greenpeace.

Ontario, which is among the largest sub-sovereign debt issuers in the world, has issued green bonds for a decade. It is the largest issuer of these bonds in Canadian dollars, outstripping the federal government and all other provinces combined, at $16.5-billion. It is expected to issue its first green bonds under the new regime before March 31………………….

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, said nuclear power should not be considered green enough for green bonds, the way renewable solar and wind power are. He noted that there is still no permanent solution for the radioactive waste it produces.

“If you are getting some kind of a bonus for being green, you should have really high standards for that,” he said.

February 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Ford Government Issues Blank Cheque for Nuclear Power, Shows Reckless Disregard for Nuclear Waste Generation

North Bay – Today’s announcement to refurbish four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station is being heralded as a colossal failure in governance by groups concerned about the large volume of highly radioactive wastes that will be generated.

Rebuilding the four aging reactors to allow an additional 30 years of operation will cost the province’s ratepayers many billion dollars – the Minister refused to estimate the total cost – and will add to the growing stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste and refurbishment wastes.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Ontario Power Generation, has been working on a plan to construct a deep geological repository for Canada’s reactor fuel wastes for over twenty years, but is still at the “concept” stage and has yet to secure a site for the proposed used fuel processing facility and the underground complex of tunnels where the waste would be placed. 

There was not a single word of acknowledgement that this refurbishment will generate large volumes of high-level radioactive waste which will require care and containment into the far, far future. The Mayor of Pickering professed that his municipality is a willing host for the refurbishment project, but there is no willing host for the wastes it will generate,” commented Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

The NWMO is currently investigating two “candidate” sites for its proposed deep geological repository project, one in northwestern Ontario between Ignace and Dryden, and one in southwestern Ontario in the municipality of South Bruce.


The NWMO has not produced a detailed plan for its DGR and key parts of the project are still at the “concept” stage, but the NWMO’s plans to date have been premised on the current fleet of reactors without the refurbishment of the four reactors at Pickering.

“Refurbishing four reactors at Pickering has a large impact on the NWMO’s plan, and should send the NWMO back to square 1 in terms of informing the potential host regions about the NWMO project and its timeline and impacts. It significantly adds to the length of operations and the radiological burden that will be imposed upon those along the transportation route and in the area of the proposed facilities”, Lloyd added.

Over the 30-year operating period an additional half-million radioactive fuel bundles would be added to the inventory the NWMO has been estimating to be 5.5 million. That additional volume would mean an additional 2,265 truckloads of highly radioactive waste and add more than 900 days of operation to the used fuel packaging plant, which is expected to release radionuclides into the local environment.

Since 2021 the NWMO has been projecting that the last shipments of waste would leave Pickering in 2050, but the refurbishment would mean radioactive waste would still require interim on-site storage until at least 2105, pushing it past the 2088 date for final receipt of waste at the NWMO’s DGR site.

Residents along the transportation routes and in the vicinity of the two sites being investigated are concerned about the low levels of radiation that will emanate from  each of  the 2-3 truck shipments per day, the risk of transportation accidents, the radioactive releases from the processing facility and by ventilating  air from the underground facility unfiltered to the surface, and releases from the underground repository to ground and surface water. The NWMO has acknowledged in its own reports that the used fuel containers will fail over time.

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) Disappointed in Province’s Decision on Pickering Nuclear Plant

Toronto (January 30, 2024) – https://cela.ca/media-release-cela-disappointed-in-provinces-decision-on-pickering-nuclear-plant/

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) is disappointed in the decision released today by the Ontario Minister of Energy, directing Ontario Power Generation to proceed to seek a license to refurbish the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

CELA has participated for many years in licensing matters related to the Pickering site. In particular, CELA has undertaken in depth analysis of emergency planning readiness and has expressed very high concern for the protection of the surrounding communities in the event of a severe offsite nuclear accident.

“The population density around the Pickering plant is far too high for the continued operation of a nuclear power plant,” stated Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of CELA, “If such a proposal was brought forward today it would never pass the siting guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Canada says it follows. Putting a major commercial nuclear power plant in the midst of a high population area is unconscionable.”

For example, it is unrealistic to imagine that successful alerting and evacuation could move people out of harm’s way in time if something went seriously wrong. The length of time required for evacuating the various areas are highly impacted by traffic, weather, and other events that might be occurring simultaneously. The potential for getting potassium iodide distributed on time to all the children in the affected area would also be very questionable.

While it is hoped that a severe nuclear accident will never again happen in Ontario, the reality is that unexpected and extremely damaging severe accidents can occur. For that reason, high population areas and operating commercial nuclear plants are incompatible.

The 10-kilometer zone around Pickering extends well into the City of Toronto. Durham Region and the City of Toronto are both large, growing urban areas. “The 50 kilometer ‘ingestion zone’ covers much of the GTA,” said McClenaghan. “Based on public safety, CELA strenuously urges the province of Ontario to reconsider and reverse its decision to seek to refurbish Pickering, and instead proceed with the original plan for a safe and permanent shut down and decommissioning process.”

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

The Future of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Its Impacts on Ontario

News Networl Ledger ,By James Murray, January 30 2024

THUNDER BAY – POLITICS – The Ontario government has recently announced its support for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plan to refurbish the “B” units (units 5-8) of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. ………………………………………………… Energy Minister Todd Smith emphasized the role of this refurbishment in attracting global business, noting that it would help Ontario compete for significant investments……………………………………………………..

Concerns and Challenges

However, this announcement has also raised concerns. Groups like Northwatch have criticized the plan for its potential environmental impact, particularly regarding the generation of highly radioactive waste. Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson for Northwatch, expressed concerns about the absence of a long-term plan for managing this waste.

“Rebuilding the four aging reactors to allow an additional 30 years of operation will cost the province’s ratepayers many billion dollars – the Minister refused to estimate the total cost – and will add to the growing stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste and refurbishment wastes,” states Northwatch.

“The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Ontario Power Generation, has been working on a plan to construct a deep geological repository for Canada’s reactor fuel wastes for over twenty years, but is still at the “concept” stage and has yet to secure a site for the proposed used fuel processing facility and the underground complex of tunnels where the waste would be placed”.

“There was not a single word of acknowledgement that this refurbishment will generate large volumes of high-level radioactive waste which will require care and containment into the far, far future. The Mayor of Pickering professed that his municipality is a willing host for the refurbishment project, but there is no willing host for the wastes it will generate,” commented Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently investigating potential sites for a deep geological repository to store Canada’s reactor fuel wastes. The additional waste from the refurbished Pickering reactors complicates this plan, potentially requiring a reassessment of the NWMO’s project and its impacts.

Residents along the transportation routes and near the proposed repository sites are worried about radiation exposure, transportation accidents, and environmental releases from the processing facility and underground storage.

Regulatory Oversight and Future Steps

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will oversee the regulatory approval process for the refurbishment, ensuring a rigorous and transparent review. The project will only proceed if it aligns with the best interests of Ontario and its ratepayers.

…………….  The decision to move forward with this project will have long-lasting implications for the province, both in terms of its energy landscape and its environmental footprint.  https://www.netnewsledger.com/2024/01/30/the-future-of-pickering-nuclear-generating-station-and-its-impacts-on-ontario/

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Ontario to announce refurbishment of four reactors at Pickering Plant

MATTHEW MCCLEARN, JEFF GRAY, QUEEN’S PARK REPORTER, TORONTO, 30 Jan 24,  https://www-theglobeandmail-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/article-ontario-pickering-nuclear-reactor/

Ontario is proceeding with a massive, multibillion-dollar refurbishment of four aging nuclear reactors at its Pickering power plant east of Toronto, according to two provincial government sources.

The decision will be formally unveiled by Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith at the facility in Pickering on Tuesday, a senior government source said. This would mark the government’s latest major move to preserve and expand the province’s reactor fleet.

Another government official said the province has approved a $2-billion budget for Ontario Power Generation, the plant’s owner, to complete the necessary engineering and design work and order crucial components, which can require years to manufacture. The Globe and Mail is not naming the sources, because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the decision.

No full cost estimate for the project has been revealed. Refurbishments under way at OPG’s Darlington nuclear plant in Clarington, and at Bruce Power’s station in Tiverton, have cost between $2-billion and more than $3-billion a reactor.

Mr. Smith’s announcement had been expected. In 2022, the province asked OPG to study the feasibility of refurbishing the four Pickering “B” units, which entered service in the mid-1980s and had previously been passed over for refurbishment 15 years ago. Mr. Smith received OPG’s report last summer, but his ministry rebuffed a request from this newspaper to release it underthe province’s freedom of information legislation.

The Pickering station, situated on the shore of Lake Ontario about 30 kilometres from downtown Toronto, generates about 15 per cent of Ontario’s power. It also includes the four 1970s-era Pickering “A” reactors, which are not currently being considered for refurbishment. Two have been dormant for decades after an aborted refurbishment, and the remaining two are scheduled to shut down permanently this year.

OPG’s current licence for Pickering B allows its reactors to operate only to the end of this year. OPG has applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which regulates the industry, for permission to operate them until late 2026. CNSC approval would also be required for a refurbishment.

Refurbishment involves replacing major components to extend reactors’ operating lives by 30 years, although the list of required upgrades varies from station to station. Subo Sinnathamby, OPG’s chief projects officer, told The Globe earlier this month that, if the project were approved, OPG would begin Pickering’s refurbishment in 2028, with the goal of returning its reactors to service by the mid-2030s. Previous refurbishments have unfolded over longer periods.

“It is a compressed timeline,” she acknowledged. But she added that this time OPG will benefit from the experience it and its contractors and suppliers gained during previous refurbishments.

January 31, 2024 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment