Why Ontario won’t consider the nuclear option in its fight over Trump’s tariffs
Although Ontario Premier Doug Ford vowed that his
government would “not back down,” “apply maximum pressure” and
“keep up the fight” in the Canada-U.S. trade war, one nuclear option is
off the table: cancelling contracts to build American power reactors.
The province’s utility, Ontario Power Generation, is on the cusp of starting
construction of the first of four BWRX-300 small modular reactors, or SMRs,
at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington. They’re designed
by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a stalwart of the
U.S.‘s nuclear industry. While the cost hasn’t been disclosed yet, the
first reactor is likely to cost several billion dollars.
Globe & Mail 30th March 2025,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-why-ontario-wont-consider-the-nuclear-option-in-its-fight-over-trumps/
Federal Court Orders Reconsideration of Nuclear Waste Facility Approval, Citing Inadequate Indigenous Consultation
By NNL Digital News , March 20, 2025, https://www.netnewsledger.com/2025/03/20/federal-court-orders-reconsideration-of-nuclear-waste-facility-approval-citing-inadequate-indigenous-consultation/#google_vignette
OTTAWA – A Federal Court decision has ordered the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to revisit its approval of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at the Chalk River Laboratories site, citing errors in its assessment of Indigenous consultation obligations.
The ruling, issued by the Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk on February 19, 2025, in the case of Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, highlights the importance of adhering to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canadian law.
The Case at a Glance
The Kebaowek First Nation challenged the CNSC’s decision to grant Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. (Canadian Nuclear) a license amendment to construct the NSDF, a proposed facility for the permanent storage and disposal of low-level nuclear waste. Kebaowek argued that the CNSC erred by:
- Failing to apply the UNDRIP and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) to its decision-making process regarding the duty to consult and accommodate.
- Concluding that the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek.
- Determining that the NSDF is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Court’s Findings
Madam Justice Blackhawk’s decision focused on the CNSC’s handling of Indigenous consultation. Key findings included:
- Jurisdiction to Apply UNDRIP/UNDA: The court found that the CNSC erred in determining it did not have the jurisdiction to consider the application of the UNDRIP and the UNDA to the duty to consult and accommodate.
- Duty to Consult and Accommodate: The court determined that the CNSC’s assessment of whether the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek was flawed due to the failure to consider the UNDRIP and its principle of “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) as an interpretive lens.
- Flawed Consultation Process: The court stated that the consultation process was inadequate, and Canadian Nuclear failed to consult in a manner consistent with the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.
Remedy and Next Steps
The Federal Court has ordered the matter to be remitted back to the CNSC for reconsideration. The CNSC, or a newly struck commission, is directed to:
- Address the jurisdictional question regarding the application of UNDRIP and the UNDA.
- Re-assess the Crown’s fulfillment of the duty to consult and accommodate, considering the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.
Canadian Nuclear and CNSC staff are also directed to resume consultation with Kebaowek, aiming to implement the UNDRIP FPIC standard in a robust manner and work towards achieving an agreement. The court has set a target completion date of September 30, 2026, for this renewed consultation process.
Implications
This decision has significant implications for future development projects in Canada that may affect Indigenous rights and interests. It underscores the importance of:
- Properly interpreting and applying the UNDRIP and the UNDA.
- Conducting meaningful and robust consultation with Indigenous communities, consistent with the principles of FPIC.
The ruling emphasizes that consultation processes must be approached from an Indigenous perspective and take into account Indigenous laws, knowledge, and practices.
NetNewsLedger.com will continue to follow this developing story and provide updates.
Idle Lepreau nuclear plant threatens to post worst operational year in 4 decades
Refurbishing only half the nuclear plant was a mistake, utility president admits
Robert Jones · CBC News : Mar 21, 2025
An end-of-the-fiscal-year breakdown at Point Lepreau is worsening what may turn out to be the poorest operational year on record for the 42-year-old plant.
The nuclear generating station was shutdown on Monday after a malfunctioning cooling fan was deemed to need immediate repair. That fix is expected to take almost until the end of the month
“Work is underway to repair an issue with the cooling fan and motor assembly,” D’Arcy Walsh, an N.B. Power spokesperson, said in an email. “We expect the station to return to service by the end of next week.”
A scheduled maintenance shutdown last spring, followed by the discovery of a major issue last summer in Lepreau’s generator, previously had the plant offline from early last April to mid-December. The latest problem is dragging the year’s low productivity further
Not including the years Lepreau was offline between 2008 and 2013 for a $2.5-billion refurbishment, the plant’s least productive year was in 1995, when it underwent work on sagging pressure tubes in its reactor and operated for just over 100 days.
Downtime at Lepreau is expensive for N.B. Power and has been cited as the primary cause for its current financial problems.
In February, N.B. Power president Lori Clark told MLAs the fortunes of the utility are largely dependent on how well, or poorly, the nuclear plant performs…………………….
Since it returned from refurbishment in late 2012, Lepreau has suffered a number of problems and has been taken offline for maintenance and repairs for more than 1,100 days in total.
More than one third of that downtime has occurred just in the last three years.
It has been estimated by the utility to cost between $1 million and $4 million per day when Lepreau is idle, depending on the time of year and the cost of generating or buying replacement power……………………………https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/idle-lepreau-nuclear-plant-threatening-worst-operational-year-nb-1.7490177
Canada Pours Nearly $450M into New Nuclear Subsidies
March 18, 2025 The Energy Mix, Author: Jody MacPherson
Canada has announced around C$450 million in new subsidies for nuclear energy, including the reallocation of funds collected from industrial emitters of greenhouse gases, in what the government frames as a bid to enhance energy security and reliability.
Ottawa will lend AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin Group, C$304 million over four years to finance the development and modernization of a new Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) nuclear reactor named MONARK, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said in a news release.
But a leading nuclear critic told The Energy Mix the new subsidies will be far from sufficient to bring the new design to life, and the new design is years if not a decade or more away from going into service………………………………………….
Nuclear Cost Concerns
But nuclear is also by far the most expensive way to generate electricity, Susan O’Donnell, an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University who studies energy transitions in Canada, told The Mix. Ottawa’s funding is “nowhere near the amount” needed to fully develop and build reactors, she said, adding that it will take years to develop the MONARK design toward applying for a licence to build.
O’Donnell pointed to two similar reactors that just came online in Georgia, United States, at a cost of US$35 billion, compared to just $4 billion for the equivalent solar capacity.
“The big nuclear reactors were almost nine times more expensive than solar,” said O’Donnell. “It makes no sense.”
More Federal Cash for SMRs
Canada is also directing $55 million from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Future Electricity Fund (FEF) to Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project for three new small modular reactors (SMRs) that together could power about 900,000 average Ontario homes……………
The SMRs destined for Darlington were designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, based out of North Carolina, and would require enriched uranium fuel, which Canada cannot produce domestically, reported the Globe and Mail. Wilkinson told the Globe that Canada’s options for enriched uranium include the United States or Russia, and that Canada could develop that capability if necessary, but it was not preferable.
While collaborating on nuclear projects with the U.S. might help eliminate tariffs, he added, “we’re unlikely to be spending an enormous amount of time collaborating with a party that is treating us like an adversary.”
First Nations Concerns
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission held its second set of public hearings just over a month ago for the first of the three reactors planned for Darlington. The hearing included presentations from the chiefs of four First Nations—Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, and Alderville—calling for a new collaborative relationship built on respect, trust, and partnership.
Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation said “the current relationship is not working effectively.”
Additional Funding Announced
Further funding will also go to SaskPower’s SMR pre-development program. The FEF increased its program funding from $24 million to $80 million.
More federal subsidy support is also destined for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario. ……..
https://www.theenergymix.com/canada-pours-nearly-450m-into-new-nuclear-subsidies/
Canada to review the purchase of US-made F-35 fighter jets in light of Trump’s trade war
By ROB GILLIES, March 16, 2025
TORONTO (AP) — Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked Defense Minister Bill Blair to review the purchase of America’s F-35 fighter jet to see if there are other options “given the changing environment,” a spokesman for Blair said Saturday.
Defense ministry press secretary Laurent de Casanove said the contract to purchase U.S. military contractor Lockheed Martin’s F-35 currently remains in place and Canada has made a legal commitment of funds for the first 16 aircraft. Canada agreed to buy 88 F-35’s two years ago.
Carney, who was sworn in on Friday, has asked Blair to work with the military “to determine if the F-35 contract, as it stands, is the best investment for Canada, and if there are other options that could better meet Canada’s needs,” de Casanove said……………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://apnews.com/article/f35-canada-trump-0d3bf192d3490d87570d48475ff2c3a6
Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump.
Gordon Edwards, 14 Mar 25
The radioactive megadump planned for Chalk River (an “engineered mound” intended to contain about one million tonnes of so-called “Low-level” radioactive waste in a permanent landfill-like toxic waste dump just one kilometre from the Ottawa River) was planned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and approved by CNSC.
Three legal challenges against this decision were launched in the Federal Appeals Court. The first had to do with the inadequacy of the safety case and the lack of adequate monitoring of the contents of the megadump. The second had to do with the failure to consult the Indigenous Algonquin peoples as required by the “Duty to Consult” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The third challenge had to do with the failure to consider alternative sites for such a toxic waste facility to provide adequate protection for endangered species.
Although the first challenge was not successful, the good news is that the second and third challenges were upheld by the court and CNSC and CNL will have to re-open the regulatory process to correct the inadequacies that have been noted. This does not mean that the existing megadumo has been forbidden but that more work must be done by both the proponent and the regulator to satisfactorily address these inadequacies.
The success of the third challenge was only announced yesterday.
The Federal Court overturned the Species at Risk permit for the nuclear waste facility planned for Chalk River, just 180 km up the Ottawa River from Ottawa.
The project proponent, CNL, said that the construction would harm, harass, or kill the endangered Blanding’s Turtle and 2 endangered bat species.
The Court found that CNL did not consider all reasonable alternative locations, and CNL admitted that it picked Chalk River even though it was less favourable for protecting species at risk than two other viable sites.
This violated s. 73(3)(a) of the Species at Risk Act, which says that “all” reasonable alternatives that would reduce the impact on species at risk must be considered and the best solution must be adopted.
There’s a lot to parse, but essentially, Justice Zinn agreed about the first 2 issues (not all reasonable locations were considered, and the best option was not chosen), but disagreed about the others (bat boxes, wildlife corridors, bird nests, the Monarch).
The win on the location issue is huge, of course. If they have to pick a new location, they have to start over from scratch and none of the other issues matter. See para 48 (of the decision) for some good reasoning by Zinn J:
“During both the hearing and public consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNL conceded that it would only consider non-AECL properties if no suitable AECL-owned site was identified. This admission confirms that CNL’s default approach was to confine its search to AECL lands unless compelled to broaden it. This methodology is directly at odds with the statutory mandate under paragraph 73(3)(a). The Minister failed to reconcile this self-imposed limitation with the statutory requirement for a comparative assessment of ecological impacts on protected species. I am of the view that, even if a non-AECL site posed greater logistical challenges, such as increased transportation distances, the Act would still require CNL to consider it if it offered reduced harm to at-risk species. Administrative or logistical difficulties do not absolve the project’s proponent of its duty to evaluate such alternatives under paragraph 73(3)(a), even if those factors later justify rejecting them.”
Unfortunately, this does not mean that ECCC will not approve the permit for Chalk River. The decision is being sent back for redetermination, as is normal in admin law cases. From Zinn’s interpretation of the statutory language, it’s hard to see how it could be approved for Chalk River, given CNL’s deficient siting process, but Zinn seemed to be aware of these massive implications and tried to avoid these repercussions. He goes out of his way to say that it could be possible for ECCC to approve the permit for Chalk River if 1) they give appropriate justification for only looking at AECL sites (para 50) and 2) interpreted “best option” differently than ECCC has in the past, to include non-species-at-risk factors, and justified this different interpretation (paras 57-61).
Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy
Energy
10 Mar 25,
A massive push towards nuclear in Canada is set after several investments have been announced by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson. Wilkinson is pushing what the government describes as “crucial steps towards clean, affordable, and homegrown nuclear technology.”
Central to Canada’s nuclear revival is a $304 million joint investment with engineering firm AtkinsRéalis to advance the next generation of Canada’s signature CANDU reactor. The initiative aims to refine the standard design of this Canadian-developed reactor technology.
Also key to Canada’s nuclear expansion involves small modular reactors, which provide scalable and versatile solutions for regional power needs. Ontario Power Generation received $55 million through the Future Electricity Fund to develop pre-construction activities for three SMRs at its Darlington facility.
Saskatchewan also received a substantial $80 million investment for SMR predevelopment. Managed by SaskPower through Saskatchewan’s Crown Investments Corporation, the project will focus on technical, regulatory, and community engagement tasks.
In Alberta, Capital Power Limited Partnership secured $13 million to evaluate potential SMR locations in the province, alongside a notable $8.3 million investment in the Peace Region for preliminary work on a large-scale nuclear facility with a potential capacity of 4,800 MW.
Western University in London, Ontario, received nearly $5 million to study advanced nuclear fuels, specifically the TRi-structural ISOtropic or TRISO fuel type. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, situated in Chalk River, Ontario, was awarded over $3.5 million to establish new standards and strategies for SMR deployment across Canada, aiming to optimize waste management.
Additionally, the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association received approximately $2.8 million to assess and enhance the province’s nuclear supply chain readiness, explicitly incorporating Indigenous businesses.
Complementary to nuclear advancements, the Alberta Electric System Operator secured $18.5 million to develop IT infrastructure capable of managing increased complexity arising from clean electricity generation. Alberta is also investing $1.3 million in the Tent Mountain Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project near Coleman for advancing integrated clean energy storage solutions alongside nuclear development.
American companies profit from Canada’s radioactive waste
Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada’s contract to clean up itslegacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada’s AtkinsRéalisand Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weaponsfacilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.
Parliament’s payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025.
The consortium operates “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories” (CNL) in a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada’s GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.
When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour. From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for “contractual expenses.” The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.
Canada’s liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.
The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium’s ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”
The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety.
AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.
Commission.
Doug Ford: Rip up the GE-Hitachi US nuclear contract
Ontario Clean Air Alliance 6 Mar 25
Premier Ford says he will tear up Ontario’s expensive contract for Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service in the wake of Donald Trump’s unhinged attacks on our economy. And thanks to Doug Ford, American wine and bourbon is gone from our liquor stores.
He has also ordered the Ontario Public Service to go through the province’s contracts “with a fine tooth comb” to find other U.S. contracts that can be axed. According to Premier Ford: “We won’t award contracts to people who enable and encourage economic attacks on our province and our country.”
That’s why it’s time for the Ford Government to tell Ontario Power Generation to rip up its contract with GE-Hitachi for 4 new nuclear reactors at Darlington, east of Oshawa. These expensive and first-of-their-kind proposed new U.S. reactors would come with a lot of energy security and financial risks, including the need to import enriched uranium from the U.S.
As Bob Walker, National Director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council told the Globe and Mail: “Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern and recent events have proven those concerns are justified.”
A much lower cost and more secure way to keep our lights on is to invest in Made-in-Canada wind and solar energy plus storage.
It is time for Doug Ford to lift his political moratorium on Great Lakes offshore wind power and work with Premier Legault to expand our east-west electricity grid. As a first step the Ontario-Quebec electricity interconnection capability at Ottawa should be increased by 2,000 megawatts.
Please tell Premier Ford that to Protect Ontario we need to invest in Made-in-Canada wind and solar energy and storage, and work with Quebec to expand our east-west electricity grid.
Nuclear waste at Chalk River: opponents defeated in court.
By Nelly Albérola, Radio-Canada, ICI Ottawa-Gatineau, March 6, 2025
https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145786/rejet-decision-nucleaire-chalk-river-dechet [en français]
The Federal Court has dismissed an application for judicial review by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the Chalk River radioactive waste disposal site in Deep River, Ontario.
The ruling has gone almost unnoticed. In the wake of the Kebaowek First Nation’s victory over Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the Federal Court has handed down another decision concerning the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site.
Please note: This victory will require the CCNS to have meaningful consultations with the Algonquins on whose traditional lands the radioactive waste dump is intended to be built. Neither the Algonquins nor the citizens of Ontario or Quebec were ever consulted about the choice of site for the dump, located one kilometre from the Ottawa River which borders Quebec and flows into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. – G. Edwards
On February 20, the federal judge dismissed the application for judicial review brought before the court by three citizens’ groups: Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.
A justified decision, according to the court
These groups include a number of retired scientists. They consider the decision of the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to be unreasonable. authorize, in January 2024, the construction of a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) for about one million tons of “low-level” radioactive waste.
“When read as a whole and taking into account the experience and technical expertise of the Commission, the decision is justified, intelligible and transparent. Consequently, the present application will be rejected,” reads the Federal Court’s decision.
“We’re certainly disappointed,” says Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. “We’ve been working for six years and more to tighten up this project, to make it better.”
“Our chances of success were virtually nil,” admits another spokesman for the Ralliement, Gilles Provost. “The judge couldn’t change the Commission’s decision, but had to judge whether the decision was unreasonable: that’s an extremely heavy burden of proof.”
A view shared by the three groups’ lawyer, Nicholas Pope. “In the end, the court did not say that the decision was correct, only that it did not meet the high standard of unreasonableness,” he points out in a written response.
Murky administrative law, say opponents
Beyond their disappointment, the groups deplore the fact that the court took into account only the CNSC’s opinion, without considering the observations of other professionals who are nevertheless recognized in the nuclear industry.
“We rely heavily on scientific experts such as James R. Walker. Unfortunately, both the CNSC and the judge rejected his arguments,” laments Ole Hendrickson, a researcher and member of the Concerned Citizens group. “I was surprised that the judge said that the Commission can choose whatever it wants, rather than paying attention to all the arguments.”
For the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, the legal system is simply not well equipped to deal with these situations.
“Administrative law is murky: magistrates are in a difficult position when they have to judge these cases,” says the former nuclear consultant for governmental and non-governmental agencies. “The law gives the CNSC the power to make decisions on nuclear matters. The judge therefore does not feel empowered to overturn the decision of the agency that has been given the authority to make that decision.”
An unprecedented project
The physicist reminds us that the permanent installation of a nuclear waste disposal site is unprecedented in Canadian history.
“We’ll never take it away again. This is where it will go and stay forever,” he insists.
“That’s why it’s so important to do it right, to make sure that all the safety measures have been taken and that they can be sustained over time,” he adds.
“The waste is going to stay in the landfill until it’s disintegrated. And that can take anywhere from a few years to millions of years, so you see the problem,” worries physicist by training Ginette Charbonneau. “You can [wear] a mask and say that legally, everything’s okay, but when you’re talking about radioactive waste, that’s not good enough.”
Ontario’s outdated nuclear vision poses serious safety and financial risks
Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable
there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”
rabble,ca, by Ole Hendrickson, February 26, 2025
As Ontario seeks to build a small modular nuclear reactor, the standards and safety of Canada’s nuclear industry leave something to be desired.
In October 2022, the federal infrastructure bank committed $970 million towards Canada’s first small modular nuclear reactor. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has applied to construct a 20-story tall, half underground, BWRX-300 boiling water reactor at the Darlington nuclear site near Toronto.
Independent nuclear experts say the reactor poses significant risks. They brought them to the attention of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) during a five-day public hearing in January 2025.
On January 8, the first day of the hearing, Ontario Premier Doug Ford issued a press release about Fortress Am-Can, his plan for “economic prosperity in Canada and the United States.” Ford said “With our fleet of nuclear power plants and the first small modular nuclear reactors in the G7, Ontario is uniquely positioned to power the future of Fortress Am-Can.”
Independent experts say that nuclear plants are far costlier than a combination of renewables with energy storage systems and conservation measures. They create intractable waste problems. They are slow to deploy, delaying climate action.
Furthermore, the design of Ontario’s “first small modular nuclear reactor” raises major safety concerns.
The BWRX-300 is a slimmed-down, 300-megawatt version of an earlier 1600-megawatt boiling water reactor design from the American company GE-Hitachi. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the design, but investors never materialized. General Electric (GE) also designed the boiling water reactors that melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.
At the CNSC hearing, Dr. Gordon Edwards, a leading independent nuclear expert with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, disputed claims that the BWRX-300 design is “inherently safe.” He noted that the U.S. NRC has not approved the design. A single system, the Isolation Condenser System, would replace multiple safety systems of its larger predecessor. Edwards suggested that “the eagerness of OPG and CNSC staff to proceed with construction before the design is finalized is based on political, technological, and marketing considerations.”
Sarah Eaton, CSNC’s Director General for Advanced Reactor Technologies, responded for CNSC staff. She said staff use a “trust but verify approach.” CNSC Executive Vice President Ramzi Jammal confirmed that Canada differs from the U.S., where the NRC must certify a design before a license is issued.
Another CNSC staffer, Melanie Rickard, said “We’re talking about hundreds of hours, maybe thousands of hours, to be honest, so that we’re certain that this is going to be acceptable. And we are not certain. There is more work to be done.”
Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable in a conflict. He added, “look at what’s happening in the Ukraine with the Zaporizhzhia plant with the conflict going on there.”
Dr. Sunil Nijhawan, who followed him, warned that an aircraft impact on a pool with a thousand spent fuel assemblies “can create a radiation disaster affecting Lake Ontario and about five million residences and businesses of southern Ontario.”
Nijhawan said “I’ve been in the industry for a long time. The first time I looked at a boiling water reactor design manual was 50 years ago, 1974, and I’ve kept in touch with development of all sorts of reactor designs… Right now what I see
Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable in a conflict. He added, “look at what’s happening in the Ukraine with the Zaporizhzhia plant with the conflict going on there.”
Dr. Sunil Nijhawan, who followed him, warned that an aircraft impact on a pool with a thousand spent fuel assemblies “can create a radiation disaster affecting Lake Ontario and about five million residences and businesses of southern Ontario.”
Nijhawan said “I’ve been in the industry for a long time. The first time I looked at a boiling water reactor design manual was 50 years ago, 1974, and I’ve kept in touch with development of all sorts of reactor designs… Right now what I see in this design, to me there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”
Nijhawan warned about a loss of “safety culture” throughout Canada’s nuclear industry…………………………….. https://rabble.ca/columnists/ontarios-outdated-nuclear-vision-poses-serious-safety-and-financial-risks/
We can’t afford Doug Ford’s nuclear fantasy
When it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production.
Feb. 26, 2025, By Mark Winfield. Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University, co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative, and co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press 2023). https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/we-cant-afford-doug-ford-s-nuclear-fantasy/article_818e4f2d-0f80-50bf-a4c4-7abaf277ebb1.html
Doug Ford’s proposal to bury Highway 401 lanes from Brampton or Mississauga in the west to Scarborough or Markham in the east, with an estimated price tag of at least $100 billion, has been described as being a “fantasy that would bankrupt” the province.
Although the 401 proposal has drawn the most attention among the Ford government’s increasingly grandiose infrastructure proposals, it actually isn’t the largest.
That status goes to the government’s plans to dramatically expand the province’s now aging fleet of nuclear reactors. A 10,000-megawatt (MW) facility proposed just before the election call for Wesleyville, Ont., between Coburg and Kingston, could break the $200-billion mark in capital costs alone.
That estimate is based on the actual costs of the most recently completed nuclear construction project in North American, the Vogtle plant in Georgia. That facility, completed last summer, came in at $50 billion (Canadian) for 2,200 MW capacity. A simple extrapolation of those costs to the Wesleyville project would give a figure of over $200 billion.
But there is even more to the Ford government’s nuclear plan.
A proposed new 4,800-MW facility at the Bruce nuclear site, would come in around $100 billion on the same basis. New estimates by the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority on the costs of the type of the four 300-MW reactors proposed for the Darlington site suggests costs in the range of $25 billion.
To this has to be added the costs of the refurbishments of the existing reactors at Bruce, Darlington and potentially, the Pickering B site, with potential costs of between $35 billion and $50 billion.
For context, the scale of Ontario’s nuclear proposals, relative to provincial GDP, would be comparable to that of the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador. That project really did push the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to the brink of bankruptcy, save for a massive federal bailout.
At least the Muskrat Falls project was subject to external economic and environmental reviews. Unfortunately, the warnings flowing from those reviews about the project’s risks were ignored. In contrast, none of Ontario’s proposals have been subject to any form of meaningful external review in terms of their economic, technological or environmental rationality.
The Ford government’s nuclear heavy strategy appears to be premised on an assumption that a massive nuclear expansion program will turn Ontario into an electricity production and export “superpower.”
The fundamental problem with strategy is that Ontario has no comparative advantage in electricity production.
Comparative advantage in energy tends to be a product of accidents of geography. Ontario was the beneficiary of such an accident through the first half of the 20th century, where hydro-electricity, principally from Niagara Falls, provided the foundation of the industrial base that was built through the Golden Horseshoe around the western end of Lake Ontario, from Niagara to Oshawa.
But that advantage was lost from the early 1960s onward when the province ceased to be a hydro-dominated system, turning first to the construction of coal-fired plants, and then a massive nuclear construction program from the 1960s to the 1990s.
Ontario turned out to be no better at building and operating these types of plants than anyone else in North America.
The province therefore lost its comparative advantage in electricity production. The recent experience with attempts at constructing new nuclear facilities in the U.S. and Europe, like the Vogtle project, suggest such advantage cannot be restored through a nuclear expansion program. Renewable energy sources, combined with energy storage offer much more cost-effective, lower-impact and lower-risk options.
Instead, when it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production. The province is already taking $7.3 billion a year from general revenues, funds that otherwise would be spent, for example, on schools and hospitals, to artificially lower hydro costs for industrial and residential consumers.
The Ford government has given no indication of what its nuclear expansion program will cost or how it will be financed. Past experience tells us it will be Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers who are likely to be ultimately stuck with the bills.
Ontario needs to engage in a serious debate about the future of its energy systems. But it needs to look to pathways to decarbonize the province without risking bankrupting it in the process.
Election candidates should face nuclear waste questions: group
THE CHRONICLE-JOURNAL, Feb 25, 2025, https://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/local/election-candidates-should-face-nuclear-waste-questions-group/article_e5e12318-f322-11ef-aede-0bca88dc7589.htm
With just two days to go before the provincial election, two citizen watchdog groups are urging voters to grill candidates over where they stand regarding alternatives to nuclear power, and what to do with the nuclear waste that exists now.
In particular, the We The Nuclear Free North and Northwatch groups want candidates to commit to giving first responders notice before nuclear waste is transported through areas in which they provide emergency services.
The groups maintain that question is crucial in the Thunder Bay district, since the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is proposing to build an underground storage site for spent nuclear fuel rods at a remote location between Ignace and Dryden.
The two groups have set up an online tool that can be used to put questions to provincial-election candidates about the project and request a response. The link to the tool is: tinyurl.com/2x9uct7a.
Radioactive fuel rods are to be shipped to the storage site by truck or rail in specialized containers designed to withstand fiery crashes, hard impacts and immersion in water, according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.
The storage site is expected to take 20 years to build once all approvals have been obtained.
Public concern increasing about nuclear waste shipments west of Sudbury
Northern Ontario News, By Ian Campbell, February 24, 2025
Officials in Nairn & Hyman Township say they are encouraged by the turnout at last week’s public information meeting as they continue to oppose the shipment of nuclear materials near Agnew Lake.
The Township of Nairn and Hyman and the Township of Baldwin held a joint emergency council meeting this week to discuss a plan to move radioactive material from the former Beaucage Mine. (Photo from video)
The township, along with the neighbouring community of Baldwin, has been vocal in its opposition to plans that would see nuclear waste transported to a nearby tailings management area west of Sudbury.
While the shipment plan is currently on hold, concerns remain about the potential environmental and health impacts of the proposal.
Nairn & Hyman Mayor Amy Mazey said the municipalities have been told not to expect answers to their questions until March 15.
In the meantime, Mazey and the township’s chief administrative officer said studies conducted by the municipality suggest the shipments could pose a risk to the local drinking water supply.
“When we get answers to our questions, we’re hoping to do another town hall meeting and show the town residents what we have received,” Mazey said.
“I’m pretty sure they’ll still be pretty negative towards it, but [we’ll] give them that update and then go to council and make a decision on how to move forward from there.”
The townships have garnered support from several political figures, including Nickel Belt’s Member of Parliament, a former Member of Provincial Parliament and the current candidate for the Algoma-Manitoulin riding.
Neighbouring communities along the North Shore have also joined the effort to oppose the shipments.The issue has sparked significant public interest, with residents expressing concerns about the long-term implications of storing nuclear materials in the area.
Mazey emphasized the importance of keeping the community informed and involved as the situation develops, when speaking with CTV News.
For now, the townships await further information and continue to prepare for next steps, including potential council decisions and further public engagement.
NWMO closing Teeswater office, to dispose of DGR site lands
The Post Rob Gowan, Feb 21, 2025
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s offices in Teeswater was to close to the public on Feb. 14 and the organization plans to dispose of the lands it had secured for a potential underground used nuclear fuel vault in South Bruce.
The more than 1,800 acres of land the organization had secured in South Bruce through a series of option and purchase agreements between 2019 and 2021 will be disposed of “in a manner respectful of the original commercial agreements and considerate to market conditions and appropriate timing,” an NWMO spokesperson said via email on Feb. 12.
“We cannot disclose any specific details regarding the agreements, as these are private commercial transactions,” NWMO’s regional communications manager for South Bruce, Carolyn Fell, said via email.
Bill Noll of the Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste group opposed to the DGR, said they are hopeful that NWMO does dispose of the land, as there continues to be some nervousness about the ultimate plans in the area.
“We know the NWMO is considering another DGR, the intermediate-level and non-fuel high level waste,” Noll said. “We have always been concerned about getting the last chapter done.”
In December, the NWMO announced that it had selected the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation in northern Ontario as the future site for its deep geological repository. South Bruce was the only other site under consideration. ………………………………………………………………
the NWMO announced in late November it had selected the northern Ontario site.
Fell said on Feb. 12 that as part of the NWMO’s site investigations, several boreholes were drilled in the potential siting area in South Bruce, used to advance the understanding of the subsurface geology in the area.
With the site selected, the deep boreholes and shallow groundwater monitoring wells in South Bruce will be decommissioned, Fell said.
“This means the monitoring equipment will be removed and the boreholes then sealed in compliance with the applicable Ontario regulations (Ontario Water Resources Act/Oil Gas and Salt Resources Act),” Fell wrote. “This work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2025.” ………………………………………………………………..
“While communities engaged in the used fuel DGR process may choose to participate, there is no requirement for them to do so,” Fell noted.
One potential impediment to a DGR being cited in the area could be SON’s willingness. For the used-fuel DGR process, the NWMO was insistent a project would not move ahead without the support of the local First Nation whose traditional territory the site falls within.
SON announced in late January that it would issue a moratorium on future nuclear intensification and waste projects if substantial progress is not made on nuclear legacy issues in its territory within six months. https://www.thepost.on.ca/news/local-news/nwmo-closing-teeswater-office-to-dispose-of-dgr-site-lands
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 