With a public hearing on the licensing of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Chalk River just weeks away, THE EQUITY asked Pontiac MP Sophie Chatel for her views on the matter following her recent fact-finding mission to the Chalk River site.

The proposal by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to construct a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) has been controversial. Many residents of the Pontiac and beyond have expressed concern as the disposal facility would be located approximately one kilometre from the Ottawa River, on the Chalk River Laboratories property of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

Our conversation with MP Chatel revolved around eleven questions. In many cases, the MP was able to provide direct answers; in others she explained she is still learning about . . .

the issue and intends to present similar questions to the commission herself.

Here is our exchange, edited for length.

THE EQUITY: During the election campaign, you were the candidate who was probably the least concerned about the proposed dumpsite. Has your thinking on the matter changed at all?

SOPHIE CHATEL MP: I don’t think my position has changed, in the sense that how you described it is not reflective of how I viewed my position. The situation in Chalk River is a complex one. I am not a nuclear engineer. I don’t have it as my background to understand all the complexities. So, what I need to do is to understand what exactly is the project. At the debate, Michel Gauthier [Pontiac’s federal Conservative candidate] took the position that we should take all the waste and create a site further from the river. But if you do that, and the underground water is connected to the river, you could be at 10 kms from the river but the site actually connects more to the river than when it is sitting on bedrock, and it is more vulnerable. So, we need to test the sites, we cannot just move the site. You cannot propose things before you have all the facts.

What are the main influences on your views on this?

I went on-site for a whole day. I was with Shaughn McArthur [Pontiac’s federal Green candidate], and we decided to go together and get more information . . . My position has never changed. I want the safest solution for Canadians. That was my position before. That is my position now. We need to be safe, nuclear waste is a big issue.

What do you think about the location of the proposed site, so close to the Ottawa River?

Well, I’ll answer with a question. What do you think of the waste now that is just sitting there unprotected? I think I’m against the waste that is there unprotected now and I want to see it protected. Do I want it to be on a better site? Yes. Is there such a better site, yes or no? What are the options and let’s choose the safest.

I want to know how they decided that this site was the safest. I want to know why they decided that this site was the best to store the low-grade waste. This is a question I will ask specifically.

There is currently high grade, intermediate grade, and low-level grade waste in Chalk River. My position is that I want this strategy to protect these wastes, in the safest place possible for the three grade levels. Waste is there, it has been accumulated for over 70 years, and the status quo is not a good position.

Are there any other aspects of the proposal that

you are concerned about?

The first one is long-term safety. I want them to tell us about their worst-case scenario, what would be the situation in case of an earthquake? What if the site is abandoned? And the key question here is it passively safe?… I wanted to hear about their layer system too. What if the water system breaks? What is the danger there?

The second concern is, when you decommission a building and you use dynamite, will the dust go in the river? I am not against the decommissioning of those buildings that are next to the river, but I want to know how they will be dealt with.

The third is, I know that 90 per cent is waste from Chalk River that will be stored in this new surface disposal facility, but the 10 per cent that is from outside, where’s it from, and who will review the waste?

The fourth point, I’m very concerned that they initially thought that one per cent intermediate grade could go into that facility. That was [CNL’s] position in 2018. But I wanted to see who will actually look into what type of inspection, who will have the oversight of what is being put into the near-surface facility.

Fifth, I want to understand what will be the ongoing engagement with people of the Pontiac. I have a lot of people that are very active and they are very worried about the pollution of the river. I want to have assurance that we are given regular information on the data and that data is public. I want people to have confidence in the oversight of Chalk River. I want full transparency.

Sixth, I want to know what was the consultation they had with Indigenous communities. Because, I sort of see discrepancies and a change over time, so I wanted to know what will be done to improve the communication with Indigenous peoples so that they have all of their concerns addressed before going along with this project.

Seventh, I want to know why we need to decide on this project now, because I know that Natural Resources Canada is doing a long-term review looking at the high level and intermediate level grade. So, if Natural Resources Canada comes with a plan this year will they also have a new site to propose?

Eighth, we hope to protect the waste that is already in Chalk River. So, we manage our own low-level waste and I think that’s good. We need to do that. Ideally, it would be in a site that is away from the river, but not at the cost of safety.

While this proposal has been promoted as a necessary way to deal with radioactive wastes that have already accumulated on the Chalk River site, it seems to be opening the door to the transport of nuclear wastes to Chalk River from a number of other nuclear sites elsewhere in Canada, such as Pinewa, Manitoba; Douglas Point, Ontario; and Gentilly, Quebec. Do you think we should be agreeing to this?

The data that we have that is in front of the public hearing is that 90 per cent of the waste will be from Chalk River itself. Ninety per cent. So, am I against importing nuclear waste from other areas? Yes. That’s my question, the 10 per cent that comes from outside, where will be coming from? And, what is their plan for that?

This raises the question of what level of radioactive waste will actually be put into the facility. There has been controversy over whether it will be just low-level waste or if intermediate-level waste will be included, which is much more toxic to the environment and to humans over a much longer period of time. This, in turn, raises questions as to whether the proposed near-surface facility would be in compliance with International Atomic Energy Agency requirements that it be buried deep underground. What do you think about this?

I want to make sure that these guidelines are met. Yes, that’s another one of my questions . . . I know we have strong regulations, but I want to make sure that this meets the standard from the International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines.

The CNL plan seems to envision management of the site for a few hundred years, whereas the contents will be deadly for many thousands of years. How do you feel about this apparent disconnect?

That’s another good question. The low-level grade, I think, is suitable for 550 years because it loses radioactivity very quickly. So, after the 550 years, is there any nuclear waste in there?

We appear to be willing to commit whoever lives here a few hundred years from now to have to deal with the risks of nuclear waste sitting right there on the shore of the Ottawa River, with who knows what kind of threats – possibly extreme weather and flooding, earthquakes, terrorists – upstream from what might still be our national capital. Does this seem to make sense to you?

My first question to the commission is, what is the plan for the long-term safety of this site? What happens if the site is abandoned, and people go and dig there? We have to think about what would happen if there’s an earthquake. What happens if there is nobody there to manage the site. Is it passively safe?

Are you comfortable with the Harper government’s decision to turn what had previously been a government responsibility for the management of nuclear wastes over to the private sector when they sold Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to SNC Lavalin and two U.S. partners?

So, to me, the government is not a construction worker, so there will always be a degree of subcontracting for any activities related to building the site or decommissioning buildings or transferring waste. To me, the bigger question is who will have the oversight? Are they independent, are they well-staffed with people that have independence and competencies, will there be regular inspections, surprise inspections, and are they completely independent, and maybe also international?

Is there a role for politicians such as yourself to get involved in an issue like this, or do you have confidence in the advice of the experts within the nuclear industry, which some have described as effectively a self-regulating industry?

Not just politicians, but every citizen has a voice in this matter because it’s about the safety of Canadians. We have not only a voice but the right to full disclosure and full transparency, because when these sites were operating in the early days of Chalk River, there was not a lot of transparency. So, I’m glad we have this hearing, and I’m glad that we have the information. I’m glad that we have an independent environmental assessment. What I see now is this site is not safe right now, and I want it to be safer.

Do you feel that it is difficult for you to take a certain stance or certain position that is different than your party when it comes to nuclear power?

No, I don’t.

Sophie Chatel has asked for an opportunity to make an oral presentation to the public hearing on the proposed near surface disposal facility, being convened in late May, and are expected to take several days. Requests to intervene in the hearings closed on April 11.

Register or subscribe to read this content

Thanks for stopping by! This article is available to readers who have created a free account or who subscribe to The Equity.

When you register for free with your email, you get access to a limited number of stories at no cost. Subscribers enjoy unlimited access to everything we publish—and directly support quality local journalism here in the Pontiac.

Register or Subscribe Today!