Citizen groups vow to fight to put a pause on the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) licensing hearings that could possibly lead to the approval of a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) in Chalk River.

On Feb. 3 a citizens’ group put out a press release highlighting the . . .

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) recommended approval of an above-ground nuclear waste dump for one million tonnes of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste alongside the Ottawa River and said it is “reckless and irresponsible.” The licensing document and environmental assessment report was released by CNSC on January 25.

In the license amendment request, CNL is seeking approval to add the construction of the NSDF, which is a proposed engineered containment mound for low-level radioactive waste along with supporting facilities.

“There should have been a proper citing process to locate a better facility and a proper study and better technologies,” said Ole Hendrickson, scientist and researcher for the group Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

On Feb. 4 Hendrickson addressed The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, highlighting the flaws with the environmental assessment processes led by the CSNC for the NSDF.

In a notice released on Oct. 28, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), announced that it will be holding a hearing for CNL to amend its Chalk River Laboratories site license to authorize the construction of the NSDF.

Hendrickson, and Johanna Echlin, of the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, who have both been outspoken, share the view that there needs to be more work done in regards to ensuring the waste facility is safe.

According to the citizen groups, the CNSC’s environmental assessment report omitted critical information such as the failure to consider future human exposures to nuclear waste packages containing plutonium, the consideration of alternative sites that would avoid rapid discharge of radioactive and hazardous substances to a major water body, and risks to workers from accidents involving highly-radioactive industrial cobalt-60 irradiator wastes, among other concerns highlighted in their press release.

“The CNSC is supposed to protect Canadians from radioactive pollution created by the nuclear industry, not enable it,” Echlin.

The CNSC announced it will hold a two-part hearing on Feb. 22 and May 31, to consider an application from CNL for the construction of the NSDF.

Although the hearing held by CNSC invites the public to bring forth concerns, Hendrickson believes that any intervention at this point won’t result in much change, “because of the Commission’s track record of never refusing a license application,” he explained.

Hendrickson noted he is concerned because the CSNC does not have a robust scientific basis for its decision-making processes. He pointed out that its environmental assessment report–which is part of the recommendation to give a license–doesn’t have any scientific references to back up the assertion that the facility would not cause any significant adverse impacts on the environment.

“Is this a joke or what?” he asks. “In my opinion, this is not a responsible way to assess and decide on the approval of a facility that will affect hundreds of future generations of Canadians and have a definite impact on the Ottawa River,” he told THE EQUITY.

Because this is a federal responsibility, Hendrickson highlights, “it’s up to the politicians to stop this now.” He said anyone wanting to get involved should reach out to Member of Parliament Sophie Chatel, express their concerns and ask for the hearing to be paused. He highlighted that a report by the Auditor General is expected to come out this year which could provide valuable information that can inform the CNSC’s decision.

The Auditor-General report, which is looking into nuclear waste management, could provide a better way of addressing the $16 billion waste liability that’s been created, such as looking at doing a proper assessment of alternative sites and alternative technologies, Hendrickson explained.

The goal here, pointed out Echlin, is not standing in the way of this project, but rather bringing to light that the facility they are trying to build is a bad one for this kind of waste. And the location, according to Echlin, couldn’t have been worse–near the river. “It just defies logic.”

The government and the CNSC are plowing ahead without taking into consideration the implications of constructing this waste facility, Echlin told THE EQUITY. “They’re not paying attention to us local communities, they’re not paying attention to First Nations, and I find that it’s just really horrifying,” she said.

Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek First Nation, in a press release, issued on Jan 31, said the “unilateral unstructured notification” they received from CNSC about the upcoming hearings for the CNL’s proposal to construct a NSDF on Algonquin Rights and Title land, “is unacceptable and goes against the CNSC’s statements of reconciliation and working together with open dialogue for this project.”

The chief also highlights that there has been a lack of meaningful consultation from the CNSC with the First Nation communities and they have been left out of the conversation since the review of the project began in 2016.

Another concern rasied in the Kebaowek press release is that “the CNSC as yet, has not discharged its duty to consult nor undertaken consultation with Kebaowek before deciding to proceed with the licensing and environmental assessment (EA)hearing for the NSDF.”

In the CNSC notice, CNL proposes to construct the NSDF within the next three years and operate the facility, referred to as waste emplacement, for 50 years. “This would be followed by a 30-year period to decommission redundant supporting facilities, with capping and closure of the mound ending by the year 2100,” as stated in the notice.

In 2016, it was decided that the NSDF is subject to an environmental assessment, therefore, before the licence amendment decision is made, the Commission must make an EA decision “to determine whether the proposed activities are likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects,” said in the notice.

For anyone wishing to challenge or provide information or object to the CNL application, they may submit a request by April 11. The request must include all of the following–a written submission of the comments to be presented to the Commission; a statement setting out whether the requester wishes to intervene by way of written submission only, or by way of written submission and an oral presentation; and the requester’s name, address, telephone number and email address.

The citizen groups are pleading for the hearing to be paused until the Auditor General report comes out, the concerns of First Nations are properly met, and there’s a scientifically credible assessment of the impacts.

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!