Chalk River Nuclear Waste Landfill Project | “The place is bad and the method is bad”

A proposed nuclear waste burial site near the Ottawa River must be rejected because of the environmental risks it represents and because the authorization procedure is tainted by a conflict of interest, argue various indigenous nations.

The development of a “near surface waste management facility” (NWMF) – a nuclear waste burial site – at Chalk River Laboratories, on the Ontario side of the river, is the subject of an authorization request studied since 2016 by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). She must make her decision in the coming weeks.

The proposed landfill would receive low-level radioactive waste for at least 50 years in the municipality of Deep River, neighboring Chalk River, Ontario, one kilometer from the Ottawa River, near a wetland.

It would consist of an artificial mound, the height of a five-story building, made up of different storage cells and equipped with systems for leachate collection, leak detection and environmental monitoring.

This design is “substantially the same” as any household hazardous waste landfill in Canada, while radioactive waste requires a “much stricter” level of protection, says lawyer Theresa A. McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

In the event of a leak, radioactive material could therefore enter the wetland and reach the Ottawa River, indicates M^me McClenaghan, warning that the consequences could be increased tenfold in the event of an extreme weather event.

In this artificial mound, “there would be room for a million tonnes of radioactive waste”, which would remain there for centuries, says Justin Roy, band council member and economic development advisor for the First Nation of Kebaowek, in Quebec, which is one of ten Algonquin communities opposing the project.

The Ottawa River, which the First Nations call Kichi Sibi, is of great spiritual and cultural importance to them, particularly because of the presence of sacred sites.

The cities of Gatineau and the Metropolitan Community of Montreal also oppose the project, emphasizing that the Ottawa River and the St. Lawrence River, into which it flows, are the source of drinking water for millions of people, in downstream of the Chalk River site.

Potential impacts “not trivial at all”

The health impacts of a possible leak “are not trivial at all,” worries Doctor Éric Notebaert, vice-president of the Quebec Association of Physicians for the Environment and professor at the Faculty of Medicine of the ‘Montreal university.

“Any exposure to ionizing radiation, even low levels, has risks, especially if it is chronic exposure,” he explains. He also says he is concerned about tritiated water, “radioactive water,” generated at Chalk River.

Its rapid penetration into DNA, demonstrated by animal studies, “can induce cancers, congenital malformations, and in utero deaths,” says Dr.^r Notebaert, whose organization also opposes the project.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, for their part, maintain that their project will allow safe storage of waste thanks to a bottom membrane with a thickness of one and a half meters, a cover of two meters thick, site monitoring and the possibility to make repairs if necessary.

Appearance of conflict of interest

One of the two commissioners responsible for studying the project’s authorization request, Marcel Lacroix, has already worked at the Chalk River Laboratories, indicates his biography on the CNSC website. He holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering, professor at the University of Sherbrooke and engineering consultant. The second commissioner has completed her mandate.

The Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi First Nations see it as “a big problem,” says Justin Roy. He hopes that the Commission will study the project objectively.

The CNSC “is very close to the industry it regulates,” says lawyer Theresa A. McClenaghan.

“We must ask ourselves whether the regulator is sufficiently independent when there are too many people from the regulated industry within it,” she said, believing that this fuels the perception of bias or lack of independence of the regulator. Commission.

The Commission, for its part, ensures that the evaluation process is impartial.

“There is no conflict of interest. The commissioners are appointed by the Governor in Council, that is to say the Governor General, on the advice of the Cabinet,” responded by email a spokesperson for the organization, Braeson Holland, after refusing the request interview The Press.

“The commissioners are committed to respecting the highest ethical standards and the most rigorous guidelines regarding conflicts of interest,” he added, highlighting the vast expertise of Marcel Lacroix.

Asked for this article, Marcel Lacroix did not return a call The Press.

Rights violated

The First Nations deplore that the project was able to move forward without their free, prior and informed consent, a notion enshrined in Canadian legislation, and accuse the CNSC of not having consulted them properly.

The leaders of three Algonquin communities were heard at the Commission’s final hearing in August, but they were not allowed to ask questions of the project promoter, deplores Justin Roy.

The First Nations have not ruled out going to court to challenge a possible authorization of the project by the Commission.

They also launched a petition sponsored by the Bloc Québécois demanding that the federal government submit projects for the decommissioning of nuclear reactors and permanent waste disposal, such as that of Chalk River, to a review by the International Atomic Energy Agency. , and that the Commission suspends its decision in this matter until their rights have been respected.