Dear Editor:
Renfrew County residents have received a two-page mail-out from the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) entitled “Near Surface Disposal Facility – a safe solution.” It does not tell the whole story.
“What?”
What CNL calls an “engineered containment mound” for “low-level and other suitable waste” would basically be a radioactive waste landfill alongside Perch Creek on the Chalk River Laboratories property. This creek flows into the Ottawa River only about one kilometre away.
“Waste water treatment plant removes contaminants”?
During heavy rains or snow melt, radioactive contaminants would run off into ponds and could overflow into the Perch Creek wetlands. The treatment plant would not remove all contaminants. Tritium – radioactive heavy water – would not be removed at all.
“What will go in it”?
The mail-out says where wastes would come from but not what they would be. CNL officials talk about building demolition wastes. The 990-page draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) mentions tanks, drums, process equipment, piping, spent ion-exchange resins, immobilized liquids (p. 3-8); and large quantities of man-made radioactive elements such as americium and plutonium with half-lives of many thousands of years (p. 5-513).
“Proven technology”?
CNL says that “proven technology” means that “effectiveness for disposal… has been demonstrated through similar facilities currently in operation globally.” (EIS, p. 2-24)
“Effectiveness for disposal” could just mean “getting rid of” waste.
“Similar facilities” in the U.S. are located in the desert. They have operated for only a few years – not the many thousands of years that these wastes will remain dangerous.
“Federal agencies set regulations and provide oversight”?
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the lead federal agency on nuclear matters) has never set regulations for permanent disposal or abandonment of radioactive waste.
“Waste Acceptance Criteria”?
CNL will propose its own Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for what goes in the landfill. It hasn’t done so yet. These criteria may be “quantitative or qualitative.” (EIS, p. 13-8)
“Waste that does not meet the criteria will not be accepted”?
The EIS says (p. 3-13) “In the rare occasion that wastes that do not meet the WAC, the waste may be further reviewed for acceptance through the WAC variance process.”
“Timeline”?
The mail-out says “construction begins” next year. In September 2015 the Harper Government signed a 10-year contract with CNL that says, “CNL shall seek the fastest, most cost effective way(s) of executing the DWM [Decommissioning and Waste Management] Mission including disposal of all waste.”
Our tax dollars at work?
The 2017-2018 federal budget contains over $500 million to deal with nuclear decommissioning and waste liabilities. CNL’s Near Surface Disposal Facility project is only a proposal that is still undergoing an environmental assessment.
Is a fancy two-page mail-out promoting this project an appropriate use of our tax dollars?
Ole Hendrickson, Chapeau, Quebec
