Canada is one of the world’s top 4 producers/exporters of uranium, although the country’s electricity generation relies much more on hydro than nuclear power (60% vs. 15%)i. Canada’s nuclear landscape also includes 4 plants still in operation (two shut down), for a total of 19 reactors, including Pickering-1, commissioned in 1971 and one of the 3 oldest active reactors in the world. At last count, it was scheduled for shutdown in 2024. Faced with this aging fleet, Canada intends to join the global race to build ‘mini’-nuclear reactors. There, as in France, to allay the fears of residents and environmentalists and move ahead with this frenetic and deadly race, they need to assert control over the entire process. Their solution for waste, you guessed it: burial.
On the Chalk River site, where a research laboratory has stood since the 1940s, there are plans to build a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF). If built, it will house one million cubic metres of “low-level” radioactive waste. In January 2024, the Canada Nuclear Safety Comision (CNSC) gave the go-ahead despite significant opposition, particularly from neighboring aboriginal nations. For more informations, visit www.stopnuclearwaste.com/
And the 2,400,000 cubic metres (1,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools) of highly radioactive waste?
There, as here, the plan is to bury them deep under the carpet…
To better understand the deep geological repository project, we wrote to We The Nuclear Free North, where Brennain Lloyd replied:
« The story in Canada began in the 1970s when there was a commission appointed to study the problem of high level nuclear waste, and after three months they reported their solution: burying it in a deep geological repository in northern Ontario (our region). Then through the 1980s and the 1990s this was pursued by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, first carrying out a site search and doing studies, and then they developed a “geological disposal concept” which went through a public hearing from 1990 to 1998. That panel reported that AECL had NOT demonstrated their concept to be “safe and acceptable” which was the general requirement, and made a number of very good recommendations which were ignored and in 2002 the federal government passed legislation allowing the nuclear power reactor operators to organize themselves and pursue a “long term solution”. The nuclear industry created the Nuclear Waste Management Organization in 2002 [NDR: private agency with the same functions as ANDRA in France] and did very superficial studies of other options before recommending a “deep geological repository” in 2005 which the federal government accepted in 2007. Since 2010 the NWMO has been carrying out a search for a site, emphasizing that it must be an “informed and willing community”, and managed to get 22 communities interested in listening to them, and then gradually reduced the list of potential sites to 2 in 2020, one in northwestern Ontario [midway between the towns of Ignace and Dryden, 100km apart ] and one in southwestern Ontario [near the town of South Bruce].”
The NWMO schedule calls for an announcement in 2024 as to which of the two contenders will be chosen. Geology is not emphasized as a key factor in this choice; according to NWMO communications, the site that will have the honor of hosting this landfill of death will be the one that most wants it, or at least has consented to it. This notion of “consent” is omnipresent in SGDN communications. But how can consent be established in a case like this? The answers to this question, repeatedly asked by opponents, remains unclear. South Bruce succeeded in getting the decision to be made by referendum, while in the Northwest, it’s the city council that will have the last say in the matter. This difference may have something to do with the fact that southeastern Ontario is already a nuclearised territory , with the Pickering and Darlington power stations close by, while Ignace is in a remote, hydro-powered area. In order to obtain consent, in Canada as in Meuse, the nuclear authorities are busy showering the coveted territories with millions of dollars in subsidies: fire trucks, playgrounds, sewer upgrades, jobs at the town hall… the NWMO uses its funding to not-so-subtly slip into the urban dynamics, until it is perceived as indispensable. Another point raised by WeTheNuclearFreeNorth: why should the decision rest with the municipality of Ignace, which lies upriver from the landfill site, when the repercussions of a leak would be disastrous for all the communities located on the rivers and lakes downstream?
And what about the countless territories that will be crossed by the radioactive convoys? Indeed, one of the most striking differences between SGDN’s Canadian project and the Cigéo project is the fact that most of the waste will be transported by road, over distances of potentially several thousand kilometers! If the chosen site is in the North West, the waste will have to travel an average distance of 1600 kilometers from its current storage location. On the last 185km stretch of freeway before Ignace, there were 367 truck accidents between 2015 and 2020ii. Even with a lot of imagination, it’s impossible to believe that at a rate of 2 convoys a day for 50 years, no radioactive truck would ever have an accident, not to mention the proximity of the convoys to local residents and other motorists.
In addition to the municipalities, the NWMO will also need to obtain the consent of nearby indigenous nations. According to Brennain, while the majority of individuals in these communities are opposed to the project, it would appear that the SGDN has put in place political strategies to obtain the approval of the governing bodies. iii
In the meantime, SGDN is rolling out a perfectly scurrilous communications campaign:
“Leveraging indigenous knowledge: Indigenous peoples have a special relationship with nature, and this relationship carries with it a unique stewardship responsibility. NWMO works with First Nations and Métis communities in potential host regions to understand how we can apply indigenous knowledge to site selection objectives such as technical safety and community well-being. In addition, we’re holding workshops on Indigenous knowledge and Western science to explore how these two worldviews can align with respect to topics related to our project, such as the importance of water, the historical and current significance of copper, and understanding the importance of building relationships.”
All this rhetoric didn’t stop Derek Fox, Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, from declaring: “I will do all I can to stop this. If I have to be the one there, getting hauled away to jail to put a stop to this, I will be there to make sure this waste does not enter into our territory.”
Amalia Rose Khan, reporting these words, adds that “The pillaging of the North, which has been a consistent feature of economic recovery plans since the inception of Canada, is a tiresome, unacceptable narrative. “iv before adding that “The chiefs also stated their nations will use every option they have to stop the waste disposal, including “civil protests,” “legal action” and “any other appropriate measures.”.
Brennain of We The Nuclear Free North concludes her email as follows:
« I did meet someone from Bure a long time ago – I think it was 2013, at an international conference on DGRs in Toronto, and I was there as a reporter and he was the only citizen attending and asking questions. He was great! And I was so grateful for his presence and his questions. But we’ve had no real connection to people opposing Bure, and agree that we have lots in common and I also hope we can work together. We have been in touch with a couple of people in Sweden, and are connected with a small network of local people opposing nuclear waste burial in the UK, but have no contact with anyone in Switzerland or Finland. Of course, the NWMO likes to talk about the “international consensus” and references Sweden, Finland and France all as if the repositories were already in place and the waste was already under ground! »
In did, contrary to the claims of Canadian nucleocrats, there is no nuclear waste in the depths of Meuse – and there never will be! From Bure to Turtle Island, the fight goes on.
Brennain Lloyd will be present by videoconference during the anti-nuclear anti-authoritarian encounters (April 15 to 23, around Bure). Let’s continue to build international solidarity against nuclear power and its deadly landfill projects!
https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/ Organizing collectives against DGR in Northwestern Ontario
https://www.protectourwaterways.org/ Against the DGR in South Eastern Ontario
ii https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/nuclear-waste-abandonment/#dangers-of-transportation
iii Indigenous politics is a complex subject for novices. For example, “band councils” appeared in 1876 with the much critizised because very racist “Indian Act”. They are recognized by Canadian legal authorities. However, many indigenous people do not recognize their legitimacy, sometimes preferring other bodies such as hereditary chiefs. In 2020, during the fight against the western pipelines, whose epicenter was in Wet’suwet’en territory, we saw these two poles radically opposed : the band council sided with the Canadian authorities in approving the construction of the Coastal Gazline, while a number of hereditary chiefs held the barricades at Unist’ot’en. No doubt similar internal conflicts are to be expected in Ontario.
Iv https://www.protectourwaterways.org/the_next_land_back_battleground_will_be_north_of_lake_superior_as_chiefs_say_no_to_nuclear_waste_on_their_traditional_lands
05/03/2024