The day after the federal taxpayer $50.5 million gift to Moltex Energy for their new nuke in New Brunswick, CRED-NB’s Susan O’Donnell was interviewed by the CBC morning radio programs in Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John. Listen to the interviews below.
Fredericton – 6 minutes
Moncton – 10 minutes
Who’s minding the nuclear file? Oversight needed for New Brunswick’s risky plutonium plan
On March 18, the federal government announced $50.5 million in federal taxpayer dollars for controversial technology to “recycle” used nuclear fuel
Susan O’Donnell from the RAVEN project and CRED-NB and Gordon Edwards from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility published an article in the Hill Times and the NB Media Co-op describing why Parliamentary oversight is needed for this risky new project. Read the article here.
March 18, 2021
Extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel? We need to know the risks
ROTHESAY, NB – The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) urges the governments of Canada and New Brunswick to tell New Brunswickers and all Canadians about the risks of the Moltex experiment announced today.
The announcement this morning in Saint John by federal Minister Dominic LeBlanc and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs was missing key information. Extracting plutonium from nuclear waste was banned in Canada by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Today the ban has been lifted, marking a significant departure in Canadian policy.
We wonder: why did Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lift the ban that Trudeau senior imposed? Where is the peer review of this proposed research that addresses the significant weapons proliferation concerns as well as environmental risks? Was ANY peer review conducted of the research proposed for New Brunswick before granting $50.5 million today to Moltex Energy to develop their technology?
Our research has found that it is highly dangerous and polluting to “open up” the used nuclear fuel in order to extract the desired plutonium. Extracting plutonium creates a civilian traffic in highly dangerous materials that can be used by governments or criminals or terrorists to make powerful nuclear weapons without the need for terribly sophisticated or readily detectable infrastructure.
Why was our province selected for this dangerous and controversial process? What are the implications for New Brunswickers and our natural environment?
In 2019, after intensive lobbying by the nuclear industry, the new federal Impact Assessment Act project list excluded new nuclear projects at Point Lepreau. These new nuclear projects are exempt from a federal impact assessment. Who will answer our questions?
“Because these projects planned for the Bay of Fundy are exempt from a federal Impact Assessment, there are no opportunities for the public to learn and have their say about this risky, expensive and speculative process. Pyroprocessing has never been done anywhere before. Why was New Brunswick chosen for this dangerous experiment?” said Ann McAllister, member of CRED-NB.
“It’s shameful and irresponsible that both the Canadian and New Brunswick governments are supporting the extraction of plutonium from CANDU used fuel without reviewing the environmental and weapons proliferation challenges,” continued McAllister. “We have grave concerns about the risks being introduced to our Bay of Fundy and surrounding communities with no public discussion or debate in the Parliament of Canada or the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick,” she added.
The federal government has not yet developed a comprehensive policy and strategy for the oversight and management of our existing legacy of toxic radioactive waste, let alone the new types of deadly radioactive waste that would be generated by this new project.
“Some of the most contaminated sites on Earth – Hanford in the US, Sellafield in the UK, Mayak in Russia – are the result of large-scale reprocessing of used nuclear fuel that released dangerous long-lived radioactive material into the environment,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, a nuclear expert who provides technical advice to CRED-NB.
The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) advocates for our province to be a leader in Canada in the development of innovation in renewable energy and nuclear decommissioning technologies.
CRED-NB supports the Wolastoq Grand Council Resolution opposing nuclear energy and nuclear waste on traditional Wolastoq territory, here.
CRED-NB has endorsed the public statement signed by more than 100 public interest, Indigenous and civil society groups across Canada calling for an end to federal funding for new nuclear reactor development, here.
-30-
For more information:
David Thompson
Spokesperson, CRED-NB
H: 506-635-1297
Technical expert: Dr. Gordon Edwards
President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
ccnr@web.ca
cell: 514-839-7214
CCNR office: 514-489-5118
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)
PO Box 4561 • Rothesay • New Brunswick • Canada • E2E 5X3
CRED-NB: What we stand for
The Wolastoq Grand Council issued a resolution about nuclear power and nuclear waste on traditional Wolastoq territory. It was published by the NB Media Co-op, here.
Le français suit…
Please sign this House of Commons “Petition to Ensure Canada’s Climate Actions Match Urgent World Goals”
https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3221
The petition calls on the federal government to :
Note: One of the Government’s sectoral ‘Action Plans’ that clearly reflects this same lack of climate ambition and urgency, is federal funding for the development of “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” which will take an estimated 10 years and add to the toxic radioactive waste. More than 100 organizations have signed on to the Statement on the Canadian Environmental Law Association website calling these new nuclear reactors “…a dirty, dangerous distraction from tackling climate change.” https://cela.ca/casework-climate-action-nuclear-energy-case-against-smrs/
(1)To hold to 1.5°C, the IPCC says (October 2018 special report) : “In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030… reaching net zero around 2050 …” (emphasis added)
(2)his key finding is from Chapter 3 of the same report:
The rate of change for several types of risks may also have relevance, with potentially large risks in the case of a rapid rise to overshooting temperatures, even if a decrease to 1.5°C can be achieved at the end of the 21st century or later (medium confidence). If overshoot is to be minimized, the remaining equivalent CO2 budget available for emissions is very small, which implies that large, immediate and unprecedented global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases are required (high confidence). {3.2, 3.6.2, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in this chapter} https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
(3) House of Commons Bill C-12 of the 43rd Parliament is “ An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050
***
Veuillez svp signer cette « Pétition pour s’assurer que les mesures climatiques du Canada correspondent aux objectifs mondiaux urgents »
https://petitions.noscommunes.ca/fr/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3221
La pétition demande au gouvernement fédéral de :
Remarque : L’un des « plans d’action » sectoriels du gouvernement, qui reflète clairement ce même manque d’ambition et d’urgence climatiques, est le financement fédéral pour le développement de « petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires » qui prendra environ dix ans et ajoutera aux déchets radioactifs toxiques. Plus de 100 organisations ont signé la Déclaration sur le site Web de l’Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement, appelant ces nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires « … une distraction sale et dangereuse de la lutte contre le changement climatique ».
https://cela.ca/casework-climate-action-nuclear-energy-case-against-smrs/
(1) Pour se tenir à 1,5 degré, le GIEC indique (rapport spécial d’octobre 2018) : « Dans les voies modèles sans dépassement ou avec dépassement limité de 1,5 °C, les émissions nettes mondiales de CO2 anthropiques diminuent d’environ 45 % par rapport aux niveaux de 2010 d’ici 2030 … pour atteindre zéro net vers 2050 … » (emphase ajouté).
(2) la principale conclusion provient du chapitre 3 du même rapport :
Le taux de changement pour plusieurs types de risques peut également être pertinent, avec des risques potentiellement importants en cas d’augmentation rapide des températures de dépassement, même si une baisse à 1,5 °C peut être atteinte à la fin du XXIe siècle ou plus tard (confiance moyenne). Si l’on veut minimiser les dépassements, le budget équivalent de CO2 restant disponible pour les émissions est très faible, ce qui implique que des efforts mondiaux importants, immédiats et sans précédent pour atténuer les gaz à effet de serre sont nécessaires (confiance élevée). {3.2, 3.6.2, Boîte 8 dans ce chapitre} https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/
(3) Le projet de loi C-12 de la 43e législature de la Chambre des communes est « une loi qui respecte la transparence et la reddition de comptes dans les efforts déployés par le Canada pour atteindre des émissions nettes de gaz à effet de serre nulles d’ici 2050.
The paper presents considerations for the two proposed nuclear reactors (SMRs) for New Brunswick.
The briefing paper authors are RAVEN primary investigator Dr. Susan O’Donnell at the University of New Brunswick, Dr. Louise Comeau from the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, Dr. Janice Harvey of St. Thomas University and co-investigator of the RAVEN project, Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in Montreal and Dr. M.V. Ramana at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
The briefing paper is available on the RAVEN website: here.
On February 25, Susan O’Donnell represented CRED-NB at a meeting with federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan and national civil society representatives. The focus of discussion was the federal review of the radioactive waste policy. Susan highlighted the letters, each signed by more than 100 civil society groups across Canada, outlining concerns and expectations related to the policy review. She also brought up the concern we have with the proposed high-level waste “recycling” at Point Lepreau.
Chris Rouse: Transitioning to a Low-Carbon Economy in New Brunswick: Why public investments are better than incentives.
Chris Rouse, the founder of New Clear Free Solutions, developed an Integrated Resource Plan for New Brunswick that achieves a 95% Renewable energy solution through public investments. In this video presentation, Chris discusses his IRP that offers the least cost sustainable solution to our environmental problems that benefits all New Brunswicker both now and in the future.
The event was organized by the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB), Extinction Rebellion New Brunswick, and the RAVEN project (Rural Action and Voices for the Environment) at the University of New Brunswick.
Click on the video below to watch Chris’ presentation and the Q&A session that followed.
Nuclear is dirty energy. It leaves an everlasting radioactive legacy. Download our new fact sheet here.
Nuclear is dirty energy. It leaves an everlasting radioactive legacy.
All nuclear reactors create radioactive poisons as unwanted byproducts. We’ve made lots of them at the Point Lepreau nuclear plant on the Bay of Fundy west of Saint John.
The two “small” nuclear reactors proposed for New Brunswick will produce more of the same as well as new kinds of radioactive poisons.
Radioactivity from nuclear reactors and their waste must be securely contained because it is highly dangerous to all living things.
Exposing a living cell to radioactive material can alter its DNA. Chronic exposure can eventually cause cancers and other harmful health effects, including genetic damage that can affect offspring.
Any release of radioactivity at Point Lepreau can harm living things nearby including in the Bay of Fundy.
Used nuclear fuel
The deadliest and most concentrated form of nuclear waste is used (irradiated) nuclear reactor fuel. It must be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years (essentially forever).
However, no secure long-term storage facility for spent fuel has been approved for use anywhere on the planet.
NB Power is planning to move the Point Lepreau deadly waste in future to a permanent storage facility on Indigenous territory in Ontario. The Indigenous communities in Ontario don’t want it. We must consider permanent storage at Point Lepreau.
“Recycling” used CANDU fuel
At Point Lepreau, irradiated nuclear fuel from the CANDU nuclear reactor is sealed in temporary storage silos. The new “small” nuclear reactor projects plan to open these storage silos. They will remove and dissolve the solid fuel bundles at high temperatures.
Their plan is to access the plutonium and a few other materials inside and make new fuel for the “small” reactors.
More than 95 percent of the dissolved fuel will be rejected as unusable radioactive waste.
In Canada, this has never been done before on a commercial scale, and never with irradiated CANDU fuel. It raises many safety and security concerns
Some of the most contaminated sites on Earth are the result of large-scale reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel to extract plutonium.
Facts about plutonium
Plutonium, a human-made material created during the nuclear reaction, is the primary explosive material in nuclear weapons.
It is also extraordinarily toxic when inhaled.
Reprocessing makes plutonium more accessible to terrorists for further use in “dirty” bombs (“radiological dispersal devices”) or improvised nuclear weapons.
There would be increased security at Pont Lepreau for the “small” nuclear reactors.
New types of used fuel created
The “small” nuclear reactors will create new types of used fuel.
Smaller in volume, but much more radioactive by weight than the Point Lepreau spent fuel, it will also need to be kept out of the environment of living things for hundreds of thousands of years.
Radioactive building materials
When “small” reactors reach end of life, radioactive steel, concrete, and contaminated equipment will remain radioactive for thousands of years. These dangerous materials cannot be safely recycled.
The radioactive waste from dismantling the “small” reactors will be New Brunswick’s responsibility. Our future generations will be paying for the secure storage and maintenance of this waste for thousands of years into the future.
Conclusion
The only guaranteed long-term solution to the problem of deadly radioactive waste is to stop making it. Moving existing waste to a safe and secure location at Point Lepreau requires planning, but let’s not make the problem worse by producing even more.
We must not fund new nuclear reactors. Instead, we should invest in cheap, clean, safe alternatives that can be quickly deployed to move New Brunswick to a green energy future.
Today CRED-NB submitted our recommendations for the federal budget. You can read the document here.
