Author: CREDNB

May 19: CRED-NB co-hosts book launch

CRED-NB co-hosted the Canadian book launch by author Linda Pentz Gunter: No To Nuclear: Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War.

The recording of the event, HERE, features the author in conversation with CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell.

The nuclear power industry wants us to believe that theirs is the only technical fix for the climate crisis. No To Nuclear calls the industry’s bluff. Beyond Nuclear Executive Director Linda Pentz Gunter makes the irresistible case that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too integrally connected to the nuclear weapons complex, to serve as a rational energy choice. The book also delves into the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities of colour, who have been harmed the most by the nuclear sector, and questions whether the way we devalue nature and the environment is costing us the chance of a genuinely just energy transition.

Activists attack Carney’s power strategy and LeBlanc’s silence

New Brunswick environmental activists are reacting with alarm to Prime Minister Carney’s announcement of a National Electricity Strategy that promotes the burning of natural gas to help double Canada’s supply of electrical power by 2050. Read the story HERE by Bruce Wark in the NB Media Co-op.

Not mentioned in the story but of particular concern to CRED-NB is the electricity strategy’s focus on nuclear energy instead of renewable energy to power electricity grids, although the strategy contains no specific details. The federal government announced that a national nuclear energy strategy will be released before the end of 2026.

CRED-NB comment on the DGR project

CRED-NB is engaged in the ongoing process to ensure a rigorous Impact Assessment for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for high-level nuclear waste. Our latest submission is “Comment to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Include the Point Lepreau nuclear site and Indigenous nations and communities in New Brunswick.” Read it HERE.

What is a PPE?

Currently there are more than 18 new nuclear reactors proposed in Ontario and Alberta, plus one new nuclear project planned in New Brunswick. The proponents are applying for environmental review, without identifying the type of reactor they are planning. How is this possible? The answer is the “PPE.”

What is the “Plant Parameter Envelope” Procedure?

Nuclear reactor proponents in Canada are using a “Plant Parameter Envelope” (PPE) approach instead of identifying one reactor design in Impact Assessment and CNSC reviews.

The PPE is a Pretty Poor Excuse for environmental review of a new nuclear reactor.

The PPE originates from a US lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NEI published a document with a toolkit to develop a PPE. The PPE is intended to reduce the time needed for a nuclear proponent to obtain an Early Siting Permit for a proposed new reactor from the US NRC (equivalent to a CNSC site preparation licence). Both the NRC and the CNSC have accepted the PPE as a tool designed by the industry to streamline the approvals process.

The PPE is essentially a large spreadsheet. Various parameters (quantifiable characteristics) are listed in the many rows, with one column for each of several candidate reactor designs. Reactor vendors provide the numbers in the spreadsheet. The regulator can examine the range of values for each parameter to ensure they are within certain bounds, regardless of the reactor type. If the regulator accepts these bounds, indicating that all relevant regulatory guidelines could be met by any one of the candidate designs, an Early Siting Permit may be granted and site preparation can commence.

Therefore, in the absence of a specific design, the proponent can use the PPE approach as a surrogate in safety and environmental reviews.

This is worrisome in particular because the vendors supply all the information in the PPE. This includes the “normal and accident source term” – that represents the maximum amount of radioactivity available to be released to the environment under both normal and accidental circumstances. In Canada the source term for a severe nuclear accident in a CANDU reactor was pegged at 100 terabecquerels of cesium-137, which is in fact a small fraction of what might realistically be released in the event of a major nuclear accident involving severe fuel damage (core melting).

The danger is not only that the numbers may be skewed but also that the entire exercise of conducting an environmental evaluation and granting a site preparation licence is reduced to a numerical box-checking exercise in lieu of a detailed examination of one specific reactor design. The PPE approach is off-putting for intervenors who cannot evaluate and critique a specific reactor design.

This information was prepared by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). See one of the CCNR interventions on PPE concerns related to the “Darlington New Nuclear Project” (the BWRX-300):
Mischief in the Making

Parliamentary committee publishes report critical of Canada’s emissions reduction plan

Parliament’s Environment Committee published a report critical of the Carney government’s emissions reduction plan. Unusual because the Liberal-dominated committee was critical of its own government and also because the report got no media attention. The committee is headed by Halifax MP Shannon Miedema. You can read the report HERE.

MayDay rally in Tantramar

May 1st, from 4 to 6 PM, rain or shine, rally to show opposition to the proposed gas plant in Tantramar. Gather at the site of the Centre Village gas plant, 1612 Route 940 in Tantramar. Bring signs and be ready to make noise! Seniors for Climate Tantramar and other members of the Protect The Chignecto Isthmus Coalition (PCIC) will take part in the Protest. CRED-NB is a PCIC member. The Protest will send a clear message to Premier Holt, Minister Legacy, NB Power and ProEnergy that the proposed gas plant is not welcome in Centre Village, or anywhere.

Save Lorneville! Letter to Premier Holt

Lorneville residents and allies are organized to fight the proposed data centre and fossil gas plant. If you’re on Facebook, join the Save Lorneville group, HERE. Save Lorneville and local activist Chris Watson are CRED-NB Champions. Chris wrote a letter to the Premier outlining his concerns with the proposed project, below. The letter is an excellent summary of why many people and groups, including CRED-NB, are opposing this project.

Dear Premier Holt,

I am writing to express serious concern regarding the proposed Spruce Lake AI Data Centre project in Lorneville and the recently registered Environmental Impact Assessment, available HERE.

This proposal is being presented as progress, but the EIA describes something very different: a 390 MW data centre, a 190 MW onsite natural gas plant, an additional 200 MW load from NB Power, new transmission infrastructure, gas pipelines, a new substation, and development adjacent to a residential community on top of high-functioning wetlands, watercourses, and old growth forest.

The Government of New Brunswick speaks of net zero, climate responsibility, and environmental stewardship. Do those commitments actually mean anything in practice?

My major concerns are as follows (which only scratch the surface of the issues with this project):

–         Massive greenhouse gas emissions. The EIA estimates that the onsite gas plant alone would emit roughly 755,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, equivalent to about 6.6% of New Brunswick’s total 2023 emissions. This would make the project one of the province’s largest emitters.

–         No guarantee of any Canadian public benefit. The “data sovereignty” pitch is highly questionable. These are American companies (Voltagrid based in Texas and Beacon’s parent company Nadia Partners based in New York, and there is no guarantee this facility will be used for Canadian data or for any clear public-interest purpose. There is nothing stopping it from serving highly resource-intensive private AI workloads with little or no meaningful benefit to New Brunswick or Canada.

–         A major new load on NB Power. The EIA says the project would require 200 MW from NB Power in addition to the onsite gas plant. That raises obvious concerns about grid capacity, infrastructure pressure, and increased costs to ratepayers.

–         Apparent avoidance of federal review. The proposed gas plant is set at 190 MW, just below the 200 MW threshold that can trigger federal impact assessment for a new fossil fuel-fired generating facility. That raises serious concern that the project has been deliberately sized to avoid the higher scrutiny and stronger protections a federal review could have brought to our community.

–         Nothing stops future expansion. If 190 MW is accepted now, what prevents that load from increasing later while still avoiding a Federal Impact Assessment? Any increase would mean even more fossil fuel burning and even more greenhouse gas emissions.

–         Destruction of high-functioning wetlands and old forest. The project would be built on top of wetlands that currently provide water storage, runoff moderation, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and climate resilience. The EIA also explicitly states that forest meeting the definition of old growth would be destroyed as a “long-term, irreversible, adverse effect.” In any responsible, forward-thinking society, in this day and age, old growth forest should be unconditionally protected, particularly in NB where we have so little left.

–         Groundwater, wells, and downstream ecosystem risks. The EIA acknowledges pathways by which blasting, drainage alteration, dewatering, and sedimentation could affect groundwater and nearby private wells. There also appears to be no clear dedicated assessment of impacts on downstream salt marsh or estuarine systems.

–         Serious sound and quality-of-life concerns. The EIA’s noise assessment is gravely insufficient. It relies on a single winter baseline survey at one location (on my property) next to a snowmobile trail in February, which is frequented by passing snowmobiles at night. The reported nighttime baseline is based on hourly average dBA values elevated by intermittent vehicle pass-bys, and do not reflect the true quiet conditions residents experience overnight. The assessment also did not include measured baseline dBC monitoring tailored to low-frequency noise. That is a major omission, because resident concern is not simply about average sound levels on paper. It is about the risk of a persistent low-frequency industrial hum from continuous operation of engines, chillers, pumps, and transformer equipment. That kind of sound can seriously affect sleep, stress, mental well-being, and overall quality of life for nearby families.

Given these concerns, I am again asking your government to impose an immediate moratorium on data centre developments of this kind in New Brunswick until an appropriate policy and regulatory framework is in place.

This type of project is not suitable for high ecological value land, not suitable immediately next to a residential community, and not suitable given our responsibility to future generations to address the dire immediate and long-term consequences of our changing climate.

New Brunswick cannot credibly claim climate leadership, environmental stewardship, or a serious commitment to net zero while advancing projects that combine major new fossil-fuel emissions with destruction of wetlands and old forest.

Sincerely,
Chris Watson
1520 Lorneville Road
Saint John, NB E2M 7H6