Tag: CRED-NB Action

SAINT JOHN, NB – Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, has commenced its three day public hearing of public utility NB Power’s request for a 25-year renewal to its operating licence for its nuclear reactor on the Bay of Fundy. The Point Lepreau nuclear power plant, owned and operated by NB Power, is located 40km southwest of Saint John, New Brunswick; it is Canada’s only nuclear power plant on the ocean. 

This hearing considers a first ever request for a 25 year nuclear operating licence. The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) is among the public intervenors appearing before the Commission. On May 11, CELA, jointly with the New Brunswick based community based Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB), will be asking for the Commission to deny the 25-year licence request, citing concerns about the reduction in public scrutiny and engagement in nuclear oversight. 

Central to today’s hearing, reflected in the oral interventions made by the public and questions raised by Commissioners, was the length of licence being requested. We heard from NB Power that a 25 year licence “would not impede informal engagement with the public” with CNSC Staff echoing the Commission has the discretion to hold public proceedings at any time, should it so choose with the licensing period. 

We also heard from CNSC Staff that while a 25-year licence would remove the requirement for a public hearing for this duration, it would open up new opportunities, like “strategic and topical discussion on specific issues.” And, without a hearing, these standalone discussions on one-on-one items would allow for more “in-depth considerations.”

In response, intervenors, including Chief Akagi of the Passamaquoddy, noted a longer licensing period would mean “losing the voice of a generation” and would be determinative of the “length of time NB Power will be putting, fresh, hazardous materials on Passamaquoddy lands.”

The Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn echoed that a longer licence could “negatively affect both public perception of the Commission’s oversight, and opportunities for meaningful engagement with First Nations and other communities.” Both have asked the Commission to support shorter licence terms or 2 – 5 years. As Kim Reeder of Passamquoddy shared, this would simply maintain the status quo where in the station’s 40 year history, the licence length has averaged 2.44 years. 

Remarking on today’s hearing event, CRED-NB member Gail Wylie shared “What concerns me about what we have heard today, is the continued reference to nuclear as “clean” and “cheap”. I was pleased that other citizen presentations today have pointed out the very low cost of renewables and have debunked the claims of nuclear being reliable, especially as we’ve experienced Point Lepreau being offline for 40 days last winter and the 3.5 years during its refurbishment.”

As intervenor Ann McAllister shared, “For those of us concerned about being excluded from input during a 25 year licensing period, today was not reassuring to hear – both NB Power and the CNSC acknowledged the need for better public engagement, and yet they have no concrete plan to make that happen.”

Tomorrow, the hearing will continue and you can tune in live online. 

Toronto (April 11 2022) – The 2022 federal budget’s investment in unproven nuclear reactor designs, dubbed Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), is being called a “climate throwaway” by civil society groups. Just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its starkest report yet urging aggressive climate action, the federal government is choosing to invest in yet-to-be proven technologies that miss the mark for halving emissions by 2030.

SMRs refer to a set of proposed nuclear technologies, designed to produce up to 300 megawatts of electricity. They are promoted for both the electric grid and for remote, off-grid communities to replace diesel reliance and to power resource extraction projects.

120+ civil society groups from coast to coast to coast including the Green Budget Coalition have asked the federal government to reallocate funds for SMRs into cost-effective, socially responsible, renewable energy solutions available now.

The budget dedicates $120 million over five years for SMRs:

●      Approximately $70 million of the budget is for research, geared to waste minimization.

This could include the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, a chemical process for extracting plutonium from used radioactive fuel waste. Reprocessing is not currently used in Canada and it raises many proliferation and security concerns. Plutonium is a dangerous material not found in nature.  Reprocessing is in no way a solution to reducing radioactive waste, it simply redistributes the highly radioactive fission products into different waste streams. With the fission products removed, the remaining materials are much more susceptible to being stolen or used in nuclear weapons.

●      Approximately $50 million to build capacity within Canada’s nuclear regulator to regulate SMRs.

Investment in regulatory processes will not remedy the fact that SMRs have been removed from the federal impact (environmental assessment) process. SMR projects are only required to undergo a narrow licensing process, conducted by Canada’s nuclear regulator. Their expertise and regulatory framework is not equivalent with impact assessment law, which requires an upfront examination of ecological, socio-economic and sustainability impacts spanning the duration of the project.

The budget also includes two other provisions potentially applicable to SMR projects:

●      A new tax credit of up to 30% for net zero technologies such as battery storage and clean hydrogen. Nuclear projects should be ineligible for this tax credit as they are not cost-competitive with renewables and as has been previously pointed out, nuclear-powered hydrogen is not renewable hydrogen. Any application for this tax credit must also be required to transparently demonstrate the project’s economic viability.

●      Continuing the $8 billion Net Zero Accelerator initiative for projects with the potential to substantially reduce emissions by 2030 and support the goal of net-zero by 2050. SMRs are in the earliest of planning phases and anticipated dates for operation are well into the 2030s. This, coupled with the nuclear sector’s trend of construction delays and cost overruns, should make SMR projects ineligible as they cannot contribute to meeting the most urgent of climate targets, which requires halving emissions by 2030.

– 30 –

Media contacts:

Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, CELA
Email: kerrie@cela.ca
Tel: 416-960-2284 ext 7224

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)
Email: Susanodo.unb@gmail.com
Tel: 506-261-1727

Jean-Pierre Finet, Energy Analyst,
Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROÉE)
Email: jpierre.finet@gmail.com
Tel: 514-515-1957

Federal government delays climate action, funding for new nuclear development opposed by Indigenous, civil society and public interest groups

Burlington, March 17, 2022 – The Government of Canada is further delaying climate action with an announcement of $27.2 million in funding today to develop a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMR). There is no guarantee SMRs will ever produce energy in a safe and reliable manner in Canada.

During his remarks for the announcement, François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as well as Westinghouse representatives, said that the technology to be developed, the e-Vinci reactor by the Westinghouse Electric Company, will be suitable for remote Indigenous communities currently using diesel energy.

However, research has demonstrated that small modular nuclear reactors such as the type Westinghouse is proposing are not the energy answer for remote communities. The researchers–Froese, Kunz & Ramana (2020)–concluded that the economics of SMRs do not compete when compared with other alternatives. The cost of electricity from SMRs was found to be much higher than the cost of wind or solar, or even of the diesel supply currently used in the majority of these communities.

Many of these remote communities currently using diesel energy are First Nations. In December 2018, the Assembly of First Nation Chiefs in Assembly passed resolution 62/2018, demanding that the Nuclear Industry abandon its plans to operate Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, and demanding that the Government of Canada cease funding and support of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors program.

Other Indigenous communities, including the Chiefs of Ontario, have passed resolutions opposing funding and deployment of SMRs.

Public interest and Indigenous groups across Canada say funding SMRs will divert critical funds away from renewable energy projects which are safe, proven and scalable now – which is key if Canada is to meet its climate target of 40 to 45% emissions reductions by 2030. It is impossible for an SMR to be developed in Canada by that date.

This funding announcement comes on the heels of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate which was unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. The urgency of the climate crisis means Canada must prioritize solutions that are economical and quick to deploy – Small Modular Nuclear Reactors fail on both counts.

To date, more than  120 public interest, Indigenous and civil society organizations from coast to coast to coast have endorsed a public statement against federal funding for new nuclear reactors, noting new nuclear energy is too slow to address the climate crisis, and renewable alternatives provide more jobs, quicker pathways to net zero, and avoid the concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation.

SMRs are untested and unproven new versions of old reactor designs, producing anywhere from 1 MW to 300 MW of electricity. While the nuclear industry claims their designs will be cleaner and safer, they will still produce long-lived radioactive waste. Despite public assurances of SMRs’ ‘passive’ and ‘inherent’ safety, SMR vendors and suppliers would also be protected from liability in the event of an accident – a concession by governments to the nuclear industry because of the inherent hazard that private nuclear investors do not want to underwrite.

Similar recommendations to halt government financing of SMR projects have been made by the Green Budget Coalition (GBC) of 23 leading Canadian environmental and conservation organizations. Their budget recommendations for 2022 included that the federal government “eliminate funding for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – and reallocate investments towards renewable technologies that are proven, socially acceptable and scalable now.”

QUOTES

“The nuclear industry is promoting a nuclear fantasy to attract political support while purging past failures – like cost overruns and project delays – from public debate. Before Canada invests any public dollars in this yet-to-be-developed technology, they must fully evaluate the costs of nuclear spending and liabilities associated with the construction, oversight, and waste of this novel technology.”

–        Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association

“Funding new nuclear technologies is a bad investment – a waste of both time and money, that delays real climate action. Canadians want affordable energy that does not pollute the environment. Why would we invest in unproven technologies that, if they ever work, will cost two to five times more than building proven renewables? Indigenous leaders across the country oppose building nuclear reactors or storing nuclear waste in their territories because it contains ‘forever’ radioactive poisons.”

–        Prof. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development (CRED) in New Brunswick

“Studies have shown that electricity from small modular reactors will be more expensive than electricity from large nuclear power plants, which are themselves not competitive in today’s electricity markets. There is no viable market for small modular reactors, and even building factories to manufacture these reactors would not be a sound financial investment.”

–        M. V. Ramana, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

– 30 –

Media contacts:

Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, CELA
Email: kerrie@cela.ca
Tel: 416-960-2284 ext 7224

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)
Email: Susanodo.unb@gmail.com
Tel: 506-261-1727

Gordon Edwards, PhD, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)
Email: ccnr@web.ca
Tel: 514-489-5118  

CRED-NB is one of 13 New Brunswick groups and 65 other groups across Canada that signed a letter sent to the CEO’s of the six big banks this week. The letter urges the banks to EXCLUDE nuclear from its responsible investment portfolio. The letter is on our home page, and we’re encouraging everyone to download a copy of the letter to your own bank, and send it to your bank manager. More info HERE.

MPs and groups oppose hearings to license Canada’s first permanent radioactive waste dump

Members of Parliament and 50 environmental and citizen groups -including CRED-NB – are opposed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)’s forthcoming hearings to license Canada’s first permanent “disposal” facility for radioactive waste.

A statement calling for suspension of the hearings is signed by three MPs: Laurel Collins, NDP environment critic; Elizabeth May, Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada; and Monique Pauzé, environment spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois, as well as groups across Canada, including CRED-NB.

On January 31, the Kebaowek First Nation asked that the hearings be halted until a consultation framework between them and the CNSC is in place. The hearings are for authorization to build a “Near Surface Disposal Facility” for nuclear waste at Chalk River, Ontario, on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands alongside the Ottawa River.

The proposed facility would be an aboveground mound a kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa and Montréal. 140 municipalities have opposed the project and fear contamination of drinking water and the watershed.

In 2017, the CNSC received 400 submissions responding to its environmental impact statement, the overwhelming majority of them opposed to the plan.