Tag: National Conversation

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.

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.

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

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources is currently studying Canadian Energy Exports. CRED-NB submitted a brief to the MPs on the committee. CRED’s position: Canadian energy exports should not include electricity generated by nuclear energy because of the heavy costs borne by Canadians. Read our submitted brief HERE.

A small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) across the country is designed to generate 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity or less, compared to Canada’s existing CANDU power reactors which generate 500 MW or more. Proponents claim that SMRs will decarbonize the electricity grid in New Brunswick and other provinces. So, how is Canada’s SMR strategy going, in New Brunswick and across the country?

CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell and colleague M.V. Ramana and the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University published a new report assessing SMR development. The report, the launch webinar video, and a commentary by the authors published in The Energy Mix is HERE.

A House of Commons committee is currently studying the management of Canada’s nuclear laboratories at Chalk River. The nuclear research site is run by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL).

Under a new contract signed at the end of 2025, CNL is managed by a consortium of U.S. companies with ties to the weapons industry. CRED-NB outlined our concerns in a brief filed today with the Parliamentary committee. Read it HERE.