CRED-NB at media event in Ottawa with four MPs

This week groups across Canada are in Ottawa for the not-the-nuclear-lobby. The list of public events, including the rally today at 10am at the Centennial Flame, is HERE.

Archive:

One event included a a press conference about SMRs with four Members of Parliament, see below for the list of participants.

The event was held at the National Press Gallery media. We put the video archive on YouTube, HERE.  It is in the original language, no translation provided.

Le français suit l’anglais.

MEDIA ADVISORY

Civil society groups and MPs counter industry hype about Canada’s “glowing” nuclear future

Ottawa, April 24, 2023 — Civil society representatives from across Canada will gather in Ottawa April 24-28 to talk with Members of Parliament, meet the public and tell the other side of the nuclear energy story – the problems and risks that nuclear industry lobbyists will not speak about.

Media are invited on April 25 to three events, including a press conference with MPs and civil society groups at the National Press Theatre.

With its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan and other projects, the Government of Canada is investing in and promoting an expansion of nuclear energy across the country. This road leads to a future where the taxpayer’s dollars are poured into costly and unproven experimental reactors; dozens of communities could become radioactively contaminated sites and permanent repositories for nuclear waste; and plutonium extraction could worsen nuclear weapons proliferation. Our experts and guest MPs will explain why they’re concerned about nuclear energy expansion.

Schedule for three events on Tuesday, April 25 (all times here Eastern):

MEDIA AVAILABILITY – April 25 – 10 AM – Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill

WHO:

Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicist, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

Protesters will also be in attendance, including singers and Ottawa’s Raging Grannies

PRESS CONFERENCE – April 25 – 11 AM – National Press Theatre

Room 200, Sir John A. Macdonald Building, 144 Wellington Street, Ottawa

Virtual Participation: Participation in the question and answer portion of this event is for accredited members of the Press Gallery only. Media who are not members of the Press Gallery may contact pressres2@parl.gc.ca for temporary access.

WHO:

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands

Mario Simard, député de Jonquière – Bloc Québécois

Jenica Atwin, MP for Fredericton – Liberal

Alexandre Boulerice, MP for Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie – NDP

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicist, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

DEBATE – April 25 – 5:20 PM – Do We Need to Scale up Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change?

Room 4007, Social Sciences Building, 120 University Private (UOttawa)

Hosted by the Centre for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa. Doors open at 5 pm for light refreshments.

WHO:

Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a legendary expert on nuclear issues for almost 50 years, will debate Dr. Chris Keefer, President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy.

– 30 –

————————-

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS

Des groupes civils et des députés s’opposent au battage médiatique de l’industrie qui annonce un avenir nucléaire « radieux » au Canada

Ottawa, le 21 avril 2023 — Des groupes de la société civile de tout le Canada se réuniront à Ottawa du 24 au 28 avril pour discuter avec les députés et le public afin de révéler un autre aspect de l’énergie nucléaire dont les problèmes et les risques cachés par les lobbyistes de l’industrie nucléaire.

Les représentants des médias sont invités le 25 avril à trois événements, dont une conférence de presse avec des députés et des groupes de la société civile à l’Amphithéâtre national de la presse.

Dans le cadre du Plan d’action pour les petits réacteurs modulaires (PRM) et d’autres projets, le gouvernement du Canada investit dans l’expansion de l’énergie nucléaire partout au pays et en fait la promotion. Cela façonne un avenir sombre où l’argent des contribuables sera investi dans des réacteurs expérimentaux coûteux et non éprouvés; des douzaines de collectivités pourraient devenir des sites contaminés par la radioactivité et même des dépôts permanents de déchets radioactifs; de plus, l’extraction du plutonium pourrait aggraver la prolifération des armes nucléaires. Nos experts et les députés invités expliqueront pourquoi ils sont préoccupés par l’expansion de l’énergie nucléaire.

Horaire de trois événements le mardi 25 avril :

POINT DE PRESSE – 25 avril – 10 h – Flamme du centenaire sur la Colline du Parlement

QUI :

Gordon Edwards, Ph. D., président du Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire

Susan O’Donnell, Ph. D., Coalition pour le développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

Des manifestants seront aussi présents, y compris des chanteurs et les Mémés déchaînées d’Ottawa.

CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE – 25 avril – 11 h – Amphithéâtre national de la presse

Salle 200, édifice Sir-John-A.-Macdonald, 144, rue Wellington, Ottawa

Participation virtuelle : Seuls les membres de la tribune parlementaire peuvent participer à la période de questions et réponses. Les médias qui ne sont pas membres de la tribune parlementaire peuvent communiquer avec pressres2@parl.gc.ca pour obtenir un accès temporaire.

QUI :

Elizabeth May, chef du Parti vert du Canada, députée de Saanich-Gulf Islands

Mario Simard, député de Jonquière – Bloc Québécois

Jenica Atwin, députée de Fredericton – Libéral

Alexandre Boulerice, député de Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie – NPD

Susan O’Donnell, Ph. D., Coalition pour le développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

DÉBAT – 25 avril – 17h20 – Faut-il développer l’énergie nucléaire pour lutter contre le changement climatique ?

Salle 4007, Pavillon des Sciences sociales, 120, rue Université (Université d’Ottawa)

Organisé par le Centre d’études en politiques internationales de l’Université d’Ottawa. Les portes ouvriront à 17 h pour des rafraîchissements légers.

QUI:

Gordon Edwards, président du Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire et expert légendaire des questions nucléaires depuis près de 50 ans, s’entretiendra avec Chris Keefer, président des Canadiens pour l’énergie nucléaire.

CRED-NB and the Not the Nuclear Lobby in Ottawa

CRED-NB will be represented in a “Not the Nuclear Lobby” week in Ottawa, April 24-28. Join us for several in person or virtual public events!

We will meet with activists from across Canada to lobby Members of Parliament, meet with think-tanks and NGOs, and participate in events for the public to tell the other side of the nuclear energy story – the problems and risks that industry lobbyists will not speak about:

– The exorbitant cost to taxpayers and the lengthy timelines needed to develop designs for experimental small reactors: none have so far been built or proven, and none will be available to contribute to climate action when we need it most.

– Plans to extract plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel, undermining global non-proliferation efforts and worsening the risk of nuclear weapons spreading to many other countries in a volatile geopolitical environment.

– Proposed nuclear reactors that will create new streams of particularly problematic radioactive waste that will need to be processed and monitored and kept out of the environment for millions of years, and unresolved issues with the existing 75 years of radioactive waste.

– Incentives to impose nuclear reactors in dozens of remote communities that will all likely become radioactively contaminated sites and permanent repositories for nuclear debris.

Join us in-person or virtually for these key events (all times Eastern):

Monday, April 24, noon – 1pm: (in person and zoom) The Energy Mix is hosting a gathering of climate activists in downtown Ottawa for a meet and greet and informal discussion about key nuclear issues. Contact: Angela at cleanairalliance.org for details.

Tuesday, April 25, 10am: (in person) Gathering at the eternal flame on Parliament Hill to remind our government that we have grave concerns about nuclear waste and the government’s plans to expand nuclear reactors into communities across Canada. The Raging Grannies will join us for an anti-nuclear singalong. Signs will be provided, but you’re encouraged to bring your own too. Organized by the Council of Canadians Ottawa Chapter. Come help us get this issue on the evening news!

Tuesday, April 25, doors open 5pm, start at 5:20: (in person and zoom) Don’t miss this public debate with two high-profile advocates on each side of the nuclear debate: Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Dr. Chris Keefer, President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. The question: Do We Need to Scale up Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change? Hosted by the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa. Details and registration for in-person or virtual participation HERE.

Thursday, April 27, 7-8:30pm: (in person and zoom) Panel discussion: Is New Nuclear a Smart Climate Solution? Featuring Dr. Gordon Edwards, Dr. Dale Dewar, Candyce Paul, and Angela Bischoff. Hosted by the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of Ottawa Quakers. At the Ottawa Quaker Meetinghouse, 91A Fourth Avenue in the Glebe. Register for in-person or virtual participation HERE.

The Not-The-Nuclear-Lobby week is organized by groups including the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick, Northwatch, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

Civil Society Groups Reject Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy

Ottawa – Civil society groups are expressing profound disappointment in the federal government’s recently released radioactive waste policy, after Natural Resources Canada quietly posted the final policy to a government website on Friday morning.

Organizations who were intensively engaged in the policy development process between November 2020 and May 2022 are calling the policy a handover to the nuclear industry and say it fails to meet international standards or the public’s expectations.

“It is a fundamental failure. It leaves the industry in charge and the public and the environment at risk. This policy is a betrayal of science and public trust,” said Dr. Ole Hendrickson, for the Sierra Club Canada Foundation.

“This final version of the radioactive waste policy sentences us to ten years of nuclear industry control. It is a complete failure on the highest priorities for a national radioactive waste policy – to establish a national registry of waste and its characteristics and its cross-border movement, to assert federal authority over radioactive waste management strategies, and to require the perpetual care of reactor fuel waste”, commented Brennain Lloyd, Project Coordinator for the Northern Ontario based coalition Northwatch.

The revised policy follows the International Atomic Energy Agency having conducted a peer review of Canada’s nuclear regulatory framework in 2019, and recommending that that Canada “enhance” its 3-bullet-point radioactive waste policy framework from 1996.

“The federal government’s new radioactive waste policy is not protective of the public and the environment. It fails to even approach meeting the legitimate expectations of the public and civil society,” said Theresa MacClenaghan, Executive Director and Senior Counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

The radioactive waste policy released on Friday was practically silent on the crucial issue of reprocessing, saying that while there is currently no reprocessing undertaken in Canada, if there should be reprocessing undertaken in the future the just-released policy would extend to address the wastes from reprocessing.

“Reprocessing – that is, extracting plutonium from high level nuclear waste – is described as outside of the scope of the new policy. At the same time, the government is promoting two nuclear projects in New Brunswick that will use this controversial technology. Abdicating
responsibility is not only poor governance but also reckless and dangerous. The research is clear that reprocessing increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, in addition to its environmental risks,” said Susan O’Donnell, PhD, spokesperson for the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, summarized concerns about the lack of oversight of the nuclear industry, which the organizations say will be perpetuated by the 2023 policy: “After a ten-year investigation, with public hearings in five provinces, a government-appointed panel unanimously recommended that Canada needs an independent agency for radioactive wastes management. That same need was recently communicated to Ottawa by dozens of public interest organizations across Canada. Without such an agency, the government’s policy is powerless to protect future generations from these persistent poisons.”

Nuclear Waste Watch facilitated the engagement of more than a hundred organizations in the policy review process,
• convening a series of roundtable discussions with Natural Resources Canada, and
• bilingual national preparatory sessions for each of the Natural Resources Canada’s four discussion papers and the draft policy, and
• preparing and releasing an Alternative Policy in response to Natural Resouces’ draft policy, based on the input of the hundreds of participants.

-30-

Groups oppose funding for small modular nuclear reactors in federal budget

Ottawa, Monday, March 27, 2023 – Environmental and civil society groups are giving a thumbs-down after the federal government announced new funding on Friday towards the development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The groups will be looking closely at the numbers in Tuesday’s budget.

The “Prime Minister Trudeau and President Biden Joint Statement,“ issued on Friday March 24, committed Canada to provide funding and in-kind support for a US-led program to promote SMRs.

The Canadian government’s Strategic Innovation Fund has already given close to $100 million to corporations working on experimental SMR technologies. In addition, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has committed $970 million to Ontario Power Generation’s plan for a 300-megawatt SMR at Darlington. Federal funding is benefiting US-based companies GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse, and Canada’s SNC-Lavalin, among others.

All the funded SMR projects are still in the research and development phase. Worldwide, no SMRs have ever been built for domestic use.

In addition, the federal government is giving Atomic Energy of Canada Limited $1.35 billion a year to conduct nuclear research and development and to manage its toxic radioactive waste. Nearly all this funding is transferred to a consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two US-based companies (Fluor and Jacobs) that that are heavily involved in nuclear weapons and SMR research.

Over 100 groups from all across Canada have criticized the federal government’s plan to promote SMR nuclear technology, stating that:

  • SMRs are a dirty, dangerous distraction that will produce radioactive waste of many kinds. Especially worrisome are those proposed reactors that would extract plutonium from irradiated fuel, raising the spectre of nuclear weapons proliferation.
  • SMRs will take too long to develop to address the urgent climate crisis in the short time frame necessary to achieve Canada’s goals.
  • SMRs will be much more expensive than renewable energy and energy efficiency. Small reactors will be even more expensive per unit of power than the current large ones, which have priced themselves out of the market.
  • Nuclear power creates fewer jobs than renewable energy and efficiency. Solar, wind and tidal power are among the fastest-growing job sectors in North America.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that 90% of new electrical capacity installed worldwide over the next five years will be renewable.

The federal government needs to invest urgently in renewables, energy conservation and climate action, not slow, expensive, speculative nuclear technologies.

QUOTES:

“Taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on a future technology whose time is past, like nuclear reactors, when truly clean renewable solutions are up-and-running and getting more affordable all the time.” – Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

“Let’s compete to be world leaders in renewables. Pouring public funding into speculative reactor technologies is sabotaging our efforts to address the climate crisis.” – Dr. Ole Hendrickson, Sierra Club Canada Foundation

“The SMR technologies are all at the early R&D stage, yet the funding is not following good governance practices by requiring high standards of peer review.“ – Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

– 30 –

—————————-

Les groupes s’opposent au financement des petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires dans le budget fédéral

Ottawa, le 27 mars 2023 – Des groupes environnementaux et de la société civile s’opposent à l’annonce faite vendredi par le gouvernement fédéral d’un nouveau financement pour le développement de petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires (PRNM). Les groupes examineront de près les chiffres du budget de mardi.

La “Déclaration conjointe du Premier ministre Trudeau et du président Biden”, publiée le vendredi 24 mars, engage le Canada à fournir un financement et un soutien en nature à un programme dirigé par les États-Unis visant à promouvoir les PRNM.

Le Fonds stratégiques pour l’innovation du gouvernement canadien a déjà accordé près de 100 millions de dollars à des entreprises travaillant sur des technologies PRNM expérimentales. En outre, la Banque de l’infrastructure du Canada s’est engagée à verser 970 millions de dollars à l’Ontario Power Generation pour la construction d’un réacteur PRNM de 300 mégawatts à Darlington. Le financement fédéral profite notamment aux entreprises américaines GE-Hitachi et Westinghouse, ainsi qu’à l’entreprise canadienne SNC-Lavalin.

Tous les projets de PRNM financés sont encore en phase de recherche et de développement. Au niveau mondial, aucun PRNM n’a jamais été construit pour un usage domestique.

En outre, le gouvernement fédéral verse à Énergie atomique du Canada limitée 1,35 milliard de dollars par an pour mener des activités de recherche et de développement dans le domaine nucléaire et pour gérer ses déchets radioactifs toxiques. La quasi-totalité de ces fonds est transférée à un consortium composé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux entreprises américaines (Fluor et Jacobs), fortement impliquées dans la recherche sur les armes nucléaires et les PRNM.

Plus de 100 groupes de tout le Canada ont critiqué le plan du gouvernement fédéral visant à promouvoir la technologie nucléaire des PRNM :

• Les PRNM sont une distraction, une technologie sale et dangereuse, une qui produira des déchets radioactifs de toutes sortes. Les réacteurs proposés qui extrairaient du plutonium du combustible irradié sont particulièrement inquiétants, car ils font planer le spectre de la prolifération des armes nucléaires.

• Le développement des PRNM prendra trop de temps pour répondre à l’urgence de la crise climatique dans le court laps de temps nécessaire pour atteindre les objectifs du Canada.

• Les PRNM seront beaucoup plus coûteux que les énergies renouvelables et l’efficacité énergétique. Les petits réacteurs seront encore plus chers par unité d’énergie que les grands réacteurs actuels, qui n’ont pas d’acheteurs en raison de leur coût excessif..

• L’énergie nuclé aire crée moins d’emplois que les énergies renouvelables et l’efficacité énergétique. Les énergies solaire, éolienne et marémotrice font partie des secteurs d’emploi qui connaissent la plus forte croissance en Amérique du Nord.

• L’Agence internationale de l’énergie prévoit que 90 % des nouvelles capacités électriques installées dans le monde au cours des cinq prochaines années seront renouvelables.

Le gouvernement fédéral doit investir d’urgence dans les énergies renouvelables, les économies d’énergie et l’action climatique, et non dans des technologies nucléaires lentes, coûteuses et spéculatives.

CITATIONS :

“L’argent des contribuables ne devrait pas être gaspillé pour une technologie future dont le temps est révolu, comme les réacteurs nucléaires, alors que des solutions renouvelables vraiment propres fonctionnent maintenant et deviennent de plus en plus abordables.” – Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire.

“Soyons compétitifs pour devenir des leaders mondiaux dans le domaine des énergies renouvelables. Verser des fonds publics dans des technologies de réacteurs spéculatives, c’est saboter nos efforts pour faire face à la crise climatique.” – Ole Hendrickson, Fondation Sierra Club Canada

“Les technologies PRNM sont toutes à un stade précoce de R&D, et pourtant le financement ne suit pas les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance en exigeant des normes élevées d’examen par les pairs.” – Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development au Nouveau-Brunswick

Webinar: Community Energy & Energy Democracy

Decentralized and diversified energy systems are more resilient to extreme weather events and geopolitical conflicts. Join Tynette Deveaux, CRED-NB core member with Sierra Club Atlantic chapter, on March 23 @ 7pm Atlantic for a presentation on community energy in Canada and where it fits in the context of the global energy democracy movement. Register HERE.

Moltex’s nuclear ransom note should be rejected

Moltex – a start-up company from the UK, now based in New Brunswick – has sent the government a ransom note. The company wants “more than $250 million in public funding” to develop its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR).

Speaking to the media, the company’s CEO warned “New Brunswick needs to decide if it’s in or out, because it’s a big commitment.” So far Moltex has received $50.5 million from Ottawa, $10 million from New Brunswick, and $1 million from Ontario Power Generation.

We recommend rejecting the ransom demand for more.

Citing an old saying, the economist John Maynard Keynes once observed: “Owe your banker £1000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1 million and the position is reversed.” So far, Moltex has received only $60 million and is acting as if the federal and provincial governments are already at its mercy. Another $250 million, and these governments will really be on their knees.

How does Moltex have the confidence to make this demand? Ultimately because these governments have drunk the kool-aid offered by a nuclear industry that has been moribund for decades but is still powerful enough to be invited to sing its own praises at House of Commons committee hearings.

Almost exactly thirty years ago, the last new nuclear reactor began producing electricity for the grid. None has been built in Canada since. Desperate to reverse its declining fortunes, the nuclear industry began touting a new generation of reactors it dubs SMRs, using the climate crisis as a cover.

This pitch caught the fancy of Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, whose governments signed a memorandum of understanding in 2019 to aggressively promote SMRs as a climate change solution. The following year, the Natural Resources Canada Minister stated there is no path to net zero without nuclear power. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the federal government continues to argue that SMRs are needed for climate action. That mistaken belief in SMRs is what allows companies like Moltex to get public funding and demand more.

The $250 million will certainly not be the last demand. Consider NuScale, the SMR design farthest along in the U.S. regulatory process. In 2012, when NuScale estimated that “it will cost $500 million (U.S.) to obtain approval for its reactors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” the company had already invested USD 100 million in technology development. Fast forward to a decade later: NuScale reports that the “cumulative capital invested to date” is USD 1.4 billion (close to 1.9 billion CAD), with a net loss (i.e., expenditure) of USD 49.6 million just in the third quarter of 2022. And NuScale still has not obtained approval to build its first proposed SMR, projected to start operating in December 2029. Assuming all goes well, NuScale might spend more than 2.5 billion CAD, five times the original estimate, before even starting construction.

NuScale is a pressurized light water reactor design—the most widely deployed reactor design globally. In contrast, Moltex is proposing a reactor design cooled with molten salt. The last time anyone built one of these was at the Oakridge Laboratory in the United States—in the 1960s. That failed experiment provides evidence about how well such reactors might operate: long story short, we can expect lots of problems with molten salt reactors, while they operate and for decades thereafter, as society grapples with the radioactive legacy of the nuclear wastes they would produce.

A recent report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that SMRs like the Moltex design will confront significant challenges, even for deployment by 2050, and that building such reactors at a large commercial scale will continue to need substantial government and industry investments for decades after that.

The Moltex design has an additional problem: it requires another untested technology to produce the fuel needed for its SMR. Based on a February 2021 presentation to the U.S. National Academies committee, this new technology appears similar to the pyroprocessing process tried for two decades at the Idaho National Laboratory. That experience was meant to prove the viability of pyroprocessing; instead, the significant cost overruns and schedule delays demonstrated “the numerous shortcomings of this technology.”

All these potential problems make the path forward for Moltex long and hard—and very expensive. The NuScale experience suggests that developing an SMR design to the point of securing a licence to build it could cost up to ten times what Moltex is asking for. Caving to Moltex’s demand now means falling deeper into a very deep money pit.

The graveyard of nuclear history is littered with numerous reactor designs that were never constructed because they would not have worked. Throwing more money at Moltex will not guarantee success. Wouldn’t it be best to stop now?

Susan O’Donnell is Adjunct Research Professor in the Environment & Society program at St. Thomas University, a social scientist with expertise in technology adoption, and an activist and core member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

This article was published by the NB Media Co-op on March 2, 2023, HERE, after earlier publication on February 28, 2023 by the National Observer, HERE.

Spreading the Bomb – Will Ottawa revisit Canada’s support for plutonium reprocessing?

Today, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and researchers from five universities are urging Ottawa to reconsider its financial and political support for reprocessing in Canada – extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel.

Plutonium is one of the key materials needed to make nuclear weapons—the other alternative is highly enriched uranium. Plutonium is created as a byproduct in nuclear reactors. Once extracted, plutonium can be used either as a nuclear fuel or as a nuclear explosive. The chemical process used to separate plutonium from other radioactive substances produced in nuclear reactors is called reprocessing.

In 1974 India used plutonium from a Canadian reactor to explode an atomic bomb in an underground test. The entire world was shocked to realize that access to plutonium and the making of an atomic bomb may be separated only by an act of political will.

Last week, a House of Commons committee released a report recommending that the government “work with international and scientific partners to examine nuclear waste reprocessing and its implications for waste management and [nuclear weapons] proliferation vulnerability.”

The recommendation by the House of Commons committee echoes numerous calls by civil society groups and by U.S. and domestic researchers after Canada announced a $50.5 million grant to the Moltex corporation in March 2021 for a New Brunswick project to develop a plutonium reprocessing facility at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy.

Allowing plutonium reprocessing in Canada sends a dangerous signal to other countries that it is OK for them to extract plutonium for commercial use. Such a practice increases the risk of spreading nuclear weapons capabilities to countries that currently do not possess the means to make nuclear weapons. The risk is that much greater if Canada sells the technology, as is currently envisaged.

“By supporting the implementation of reprocessing technology intended for export, in connection with a plutonium-fuelled nuclear reactor, without regard for the weapons implications, Canada may be once again spreading the bomb abroad,” says Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition on Nuclear Responsibility.

Reprocessing is often justified as a solution to the problem of dealing with nuclear waste, but in reality, it only makes the challenge even harder. Instead of having all the radioactive materials produced in solid spent fuel, these get dispersed into multiple solid, liquid and gaseous waste streams.­­­

Researchers from the University of British Columbia, Princeton University and three New Brunswick universities are supporting the call for an international review. “We’re heartened that the House of Commons Committee listened to the concerns about plutonium reprocessing raised by numerous experts and concerned citizens,” says Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Adjunct Professor at the University of New Brunswick.

Dr. Edwards cited three letters written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by nine prominent nonproliferation experts, including plutonium expert Dr. Frank von Hippel. “The Prime Minister’s failure to respond indicates an appalling lack of good governance on the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” said Dr. Edwards.

To date the government has not responded to the letters or even acknowledged the monumental significance of the nuclear weapons connection with reprocessing. The House of Commons Science and Research Committee cited the letters by Dr. von Hippel and others as rationale for their recommendation to conduct the review.

Commercial reprocessing has never been carried out in Canada but in the past, Canada has been complicit in the production of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War some reprocessing was done at the federal government’s Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, at a time when Canada sold both uranium and plutonium to the US army for use in nuclear weapons. These operations resulted in a permanent legacy of nuclear waste and radioactive contamination in Canada.

The first reactors were built to produce plutonium for bombs. The first reprocessing plants were built to extract plutonium to be used as a nuclear explosive. Following India’s use of plutonium from a nuclear reactor supplied by Canada in its 1974 weapon test, the United States banned commercial plutonium reprocessing in 1977 to reduce the danger of weapons proliferation.

Canada has had an informal ban on reprocessing since the 1970s. A 2016 Canadian Nuclear Laboratories report stated that reprocessing used CANDU fuel would “increase proliferation risk.” That CNL admission was fully confirmed in a major report (330 pages) released three months ago by a U.S. National Academy of Sciences. The expert panel reached a consensus that the reprocessing technology proposed for New Brunswick by the Moltex corporation “does not provide significant proliferation resistance.”

The need for an independent international review is urgent, as Moltex announced just last week that the company is seeking an additional $250 million in government funding.

The researchers supporting the call for an international review of plutonium reprocessing in relation to the spread of nuclear weapons are:

Dr. Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Adjunct Professor and Principal Investigator of the Rural Action and Voices for the Environment [RAVEN] project, University of New Brunswick

Dr. Janice Harvey, Assistant Professor, Environment & Society Program, St. Thomas University

Dr. Jean-Philippe Sapinski, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Université de Moncton

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

Dr. Frank von Hippel, Senior Research Physicist and Professor of Public and International Affairs Emeritus, Program on Science & Global Security, Princeton University

-30-

CRED-NB endorses the Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South

One of CRED-NB’s core guidelines is: “Support solidarity actions with communities experiencing harmful impacts of our energy choices in New Brunswick, across Canada and globally.” The transition to real clean energy has impacts that extend well beyond New Brunswick’s borders.

This week, a coalition of groups from the Global South released the “Manifesto for an Ecosocial Energy Transition from the Peoples of the South,” with eight core demands. CRED-NB has endorsed it. The Manifesto states that “clean energy transitions” of the North that have put even more pressure on the Global South to yield up cobalt and lithium for the production of high-tech batteries, balsa wood for wind turbines, land for large solar arrays, and new infrastructure for hydrogen megaprojects. This decarbonization of the rich, which is market-based and export-oriented, depends on a new phase of environmental despoliation of the Global South, which affects the lives of millions of women, men, and children, not to mention non-human life. In this way, the Global South has once again become a zone of sacrifice, a basket of purportedly inexhaustible resources for the countries of the North. Read the full Manifesto and support it, HERE.

Video: Ban Plutonium Reprocessing in Canada

More than a dozen environmental groups including CRED-NB co-sponsored a webinar hosted by Nuclear Waste Watch: Ban Plutonium Reprocessing in Canada. The international expert panel included M.V. Ramana from the University of British Columbia, Ray Acheson Ray Acheson from Reaching Critical Will, the disarmament program of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and environmental journalist Joshua Frank, author of the recently released Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America (Haymarket Book, 2022). Watch the video HERE.

CRED-NB on CBC’s The Current

CRED-NB was represented on CBC’s The Current this morning by Susan O’Donnell. CRED-NB is fighting for a nuclear free renewable energy future. We unfortunately need to spend much of our time countering the misinformation spread by the nuclear industry (and their government collaborators).

Have a listen to the interview with The Current’s Matt Galloway. The recording HERE is the discussion between Susan and Joe McBrearty, the CEO and President of Canadian Nuclear Labs. To listen to the full segment on the CBC page, including a presentation by a nuclear energy representative in Europe, click HERE.