1

Analysis of the Nuclear Fuel CycleIn Canada – A First Nations Perspective

March 2012

Prepared by Tanya Chung Tiam Fook, PhD tiamfook@yorku.ca

2

Table of Contents

Nuclear Energy Production and Waste Management in Context...............................................................3

Nuclear Industry and Regulation in Canada...........................................................................................6

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Canada.........................................................................................................9 Uranium Mining.......................................................................................................................9 Processing Nuclear Fuel: Uranium Milling and Fuel Fabrication...................................................11 Nuclear Energy Production: Reactors.......................................................................................12 Nuclear Fission Process...........................................................................................................12 Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste........................................................................13 Nuclear Accidents in Canada...................................................................................................14 Nuclear Waste Low- to Mid-term Storage.................................................................................15 Nuclear Waste Transport.........................................................................................................15 Nuclear Waste Containment and Storage..................................................................................16

Adaptive Phased Management (APM)...................................................................................................17 Deep Geological Repository.....................................................................................................17 Site Selection Process (9-Step Process)....................................................................................19

Nuclear Fuel Production in a Global Context.........................................................................................23

Integrative Framework for Alternative Energy Policies...........................................................................23 Moratorium on Nuclear Fuel Production....................................................................................23

Conservation..........................................................................................................................24 Energy Alternatives and Innovations........................................................................................25

Figures

Figure 1 Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Detail...........................................................................................6

Figure 2 Spent Fuel Cycle...........................................................................................................7

Figure 3 Uranium Mines and Nuclear Power Plants in Canada........................................................9

Figure 4 International Uranium Mining and Nuclear Fuel Production...............................................9

Figure 5 Cameco Open Pit Uranium Mine in Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan.......................................11

Figure 6 CANDU Reactor System................................................................................................12

Figure 7 Uranium Decay Chain...................................................................................................13

Figure 8 Map of Potential Shipping Route for Nuclear Waste.........................................................16

Figure 9 Design Methods considered for Reactor Site Extended Storage........................................17

Figure 10 The Status of Nuclear Energy Production Globally...........................................................24

Figure 11 Renewable Energy Alternatives......................................................................................26

Glossary of Acronyms.................................................................................................................27

References..................................................................................................................................28 Appendixes.................................................................................................................................31

3

Nuclear Energy Production and Waste Management in Context

Each type of fuel created for energy production has its own distinctive fuel cycle, however, the nuclear fuel cycle

is more complex and potentially dangerous for generations to come than those of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum,

natural gas); solar, wind and wave power sources; geothermal energy and biofuels (solid biomass, liquid fuels

and bio-gases). In this post-Fukushima era of deeper scrutiny by the global community on the future of nuclear

energy security, the nuclear industry in Canada will have to re-examine its regulations and policies to assess the

security and safety of nuclear technology at both the production and waste storage stages of the nuclear fuel

cycle.

However, all sectors of the nuclear industry in Canada are expanding in what is called the “nuclear renaissance”

(revival of global nuclear energy production, driven by rising coal and gas prices and concerns about meeting

greenhouse gas emission limits). Nuclear expansion includes:

refurbishment and recommissioning of aging fleet of CANDU reactors,

new nuclear power plants (Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta),

new uranium mines and refining plants, and

rapidly expanding use of radioactive sources in medicine for cancer treatment.

The province of Ontario is planning for long-term growth in nuclear production and an expansion of the industry

in Canada, including the Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plans to build up to four new nuclear reactors at

Darlington by 2018. Both Liberal and Conservative provincial leaders are supportive of the Darlington new

nuclear project and have pledged approximately $36 billion to build new reactors and rebuild aging reactors

(Greenpeace, n.d.). Although the 2011 Darlington review panel recommended approval of building the new

nuclear reactors, First Nations and environmental organizations feel that the province is arrogantly fast-tracking

construction without proper environmental assessment studies. In light of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and

the potential risks of nuclear production, the nuclear industry in Canada has neglected to consider the long-term

environmental and health effects of radioactive waste or to look at renewable energy alternatives. Furthermore,

large investments by the Provincial government is a barrier to the growth of renewable energy development.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Northwatch, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Greenpeace and

Ecojustice have petitioned the federal government to stop the province’s energy owners from approving

construction until a full environmental assessment and examination of renewable energy alternatives are

meaningfully implemented (Ecojustice, 09-13-2011). Despite the NWMO's claims to be neutral and impassive on

the issue of Canada's future energy policy, and that its fuel waste management and site selection processes

“neither promote nor penalize” (NWMO, 2005, p. 20) nuclear expansion — Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

referred to NWMO's Adaptive Phased Management and deep geological concept as “steps toward safe, long-

term plan for nuclear power in Canada” (NRCan, 2007).

4

In support of the nuclear renaissance, pro-nuclear arguments made by the NWMO and the nuclear industry

state that nuclear energy production is the safest, most sustainable and responsible fuel option for the

environment, as compared to fossil fuel production, because it results in less industrial accidents, and produces

less pollution from greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change and negative health impacts on people,

animals and ecosystems. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan, 2007) widely hails nuclear energy as a “clean

energy source that emits virtually no greenhouse gases” and that “is important to Canada’s energy supply, to

our security...” However, an issue which is rarely discussed — except with regard to present considerations for

the long-term containment and storage of nuclear waste — is the radioactive wastes that are produced in the

mining, milling and fuel conversion processes and their potentially hazardous impacts on human health and the

environment. Just because we cannot see radioactive wastes, does not mean that they are not real hazards that

we have to be concerned with for thousands of years, or that the energy is clean. The NWMO conceptually

separates nuclear waste management from the broader societal, ethical and environmental issues caused by

nuclear energy generation policies (Durant & Fuji Johnson, 2009).

Another extremely important issue which is not addressed by the nuclear industry is that Canadian nuclear fuel

waste management decisions be made within the context of an integrated energy policy framework, where

energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives are meaningfully explored and broad debate and

consultation are engaged with First Nations, environmental organizations and citizen groups to discuss “what

Canada’s energy future should look like” (Murphy & Kuhn, 2009, p. 153). However, despite pressure exerted by

the Seaborn Panel to investigate alternative energy options and promises by NWMO and other government and

nuclear agencies to broaden the energy policy debate, this issue has remained unaddressed, and the views of

First Nations and anti-nuclear groups remain marginalized (Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept Environmental

Assessment Panel, 1998; Murphy & Kuhn, 2009). Many Aboriginal peoples and environmental organizations have

been concerned for a long time about the continuance of nuclear production and the deep geological disposal of

fuel waste and have consistently demanded more dialogue and consultation regarding Canada’s future energy

policy. Such concerns are rarely considered within the NWMO’s planning, decision-making or information

dissemination processes.

First Nations people in Ontario view waste management issues within a broader context of nuclear energy. How

can we adequately understand and decide on nuclear fuel waste management without understanding where

nuclear energy and radioactive wastes come from; why and how they are produced. If numerous First Nations

and other communities situated near, and implicated within different stages of uranium extraction and nuclear

energy production have already experienced negative health and environmental effects, it is natural that leaders

and community members are concerned about the potential human and environmental health impacts

associated with nuclear waste management. First Nations people absorb the majority of environmental, health

and social costs associated with the nuclear fuel cycle — from communities involved in uranium mining to

5

communities and territories overlapping nuclear waste transport routes and disposal sites. The nuclear fuel cycle

particularly impacts First Nations communities and lands near uranium mines, milling sites, nuclear reactor sites,

nuclear waste transport routes and proposed deep geological repository sites because the behaviour of

radioactivity in ecosystems impacts local food systems, ecologies, watersheds, human health and the socio-

ecological landscape of Aboriginal communities.

Throughout its engagement process with First Nations in Ontario, as well as with other public citizen groups, the

NWMO insists that it is an independent organization vested with the responsibility of developing a long-term

strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel — that they are not vested with any responsibility over the production

of nuclear fuel. Furthermore, the NWMO’s official storyline on the nuclear fuel chain (including production and

waste management) is founded on uncontroversial scientific and technical claims that systematically do not take

into consideration the critical concerns and experiences of Aboriginal peoples and other Canadians. Hence, it is

important for Aboriginal peoples to demand that their specific apprehensions and experiences with the

processes of nuclear production and waste management are integrated within the nuclear dialogue and official

strategy presented by NWMO.

While the hazards and risks associated with uranium extraction, nuclear energy production and nuclear waste

storage have the potential to threaten all Canadians, the fact that mines, facilities and storage sites are

consistently sited on or near the lands of First Nations, communities of colour and poorer communities reveals

environmental racism within the nuclear industry's decision-making and regulatory processes. Aboriginal and

other communities of colour, and economically disadvantaged communities are often politically, economically and

geographically marginalized and tend to live in areas that are either ecologically degraded or strategically

valuable for minerals or forests (First Nations). These communities are disproportionately exposed to

environmental and health risks and abuses, as compared to White and/or middle to upper class communities.

As a result, First Nations lands become excavation sites, test sites or repositories for waste products of capitalist

production and excessive consumption (Grijalva, 2011). Waste storage is often sited in places where there is the

least perceived resistance. Thus, First Nations and poorer communities must continue to be adequately

informed, active and resistant to being targeted with contamination of their communities and lands by the

nuclear industry. Environmental racism also affects Aboriginal peoples' ability to self-determine their cultural and

development destinies.

While many First Nations communities in Canada and other Indigenous communities around the world have

been struggling against uranium mining and nuclear production, there is an increasing number of First Nations

and Inuit leaders and communities in Canada that are moving toward considering the establishment of nuclear

production and waste storage activities on their territories. This shift has come in light of increasing economic

and political pressure on First Nations communities whose lands are situated on strategic resource or geological

6

sites, and who are facing extremely high rates of unemployment and income insecurity. Many First Nations

communities face an intensifying dilemma: allow mines, reactors or deep geological storage facilities to proceed

on their lands in return for jobs, business opportunities, and royalties — or fight to protect the integrity and

well-being of their lands, communities, wildlife and natural resources. The dilemma becomes more unbalanced

by the fact that relatively little has been done to create other economic and livelihood opportunities for poor and

relatively remote communities. The situation is made more complicated by the fact that there are often other

mines, nuclear plants or other extractive activities being proposed or already in operation (Kneen, 2011). Keith

Lewis from Serpent River First Nation critically states (Reckmans et al., 2003, p. 20):

R Rather than taking care of the social and cultural dysfunction in the community, righting that first, they just say here's a whole pile of money, you do with it what you want, and let us destroy the environment

more, and create further potential harm for your people and the land.

Many First Nations in Ontario and throughout Canada have been directly impacted by different stages of the

nuclear fuel chain, particularly at the early front end and the back end of the chain. The front end of the chain

(Figure 1) involves uranium exploration, uranium ore mining (open pit mine or underground mine), milling or

processing of uranium ore into yellowcake, yellowcake conversion, uranium enrichment, fabrication of fuel

pellets and bundles, nuclear reactor and energy production. Uranium exploration, mining and milling often take

place (or are proposed to take place) on or near First Nations lands, with many Aboriginal people employed

within uranium mines and milling or processing plants.

In 2008, Serpent River First Nation (SRFN) opposed the Ontario Government’s plans for prospective uranium

exploration and mining activities on their traditional territories. SRFN are located near the uranium refinery of

mega-corporation Cameco in Blind River, ON. They have protested Cameco’s requests to the federal government

to extend the corporation’s license term and to process more uranium trioxide (when the impurities are removed

from yellowcake) for the nuclear fuel production process. The processing of uranium trioxide or high-purity

uranium at Cameco’s refinery produces produces high amounts of pollution which is poisonous and slightly

radioactive if inhaled. Other First Nations across Ontario who have been protesting proposed uranium

exploration and mining projects brokered by the Ontario government and corporations are: Ardoch Algonquin

First Nation (AAFN), Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) First Nation and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation. In

2008, Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations protested and blocked access to a prospective

uranium exploration site on traditional Ardoch Algonquin territory near Sharbot Lake. The protests were in

response to negotiations between the Ontario government and prospective company, Frontenac Ventures

Corporation, occurring without consultation with or consent by AAFN. The Saugeen First Nation and Nawash

First Nation in the Bruce Peninsula are engaged in protests and legal action regarding a demand by the First

Nations for adequate consultation and more decision-making rights on major energy projects in Bruce County.

Plans by Bruce Power and the Ontario Power Generation to build new power lines to the Bruce nuclear power

development site, and a proposal to bury low- and medium-level radioactive waste at Bruce carry potential

7

environmental hazards for the First Nations in Bruce Peninsula and should engage meaningful consultation and

accommodation agreements for affected First Nations.

In the Northwest Territories, the Sahtu Dene of Delene, Great Bear Lake have been exposed for decades to high

levels of radioactivity due to radium and uranium mines on their traditional territory. The north shore of Sahtu

(Great Bear Lake) was the site of radium mining from 1934 to 1939, and then uranium mining from 1943 to

1962 where uranium ore was extracted and milled and sold as uranium concentrate to the US Government for

the Manhattan project and production of the atomic bomb. Tailings from both the radium and uranium mines

were dumped into Great Bear Lake and in landfill sites and several generations of the Dene community have

been systematically exposed to the radioactive wastes as they pursued their traditional livelihoods of caribou

hunting, fishing and farming. Dene men were employed during those periods as labourers in the mines and

transporting radioactive uranium ore and concentrates in gunny sacks. More recently in 1975 and 1997, Dene

men were sent to work in the mine tunnels and to clean up radioactive soil “hot spots” with no protective

equipment. Deline is characterized as a village of widows and young men (Blow, 1999) because most of the men

who have worked as labourers within the uranium production process have died. All of these activities were

enacted by the Canadian government and Crown corporation, Port Radium, on the Sahtu Dene and their lands

without informing them of the potential dangers of radioactivity, and without their consent. The grievous health

and environmental risks to their community and territory, as well as the ethical issue of uranium mines and their

link to destructive nuclear weapons used on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII, has weighed

heavily on the Dene and compromised their cultural, emotional, physical and economic well-being.

Nuclear Industry and Regulation in Canada

The nuclear industry refers to a large grouping of powerful and politically-propelled utility companies,

corporations, research institutions, government agencies (federal and provincial), and individuals who make

decisions and set policies for the future of nuclear production and waste management. Canada’s nuclear industry

dates back to 1942 when the National Research Council of Canada administered the development of the first

heavy water nuclear reactor. A test reactor was constructed in 1945 at Chalk River and in the 1950’s under the

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the technology evolved into the CANDU reactors that typify Canada’s

brand of nuclear production. Jurisdiction over nuclear power and waste management is primarily federal and

governed under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a federal Crown

Corporation and is vested with control over nuclear production activities related to research and development,

design and engineering to specialized technology development (i.e. CANDU reactor technology), waste

management and decommissioning of production sites.

8

Figure 1 Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Detail (Source: WISE-Uranium Project)

9

Figure 2 Spent Fuel Cycle (Source: International Atomic Energy Agency)

In 1996, the federal government established its official Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste (Natural

Resources Canada, 1996). The Policy Framework consists of a set of principles governing the institutional and

financial arrangements for disposal of radioactive waste by the waste producers and owners. The principles are:

o The federal government will ensure that radioactive disposal is carried out in a safe,

environmentally-sound, comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner;

10

o The federal government has the responsibility to develop policy, to regulate, and to oversee waste

producers and owners for ensuring that they comply with legal requirements and meet their funding

and operational responsibilities and;

o The waste producers and owners are responsible for the funding, organization, management and

operation of disposal and other facilities for their wastes.

In response to the above principles and to the recommendation of the 1996 Seaborn Panel (discussed in detail

within First Nations’ Involvement in Nuclear Issues in Ontario Report) to establish a nuclear fuel waste

management agency which is at arm's length from the producers and current owners of the nuclear waste, and

committed to Canada’s safety, the NWMO was created. NWMO was established in 2002 through the Nuclear Fuel

Waste Act, by nuclear fuel owners, to assume responsibility for the long-term management of Canada’s used

nuclear fuel that is socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally sound and economically viable. While

the NWMO claims to operate as an independent non-profit organization, it is funded and legislated by the

Nuclear Waste Act and operates within a very corporate and market-based model.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is an independent, quasi-judicial body that acts as Canada’s

nuclear watchdog. However, the CNSC is not isolated from government and regulates all nuclear facilities and

activities in Canada to protect the human and environmental health, safety and security, as well as ensure that

Canada meets its nuclear international obligations on the peaceful use of nuclear energy (Nuclear Safety and

Control Act). The CNSC works to ensure safety and security in nuclear activities throughout the entire nuclear

fuel cycle. It particularly focuses on (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2008):

i) Conducting environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

ii) Implementing Canada's bilateral agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

on nuclear safeguards verification iii) Development of Regulatory Documents

iv) Review and assessment of the licensee’s technical submissions v) Engaging citizens and communities through outreach

vi) Recommending licensing decisions vii) Implementing the decisions of the Commission

While regulation of nuclear energy production and waste management is primarily under federal jurisdiction,

each province has jurisdiction over the mixture of electricity sources produced within the province. For example,

the Ontario Energy Board reviews Ontario’s long-term electricity supply plan under the Electricity Act. Some

provinces like Ontario also apply their provincial environmental assessment legislation to the nuclear industry

within the province. The provinces also weigh in on decision-making involving the creation of new nuclear power

plants within their borders, such as the Ontario government’s directive to OPG to begin the federal approvals

process for the New Nuclear at Darlington Project to build up to four new reactors.

11

The nuclear energy owners in Canada are: Ontario Power Generation Inc., Hydro-Québec, New Brunswick Power

Corporation and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. There are also 150 Canadian firms involved in the production of

nuclear energy engineering, construction, nuclear power plant operation and maintenance, component

manufacturing, fuel fabrication and fuel cycle solutions, business services and equipment and service providers.

Both federal and provincial governments have been funneling millions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear

industry ($156.5 million in 2000 alone, let alone the amount until 2012 – see: Boyd, 2003), contributing to

excessive resource use and accumulation of radioactive wastes. The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI)

states that the nuclear energy is a $6.6 billion/year industry with exports of $1.2 billion (natural uranium, high-

purity composites, CANDU reactor technology). The industry directly employs 21,000 people, and indirectly

employs 10,000 people — with thousands more jobs designated for the Adaptive Phased Management project

(Industry Canada, n.d.).

The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act’s legislation requires the NWMO to evaluate at least three options for the long-term

management of Canada’s nuclear waste and to make recommendations to the Government of Canada:

1) Deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield,

2) Storage at the nuclear reactor sites (as is currently the case), and 3) Centralized storage either above or below ground.

The NWMO has chosen to amalgamate the options of deep geological disposal with a centralized system of

storage below ground by developing the Adaptive Phased Management (APM) strategy. The NWMO and nuclear

industry justify the immediacy for dealing promptly with the fuel waste by way of an extremely expensive,

bureaucratic and long project — by highlighting the current amount of radioactive waste, the amount of waste

projected to exist, and the necessity of dealing with the waste (Durant & Fuji Johnson, 2009). Although

Canadian nuclear waste management policies and the NWMO have shifted from a completely top-down decision-

making and management framework to incorporating (many First Nations people, environmental organizations

and nuclear critics would argue co-opting) a more participatory process of engaging the views of Aboriginal

people and public citizens, the decision- and policy-making power remains firmly with the NWMO and nuclear

establishment (Murphy & Kunh, 2009).

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Canada

Uranium Mining Saskatchewan has the highest grade of uranium ore in the world and Canada is one of the world’s largest

suppliers of natural uranium (18% of global production) and of nuclear technology and expertise for other

nuclear energy-producing nations (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, n.d.). Figure 4 maps all of the nuclear-

producing nations and the percentage of global uranium mining and nuclear production that takes place.

Currently, all operating uranium mines in Canada are located in northern Saskatchewan, although new projects

are proposed for Quebec and Nunavut. In Nunavut, Areva Resources Canada is poised to build a controversial

12

large complex of uranium mines, milling plants and a waste rock disposal site at its Kiggavik site, 85 kilometres

west of Baker Lake in Nunavut's Kivalliq region — and in the middle of important Inuit caribou habitat.

Figure 3 Uranium Mines and Nuclear Power Plants in Canada

(Source: World Nuclear Association)

Figure 4 International Uranium Mining and Nuclear Fuel Production (Source: Cameco)

13

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is responsible for regulating and licensing all existing and

future uranium mining and milling operations in Canada (see Figure 3). As with other major facilities, operating

licenses for uranium mines and mills are issued for specific time periods, usually from five to eight years.

Canadian company, Cameco, is the world’s largest producer and trader of uranium for the nuclear industry. The

following corporations are involved within uranium exploration in Ontario (WISE-Uranium Project, n.d.):

CanAlaska Ventures Ltd

Ressources d’Arianne Inc.

El Niño Ventures Inc. Quincy Energy Corp.

East West Resource Corp. Mega Uranium Ltd.

India Star Energy PLC (UK), RPT

Resources Ltd. Sea Green Capital Corp.

Starfire Minerals Inc. Ursa Major Minerals Inc.

Benton Resources Corp.

Gravity West Mining Corp. Cascadia Int. Resources Inc.

Gold Canyon Resources Inc.

AntOro Resources Inc.

Jourdan Resources Inc.

CanAm Uranium Corp. Quest Rare Minerals Ltd.

Sarissa Resources, Inc. Shoreham Resources Ltd.

RJK Explorations Ltd.

Aben Resources Inc. Green Bull Energy Inc.

North American Gem Inc. Frontenac Ventures Corp.

Callinan Mines Ltd.

California Gold Corp. Temex Resources Corp.

Baltic Resources Inc.

Coral Rapids Minerals Inc.

Creso Resources Inc.

Longview Capital Ptrs Inc. Ring of Fire Resources Inc.

Golden Dawn Minerals Inc. ABV Gold Inc.

Universal Power Corp.

Naples Capital Corp. Delta Uranium Inc.

Carina Energy Inc. Bancroft Uranium Inc.

Verbina Resources Inc.

Appia Energy Corp.

Natural uranium radiates atomic radiation for billions of years, but is shielded by Earth’s geology. However, when

uranium ore is excavated and crushed, that natural shield is lost and the natural geological barrier is

compromised. Most uranium ore is mined in open pit mines (see Figure 3 – Cameco Mine in Rabbit Lake) or

underground mines. The uranium content of the ore that can be used to produce nuclear energy is often

between only 0.1% and 0.2%. Therefore, approximately 99.9% of uranium ore is mined to get at the small

percentage of natural uranium. The ore is disposed of as waste rock and often contains elevated concentrations

of radioactive isotopes like Radon gas. Waste rock is often processed into gravel or cement and used for road

and railroad construction. Dispersing gravel containing elevated levels of radioactivity over large areas, and piles

of waste rock are a threat to the environment and human health. To keep groundwater out of the mine during

operation, large amounts of contaminated seepage water are pumped out and released into rivers and lakes.

When the pumps are shut down after closure of the mine, there is a risk of groundwater contamination from the

rising water level.

Uranium mill tailings are normally dumped as a sludge in special ponds or piles, where they are abandoned. The

largest such piles in the US and Canada contain up to 30 million tons of solid material. The amount of sludge

produced is nearly the same as that of the ore milled. With only 0.1% of the ore being usable uranium, 99.9%

of the ore is left over and often contains radioactive products that maintain 85% of the initial radioactivity of the

milled ore. In addition, the sludge contains heavy metals and other contaminants such as arsenic used during

the milling process. Uranium mining and milling removes the ore and its radioactive components from their safe

14

underground location in the earth and makes them more susceptible to dispersion in the environment. People

can be exposed to uranium and its radio-isotopic products such as radon by inhaling dust in air, or by ingesting

water and food contaminated by tailings sludge. Absorbed uranium tends to bioaccumulate within bone tissue

because of uranium's affinity for phosphates. Normal organ function and numerous other physiological systems

can be affected by uranium exposure, due to both its weak radioactivity and toxicity as a metal.

The Navajo, Hopi and Shoshone Nations in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah have been suffering with the

deadly impacts of radiation contamination from the uranium mining and milling activities that were conducted by

the US government and mining companies between the 1940s and the 1980s. Millions of tons of uranium were

mined during the Cold War era for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, as well as the production of nuclear

energy. The Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program has identified 1,300 abandoned radioactive

uranium mines, water sources contaminated from radioactive waste dumps and tail ponds, hotspots of

radioactive waste rock, and hundreds of Navajo homes were built with chunks of uranium ore and mill tailings.

After years of activism and petitioning by Navajo, Hopi and Shoshone organizations, the US federal government

— in partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, the Indian Health Service and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — have finalized a five-year plan for

cleaning up the legacy of abandoned uranium mining on the Navajo Nation (EPA Region 9 News Release, 2008).

Figure 5 Cameco Open Pit Uranium Mine in Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan (Source: Cameco)

Processing Nuclear Fuel: Uranium Milling and Fuel Fabrication A uranium mill is a chemical plant designed to extract the usable uranium content from the extracted ore

approximately (0.1% - 0.2%). Uranium milling plants are usually located near the mines to limit transportation.

The ore is crushed and the impurities are removed from the uranium using leaching agents such as sulfuric acid

and alkaline. As the leaching agent not only extracts uranium from the ore, but also several other constituents

like molybdenum, vanadium, selenium, iron, lead and arsenic, the uranium must be separated out of the

15

leaching solution (WISE-Uranium, n.d.). The final product produced from the mill is commonly referred to as

"yellow cake" (U3O8 with impurities) and turned into a refined powder (uranium dioxide). When a uranium mill is

decommissioned, large amounts of low-level radioactive scrap are produced, which have to be disposed in a safe

manner. To cut costs, plants often dispose of scrap in the tailings sludge where hazardous radioactive gases are

produced and compromise the safe disposal of the sludge.

In the fuel fabrication stage, the refined powder made from yellowcake is baked into ceramic pellets of fuel.

Ceramic fuel pellets are the container for radioactive nuclear fuel and are packed into zircaloy (zirconium,

chronium, tin, iron) tubes. 27-38 tubes are welded together to form bundles that are inserted into the reactor

for a period of 15-18 months. Each bundle produces enough fuel to power 100 homes for one year. According to

the NWMO, approximately 95% of the uranium in the fuel bundle remains unaltered after its full period of

efficient processing in the CANDU reactor — thus, only 5% of processing products are radioactive.

However, why doesn’t Canada recycle the remaining unaltered uranium? Recycling, or reprocessing, unaltered

uranium removes some useable (fissile) materials from spent fuel that can be reused to generate more

electricity. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel achieves two important goals of recycling: 1) it conserves

diminishing uranium resources and 2) it conserves the environment because it reduces the amount of uranium

ore to be mined and milled, thus reducing the level of radioactivity and quantity of waste fuel to be disposed.

According to the Canadian Nuclear Association, Canada does not reprocess used nuclear fuel for three reasons:

1) the high cost of reprocessing, 2) Canada has large uranium reserves and 3) the concern that plutonium could

be diverted and manufactured into nuclear weapons. However, reprocessing conserves uranium resources as

well as reduces the potential radioactive hazards of uranium mining, processing and used nuclear fuel and is a

more responsible and sustainable option in the long-term. Also, the diversion of plutonium for nuclear weapons

in Canada is unlikely because of the many safeguards put in place by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Canadian Nuclear Association, n.d.). Canada’s future

nuclear energy policy should explore the role of unaltered uranium reprocessing as part of an integrative long-

term waste management strategy.

Nuclear Energy Production: Reactors

There are numerous types of nuclear reactors in the world: CANDU, breeder reactors, boiling water reactors

(BWR), and pressurized water reactors (PWR). Canada is considered a global leader in reactor technology with

its CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) design created in the 1950s by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

(AECL) and a grouping of Canadian government and private energy companies. The CANDU reactor is a

pressurized heavy-water power reactor which uses the nuclear fission of uranium to produce heat to boil water,

which turns into high pressure steam, which flows through a turbine, which turns an electrical generator, which

creates electricity (See Figure 6). Although all nuclear plants in the world are based on the nuclear fission

16

process, CANDU reactors can use either natural uranium or enriched uranium fuel, either heavy water (D2O) or

"light” water (H2O) as coolant, and heavy water as the moderator. There are seven reactor sites in Canada,

including 17 operational units, 3 units under refurbishment, and 6 units permanently shut down (NWMO, 2011).

Most reactors are in Ontario.

1. OPG Pickering, ON — 2 operational units 2. Bruce Power Development A & B, ON —

6 operational units; 2 units under refurbishment

3. OPG Darlington Nuclear Power Station, ON

— 4 operational units

4. Chalk River Laboratories, ON — permanently shut down

5. White Shell, MB — permanently shut down 6. Hydro-Qubec Gentilly Nuclear Generating

Station, QC - 1 operational unit

7. NB Power Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, NB - unit under refurbishment

Figure 6 CANDU Reactor System (Source: Canadian Nuclear FAQ)

Nuclear Fission Process Uranium is referred to as a primordial radionuclide because it originates from the stars. When the fuel bundles

fuel are inserted within the core of the CANDU reactor, a controlled nuclear reaction occurs called nuclear

fission. The larger uranium-238 isotopes are bombarded with smaller neutrons during the nuclear fission or

decay chain process, causing the uranium isotopes to break apart (fission) into other elements and more free

neutrons. When the free neutrons encounter more uranium isotopes, a continuing cascade of nuclear fissions

called a chain reaction occurs. The uranium chain reaction is shown in Figure 7. Thermal energy (heat) is

released during the uranium decay process, boiling the water in the reactor, and generating steam. The steam

turns the turbines, which generates electricity and transferred to the energy grid for use by society. From the

decay of uranium isotopes within the reactor system, 250 secondary radio-isotopes are produced as radioactive

17

wastes from the fission process. As radioactive uranium and other wastes decay and the radio-isotopes move

through their half-life, the isotopes transform into a new generation of isotopes and the process keeps

regenerating and causing an endless level of radioactivity. Uranium-238 undergoes 14 decays before it becomes

lead-206, a stable and non-radioactive isotope. The timescale for the reduced radioactivity of used nuclear fuel

is 1 million years – after that time, the waste has the radioactivity level of natural uranium.

Figure 7 Uranium Decay Chain (Source: Down the Yellowcake Road)

Although the product of nuclear fission and fuel production is purported by the nuclear industry to be electrical

power generation, the truth is that electricity is only the bi-product and the real product is radioactive waste.

NWMO concedes that although the toxicity of nuclear fuel waste diminishes over time, it is perpetually a

potential hazard to the environment and to human communities. Radioactivity affects and damages human and

other animal bodies at the cellular level. It is important to understand that even low amounts of radioactive

waste are potentially hazardous and may contribute to long-term health and environmental problems. Different

radioactive isotopes are attracted to different organs and tissues of the human body and affect people in

different ways. Children are most affected because their cells are reproducing as they are rapidly growing and

since the radioactive damage occurs in the cells, that damage is reproduced during cell replication. Women are

more affected than men because women have more fat tissue, which stores higher levels of radioisotopes and

other metal toxins from the nuclear production process (Northwatch, 2011).

18

Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste

While the NWMO’s long-term management strategy for nuclear waste, or Adaptive Phased Management (APM),

is concerned mainly with the containment and storage of high-level fuel waste from the nuclear fission process,

low-level and intermediate-level radioactive wastes are also produced from the nuclear cycle and require long-

term storage solutions. There are three categories of low-level waste: 1) historic waste, 2) ongoing waste and 3)

tailings from uranium mining and milling. Low-level waste refers to contaminated residues and soil from past

industrial processes (nuclearfaq.ca, n.d.). This material constitutes over two-thirds of Canada's low-level

radioactive waste and is stored on-site in interim storage facilities within the existing nuclear plants in Canada.

However, there are numerous examples of radioactive soil hotspots near decommissioned and/or abandoned

uranium and radium mining sites in Canada (i.e. Dene territory in Great Bear Lake, NWT) and the US that

threaten human health and the ecosystem. An example of historic low-level waste is the contaminated soil in

Port Hope, Ontario, dating back to a radium-refining operation in the 1930s. Responsibility for historic low-level

waste has been assumed by the federal government.

Ongoing waste refers to contaminated material created by nuclear power plants (except used fuel), nuclear

research institutions, and medical isotope processing. Nuclear companies that generate ongoing low-level waste

are responsible for management of their own waste material. Ontario Power Generation has proposed a deep

geological repository for its low and intermediate level radioactive waste, to be located at the Bruce Power site.

A special class of low-level radioactive waste applies to tailings sludge from uranium mining and milling, as well

as uranium fuel fabrication. Over 200 million tons of this radioactive waste material exists in Canada, confined at

or near the sites where it was created. Intermediate-level waste consists of resins, water streams and filters

used in the nuclear energy production process. The level of penetrating radiation is sufficient enough to require

shielding during handling and interim storage.

After a mining site or nuclear production facility is decommissioned, a lot of the low- and intermediate-level

radioactive waste can be recycled. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission recommends several methods for

reusing and recycling low and medium-level waste materials by separating radioactive components from non-

radioactive ones. Nuclear facilities can prevent the contamination of materials by limiting their exposure to

radioactive areas. Facilities can explore and implement technology improvements to waste minimization and

handling processes that reduce the volumes of radioactive waste materials.

Nuclear Accidents in Canada

The disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan — where three nuclear reactors experienced full

meltdown, hydrogen explosions occurred, cooling pools for spent fuel bundles overheated, and significant levels

of radioactivity were released into the atmosphere, groundwater and ocean waters — is a painful reminder of

19

how vulnerable human-made systems are to human errors, as well as shifts in the natural world (i.e. tsunamis,

earthquakes, ice storms). Although the blasts and breaches to the nuclear system at Fukushima are mostly

blamed on the earthquake and tsunami, countless reports and testimony clearly indicate the historical chain of

willful neglect, failures and accidents, communication gaps and industrial and government cover-ups that

ultimately led to the level of disaster which occurred.

Despite the nuclear industry’s arrogant confidence and proclamations that Canada’s nuclear technology is the

safest in the world, and that Canada’s geological structure is virtually indestructible, there have been numerous

nuclear accidents in the country that highlight the potential environmental and health hazards and

unpredictability of nuclear production and waste disposal. Each accident (Canadian Coalition for Nuclear

Responsibility, n.d.) resulted from direct human errors and/or electrical faltering in the reactor system, and

caused serious breaches to safety and security mechanisms that are claimed by the nuclear establishment to be

foolproof. Radioactive materials bio-accumulate within human bodies and ecosystems for extremely long spans

of time.

Chalk River, 1952 and 1958 - the world's first major nuclear reactor disaster was a power surge and

partial loss of coolant led to significant damage to the nuclear reactor core in 1952. In 1958, a fuel

rupture in the reactor led to a fire and complete contamination of the building housing the nuclear

reactor.

Pickering, 1974 and 1983 - the most serious nuclear accidents in Canada happened at the Pickering

facility east of Toronto, in 1974 and in 1983. In each case, the pressure tubes (which hold fuel bundles) ruptured. The coolant was recovered before it left the plant, and there was no release of radioactive

material from the containment building.

Darlington, 2009 - more than 200,000 litres of tritium (radioisotope of hydrogen), spilled into Lake

Ontario after workers accidentally filled the wrong tank with a mixture of tritium and water. The level of

isotope in the lake was not enough to pose harm to nearby residents.

Point Lepreau, 2011 - there was a radioactive spill of up to six litres of heavy water at New

Brunswick's Point Lepreau nuclear generating station. The heavy water splashed to the floor, forcing an evacuation of the reactor building and a halt of operations. Then, NB Power issued a news release,

admitting there had been another type of spill three weeks earlier. The head of Canada's Nuclear Safety

Commission said the two spills are "unsettling".

Nuclear Waste Low- to Mid-term Storage

There are two million fuel bundles stored in short-term (cooling pools) and mid-term (dry storage casks)

facilities in Canada. The two million wasted bundles are currently being stored amongst seven nuclear reactor

sites in Canada – 90% in Ontario; 5% in Quebec and 5% in New Brunswick (NWMO, 2005). The NWMO

categorically states that it is mandated by the federal government to manage only the containment and storage

of nuclear fuel waste over the long term. However, there is much conjecture from First Nations and

environmental groups as to whether the fuel waste would not be better stored for the long term in similar

above-ground storage facilities as those used to currently store fuel waste in the mid-term. In light of the

20

Fukushima nuclear disaster, particularly regarding the spent fuel cooling pools that reduced in water volume and

began to overheat when the reactors’ connection to the power grid was cut, there has also been criticism about

the security and safety features of Canada’s short-term storage system.

Short-term storage involves placing used fuel bundles, that have been removed from the reactor and are

extremely hot and radioactive, within an on-site cooling pool for 7-10 years. The lake water used in the cooling

pools is recycled and replenished with some new lake water and reused within the reactor system. NWMO claims

that the used water from the cooling pools, is not released back into the lake system. However, streams of

circulating water are also used for cooling processes of the steam generator and other stages of the reactor

systems, and for shielding radioactive emissions. These streams are released back into lake systems but NWMO

states that they are monitored according to industry guidelines. The NWMO (2011) does acknowledge that there

may be trace amounts of elements from the nuclear production process in the water streams, but that they are

not at a level harmful to people or aquatic systems.

After the short-term storage period, the fuel waste is stored for the medium-term in dry storage canisters made

from concrete and steel about one foot-thick in width – supposedly thick enough to protect workers and anyone

coming into contact with the containers. The dry storage canisters can store the waste for approximately 50-100

years and are kept on-site at the nuclear reactor plants.

Nuclear Waste Transport

The issue of nuclear waste transport in Ontario — particularly Bruce Power’s plan to transport steam generators

used in nuclear reactors — is an extremely contentious issue for First Nations and environmental organizations.

Bruce Power has been granted permits by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to export and ship thirty-two

large, radioactively contaminated steam generators (discarded from its aging reactors) across the Great Lakes

and through the St. Lawrence Seaway (see Figure 8). Two shipments with 16 generators each are destined for

Sweden where they are to be recycled. The proposed route would traverse Lake Huron (from Owen Sound),

then cross Lake St. Claire, Lake Erie, pass through the Welland Canal, and then over Lake Ontario and down the

St. Lawrence to the ocean. However, First Nations and environmental organizations have highlighted the

potential dangers associated with such transport — including the risks of shipping vessel accidents or declining

water levels in the Great Lakes, Welland Canal and St. Lawrence River. A potential accident would seriously

contaminate waterways with radioactive wastes and compromise the health of many people and wildlife that are

supported by these important water bodies. There are 106 Aboriginal communities along or close to these water

bodies, who particularly depend on lakes and rivers for their way of life.

Activists have also highlighted that Bruce Power had agreed to store, indefinitely, the steam generators on-site

at its facility as a result of a 2006 Environmental Assessment. Hence, the energy company has not demonstrated

21

the need to ship the generators to Sweden, endangering important waterways (FNNWG, 2011). The

Anishinabek, Mohawk First Nations, Anishnawbae Kew Association, and the Ontario Native Women’s Association,

have condemned the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (NCSC) for issuing the permits, since federal law

requires that First Nations be consulted about any actions capable of impacting their territory, including the

Great Lakes shoreline and a large part of its watershed. In 2011, the Council of Canadians (COC) National

Spokesperson, Maude Barlow, wrote the Swedish Minister of the Environment asking him to revoke a permit

issued to Studsvik, a company in Nykoping, Sweden, that is set to receive radioactive waste from Bruce Power

and reprocess it as fuel. The COC also delivered a petition with more than 101,000 names to Queen’s Park

demanding that Ontario premier McGuinty cancel Bruce Power's permit to the ship the steam generators via the

Great Lakes. The campaign has been successful and Bruce Power's one-year licensing permit for the radioactive

generator shipment was terminated by the Ontario government on February, 2012.

Figure 8 Map of Potential Shipping Route for Nuclear Waste (Source: Chiefs of Ontario)

Bruce Power has been receiving low-level radioactive waste from different reactor sites in Ontario for disposal,

thereby becoming the depot for low-level waste storage. Aboriginal people and other Ontarians have not been

22

made aware that such low-level radioactive waste has already been transported along highways through and

near the communities.

The NWMO’s Adaptive Phased Management strategy involves the transport of high-level radioactive fuel waste

from reactor facilities in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba to deep geological repositories (DGR) in

host community facilities across the country. Approximately 3.5 million spent fuel bundles (by the time the DGRs

are complete) will be transported by rail, road or water, depending on the location of the host facility. Since the

fuel waste is highly radioactive and dangerous, its transport is regulated by both Transport Canada and Canadian

Nuclear Safety Commission. The NWMO estimates that approximately 19,000 shipments of fuel waste would

have to be made over a span of thirty years and would likely traverse through First Nation territories and treaty

lands. As such, the Crown has a duty to consult with affected First Nations governments to engage Aboriginal

concerns, and to ensure that Aboriginal rights are treaties are not infringed upon. The NWMO must adhere to

very strict safety and performance guidelines outlined by Transport Canada and CNSC, including designs to

withstand severe weather and accident conditions. The proposed transport strategy, including its technology and

performance, must also strictly adhere to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) regulations. First

nations and environmental organizations highlight that a progressive and responsible long-term waste

management strategy should deal with nuclear waste (low, intermediate and high levels) as close to the

production source as possible so as to avoid all of the inherent risks associated with transportation of wastes

(i.e. contamination of communities located near transport routes; terrestrial and water ecosystems).

Nuclear Waste Containment and Storage

Due to the potential hazard of radioactive nuclear fuel waste, it is imperative that the waste is stored in isolation

from human communities and environmental systems on a permanent basis. The NWMO itself concedes,

“Consistent with international standards and the regulatory regime governing management of used nuclear fuel

in Canada...used nuclear fuel will need to be contained and isolated from people and the environment essentially

indefinitely” (NWMO, 2005, p. 348). The breakdown of spent fuel bundles in both wet storage and dry storage

are as follows (NWMO, 2011):

OPG Pickering — 616,173 bundles OPG Darlington — 377,561 bundles

Bruce Power Development A — 410, 845 bundles

Bruce Power Development B — 521,478 bundles Chalk River Laboratories — 4,866 bundles

White Shell, MB — 2,268 bundles Hydro-Qubec Gentilly 1 — 3,213 bundles

Hydro-Qubec Gentilly 2 — 116,173 bundles

NB Power Point Lepreau — 121,758 bundles

23

Figure 9 Design Methods considered for Reactor Site Extended Storage (NWMO, 2003)

OWNER/SITE DESIGN METHODS CONSIDERED OPG and Bruce Power

(Bruce A and B, Pickering A and B, Darlington)

casks in storage buildings

casks in buried concrete chambers

surface modular vault

Hydro Québec (Gentilly 2)

outside vaults

vaults in buried concrete chambers

surface modular vault

New Brunswick Power (Point Lepreau) outside silos

vaults in buried concrete chambers

surface modular vault

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Chalk River outside silos

silos in buildings

silos in buried concrete chambers

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Douglas Point fuel stored with OPG at Bruce

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Gentilly 1 fuel stored with Hydro Quebec at Gentilly 2

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Whiteshell outside silos

silos in buildings

silos in buried concrete chambers Adaptive Phased Management (APM) APM is a large centralized, multi-barrier infrastructural project that proposes to contain and store nuclear fuel

waste within a system of deep geological repositories hosted by willing communities in Ontario and other

provinces. APM is a package strategy in that it includes their three original proposed options — 1) centralized

storage, 2) continued storage at sight and 3) deep geological repository — under one umbrella project. On June

14, 2007, the federal government approved the NWMO's recommendation for Adaptive Phased Management

(APM) and in 2009, NWMO commenced its nine step site selection process of voluntary communities that will be

sited for hosting the deep geological repositories and storage management facilities. APM and Deep Geological

Repository (DGR) are accepted as one of the most viable disposal options by the nuclear industry and represent

the most predominant perspective amongst the establishment. The project is estimated to cost approximately

$16-24 billion dollars for the entire construction and implementation and will be gradually rolled out over a

protracted time horizon of 325 years. Compared to other countries also in the midst of exploring deep geological

disposal strategies - such as Finland, Sweden and Spain with a time horizon of 100-150 years; Netherlands with

an above-ground repository of 300 years, Canada's horizon is particularly long. There is expected to be a period

of approximately 70 years until the opening date of each DGR facility and a 100-325 year time horizon for the

rest of the process to unfold until the repository can be fully decommissioned. According to the NWMO, the time

horizon comprises these stages:

o 30-year span for the facilities to receive the spent fuel bundles as part of the inventory of overall

received spent fuel for the duration of the nuclear production project – earliest in-service date is

2035; o 60-year span of extended monitoring when the facilities will remain open for monitoring;

24

o the future generation community will then make a decision whether to seal the repository and then

the decommissioning process for the repository will continue for 15-20 years beyond the 60-year

extended monitoring phase; and o after the repository is decommissioned, surface-level facilities will be removed and ecological

systems returned to previous levels; societal systems would be put in place to make people aware of what had taken place with the storage management.

APM planning and the long time horizon supposedly allows for the decision-making needs of future generations

who may possess new knowledge and technologies and may decide to continue with an alternative storage

strategy. Funding is built into the management phasing so that future generations will have the resources to

make those “good” decisions. However, Aboriginal elders and leaders are concerned that due to the very long

time span for implementation of APM and the deep geological repository, present-day leaders from First Nations

and potential host communities are required to make decisions on issues that will not be realized for another

several generations. The strident pace and political pressure by NWMO to develop siting and APM policies for a

very long-term storage process is well beyond the terms of office of First Nations leaders and prominent

decision-makers. The long-standing nuclear industry position is that the “nuclear waste problem must be dealt

with by the current generation to avoid inter-generational equity” (AECL, 1994; Durant & Fuji Johnson, 2010;

NWMO, 2005), however, since decisions made now will impact generations well into the future, the burden of

problems is shifted onto future generations. Despite the long time horizon for APM, there is concern that the

NWMO and nuclear establishment will claim that they have found the solution to the nuclear fuel waste problem,

and consequently push ahead with expansion of the nuclear production industry.

Deep Geological Repositories (DGR)

While the potential DGR process is still in the phase of investigation, the NWMO proposes to move all nuclear

waste to a centralized storage facility at a site for potential DGR. The Ontario Power Generation has contracted

the NWMO to provide technical services and other support to obtain regulatory approvals for the DGR.

The NWMO consistently states that APM and DGR concern high-level waste and do not pertain to the storage of

low and intermediate waste (they are dealt with under different projects). Low level waste is currently

transported from reactor sites throughout Ontario to the Bruce Power facility for storage. However, NWMO is

connected with through Bruce Power.

The history of deep geological storage for nuclear wastes in Canada dates back to the 1977 Hare Commission

when the idea was first proposed to store nuclear fuel waste in the Canadian Shield. The Commission released a

report entitled “Ontario Nuclear Safety Review” and concluded that disposal in geological formations was the

best option. In 1978, the federal government and Ontario provincial government jointly established the Canadian

Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program (CNFWMP) and Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

(AECL) was appointed to conduct research on how to safely contain and manage nuclear waste. The AECL

25

developed a “generic disposal concept” test drilling of repository sites done in such as Lake of the Woods area

on the traditional territories of Aboriginal communities of Northwest Angle, Whitefish Bay, Northwest Bay,

Nickickiousemenecaning, Seine River, Eagle Lake and Wabigoon Bands; and the non-Aboriginal communities of

Massey and Atikokan, but there was major opposition to AECL's presence within communities (Northwatch,

2011). As a result of discontent toward the test drilling and community siting activities, the federal and Ontario

governments directed the CNFWMP to focus on a generic storage design that did not require a specific siting

decision. In 1988, the AECL, submitted its generic (non-site-specific) disposal concept for long-term fuel waste

management to the federal government and a Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel process

known as the Seaborn Panel was created in 1989.

The NWMO's present-day deep geological repository site will require a surface area of 1 km by 1 km, or 100

hectares; and an underground area of 2.5 km by 1.5 km, or 375 hectares. NWMO states that the DGR cannot be

created too far into the geological rock due to the risks of increased levels of geothermal heat in the rock, and

increased levels of stress in the rock. Increased stress leads to fractures in the rock and instability in the

excavation/repository site. The canisters housing spent fuel bundles are made from copper and steel and

continue to produce a lot of heat within the deep geological repository. Hence, the volume of geological rock

around each container must be enough to absorb the heat emitted. The bentonite clay concealment of the

canister of spent fuel bundles is claimed by NWMO to be ideal for providing long-term isolation containment

radioactive fuel because it has low porosity and low water transmitting ability. The clay absorbs any water it

comes into contact with and increases in volume to fill up any porous areas that have accumulated around the

canister in the borehole. If water were able to penetrate through the different containment barriers (bentonite,

copper canister, zircaloy and ceramic pellets) and combined with water-soluble radioactive elements, the

bentonite clay is supposed to have the capacity to absorb radioactive isotopes.

Multi-barrier, defense and depth system whereby numerous barrier systems are all working toward the objective

of isolating and containment of radioactive fuel waste, thus mitigating radioactive leakage into the environment.

If one barrier fails, than the other barriers will function toward the same objective (NWMO, 2011):

o Used fuel (pellets) - ceramic fuel pellets are durable and insoluble in water and act as the first

barrier to radioactivity. o Used fuel elements (zircaloy) – zircaloy tubes are sealed, are very strong and corrosion resistant

o Long-lived container – fuel assembly container; inner layer is made from steel and the outer layer is made from corrosion-resistant copper

o Clay seals – bentonite clay rings form a protective layer

o Deep and low permeability rock mass

Heat or thermal load (how chemical reactions between radio-isotopes and other elements are catalyzed by heat

differ depending on the levels of heat) is significant concern to the safe functioning of deep geologicalstorage. A

26

problematic feature of the APM strategy is that it relies almost solely on scientific and technical criteria and

modeling to create its multi-barrier system and to ensure safety – rather than also developing socio-political

criteria. In the event of a radioactive leak within a DGR, there are serious concerns regarding the ability of

NWMO and nuclear regulators to monitor, measure, retrieve and repair over a longer period of time

(Northwatch, 2009).

Site Selection Process

Canada is the only country internationally that is predetermining regions for site selection of DGRs and host

communities according to economic criteria – specifically, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) requires the

NWMO to specify both its preferred waste management option (i.e. APM), and the economic region (is a district

or grouping of complete census divisions created as a standard geographic unit for analysis of regional economic

activity) where the option will be sited. However, the NWMO has circumvented this part of the NFWA legislation

and, therefore, not specified economic regions for its APM process (Murphy & Kuhn, 2009).

Five volunteer host communities are in Ontario, although none of the communities are First Nation or Métis. In

Saskatchewan, there is one First Nation community (English River First Nation) and one Métis community

(Pinehouse) in the process of volunteering to become a host community.

1. Ignace (ON)

2. Ear Falls (ON) 3. Schreiber (ON)

4. Hornepayne (ON),

5. Wawa (ON)

6. Pinehouse (SK) 7. English River First Nation (SK)

8. 8. Creighton (SK)

9. Red Rock (ON) eliminated

In addition to the above communities already involved in the site selection process, there are numerous other

communities across Canada who have expressed interest in learning more about the prospect of hosting a deep

geological repository on their land. Three of those communities are in Bruce County — Saugeen Shores,

Municipality of Brockton and the Municipality of South Bruce — and have close ties with Bruce Power as it is the

primary employer for the communities. However, Saugeen Shores has deferred their decision to be considered

as a host community for a DGR due to protests from community members who feel that they have been

implicated in the bid without informed consent.

Similar to most First Nations and non-Aboriginal communities that are entangled with the nuclear industry,

current voluntary host communities face a bleak dilemma regarding the level and nature of their involvement.

Communities like Hornepayne and Ignace are economically underdeveloped or even bankrupt and thus, are in

dire need of the type of long-term economic and infrastructural development stimulus that is being promised by

the NWMO’s Adaptive Phased Management strategy. Thus, the issue of economic coercion or blackmail becomes

a real concern within the site selection process and will be discussed further on.

27

The NWMO's Nine Step Site Selection Process entails (NWMO, 2011):

Step 1 Becoming aware and informed

Step 2-4 Assessing interest and suitability community visioning

screening

feasibility detailed assessment

regional study and involvement centres of expertise launched

Step 5 Community assesses and demonstrates willingness.

Step 6 Preferred site identified collaborative agreement established

Step 7 Regulatory review and approvals

site is selected

Step 8 National centre of expertise established and construction of underground demonstration facility

Step 9 Construction begins...

NWMO is currently at the second and third stages of the process with volunteer communities – NWMO provides

an informational briefing and conducts an initial screening interview; and then the NWMO conducts feasibility

studies in collaboration with the community to assess whether the community contains potentially suitable sites.

NWMO's volunteer siting approach is similar to most other countries that are also developing a deep geological

storage process in that communities have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to host a facility and

underground disposal system for radioactive fuel waste. The siting framework has been developed along

relatively democratic and inclusive principles and offers some provision of social justice, self-determination,

equity and participation for local volunteer communities (Murphy & Kuhn, 2009). The benefits of developing a

more democratic siting process is that it protects the host community's rights to decision-making and access to

information and benefits, and for the NWMO, it reduces the potential for conflict and increases the success of

siting a viable facility for fuel waste storage.

Regarding both the site selection process, and the entire Adaptive Phased Management strategy, numerous

challenging questions concerning procedures around decision-making processes; principles guiding

consultations, deliberations, and decision-making; and resolving conflict over dispute or uncertainty about facts

and procedures were posed by First Nations and other Canadians to NWMO during the roundtable on ethics (see

Appendix A). The framework comprises of the guiding principles (NWMO, n.d.) and ethical values that were

identified by First Nations and other Canadians during NWMO's Roundtable of Ethics process in 2004 (NWMO,

2005):

28

Guiding Principles

Focus of on safety Right to withdraw (community) Respect Aboriginal rights, treaties and land claims

Meet or exceed regulatory requirements

Siting process led by interested communities

Shared decision-making

Informed and willing host community Informing the process Inclusiveness

Focus on the nuclear provinces Community well-being Support capacity building

Ongoing engagement of governments

Ethical Values

respect for life future generations

the biosphere and peoples justice and fairness among groups, regions and generations, especially for those affected

sensitivity to value differences amongst participants

The NWMO's siting framework also follows the principles delineated by the Atomic Energy for Canada Limited's

(AECL) environmental assessment of the deep geological concept and new criteria highlighted in the Seaborn Panel's report (Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel, 1988):

AECL Principles Seaborn Panel Criteria

Volunteerism: community (with jurisdiction over

its territory) has the right to determine its willingness to host a facility.

Shared decision-making: potential hosts will share

in decision-making and NWMO will seek to

address the views of other potentially affected communities. Implementation would occur in

stages with series of decisions.

Openness: NWMO would offer information about

its plans, procedures, activities, and progress to communities early in the siting stage so that

communities can make a judgment about safety and security.

Fairness: since host community would be offering a service to all electric consumers, the net benefit

to the host would be significant. Measures would be taken by NWMO to avoid, mitigate and

compensate communities for adverse effects and to enhance the well-being of the community.

Willingness to be involved as a potential

host does not represent a final commitment.

Monitoring and compensation proposals

should be developed early, in consultation

with communities, to reduce and mitigate adverse effects.

The facility must meet regulatory

standards.

There must be adequate time provided to communities to understand the social,

technological, and environmental implications.

There should be early agreement regarding

process for conflict resolution.

The decision-making process should be inclusive of minorities.

In terms of fostering community well-being and providing community support, the NWMO claims to be

committed to providing:

29

Economic health

Environmental protection

Social conditions

Safety and security for communities and

ecosystems

Enhancing capacity building opportunities and benefits

for communities

Analysis of cultural and spiritual dimensions

Long term partnership with

the community and region

Resources provided to

communities: information,

expert advice, decision-making, involvement of

Aboriginal peoples, neighbouring communities

and region

However, despite the seemingly community-centered focus of the siting process criteria, the fundamental issue is

that NWMO is looking for a local solution to the massive and deeply contentious management problem of safely

disposing of radioactive nuclear fuel wastes for an indefinite time span. There are numerous areas of potential

conflict that have been identified by Murphy and Kuhn (2009), such as:

i) How will a host community be defined with regard to issues of trans-boundary impacts and

interests? ii) How will the concerns and voices of other affected communities will be included?

iii) How will the facility be engineered the specific technical and safety-related characteristics of the host site?

iv) How will the rights of a community to have self-determination be balanced with concerns

regarding economic coercion and compensation as bribery? and v) How the problem of incorporating Aboriginal perspectives into a Western-defined process will

be resolved?

The potentially conflictual issue of balancing community self-determination with concerns of economic coercion

and compensation in the form of bribery (i.e. revenues, job opportunities and capacity development) –

especially for more economically strapped communities – particularly affects the ideals of democracy and

fairness adopted by the NWMO. In the case of the proposed Chalk River Laboratory nuclear waste storage

facility to be sited on Serpent River First Nation (SRFN) land in Deep River, the main bargaining feature for

persuading the SRFN to consent was the guarantee of job opportunities and secure wages. Keith Lewis from

SRFN poignantly criticizes this all-too-common reality with regard to siting nuclear production and deep

geological storage facilities on First nations land (Reckmans et al., 2003, p. 20):

When it comes to...the high level waste disposal concept, the possibility of siting becomes more of a

reality in the near future, and a reality that would amount of to [nuclear wastes] being located on Indian lands, treaty lands. When you have those realities that we have in this community, and when you think

that all Indian communities are like that, when a process like the high level radioactive waste process throws money at a community that's starving, what are they going to say? Then you get back to that

thing about morality and there is nothing moral about buying out somebody that is starving.

Furthermore, mounting questions and tensions by First Nations and public citizens over Canada's future energy

policy, particularly whether nuclear energy production should continue or be replaced by renewable energy

30

sources, is a problematic area for the NWMO. The organization categorically states that such concerns are

outside of its mandate and only concerns itself with the back end of the fuel cycle – management and storage of

fuel waste. However, there are broader social, environmental and political implications for host communities and

lands, and for all Canadians, regarding the long-term management of fuel wastes if these radioactive wastes

continue to be generated from nuclear fuel production.

Nuclear Fuel Production in a Global Context

Apart from the United States, Canada generates far more nuclear waste than any other Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nation on a per capita basis, placing Canada 28th out of 28

nations. Present research indicates that Canada now produces a higher total amount of nuclear wastes than the

US. While other nuclear-producing countries have also been tasked with developing strategic designs for how

they will store their nuclear fuel waste in the interim and long-term time frames, Canada's huge cache of used

fuel has particularly necessitated a long-term waste management strategy. At present, Canada has two million

spent fuel bundles that are awaiting eventual long-term storage. Four million more fuel bundles are projected to

be wasted by 2035 when the existing nuclear reactors in Canada will cease functioning and be decommissioned.

The DGR is not expected to be ready to receive spent fuel bundles until at least 2035, so there will be

approximately six million bundles that must be safely transported, contained and stored on or beneath the land.

Looking at the global context for nuclear waster storage (see Appendix B for a description of strategies by

country), Canada's APM and deep geological concept are most comparable to Sweden. Sweden has also

developed a large centralized fuel storage design, but unlike Canada, Sweden's fuel waste output fits in one

facility which has been in operation since 1985. There is an underground research laboratory at Aspo for High

Level Waste repository and a volunteer host community site for DGR has already been selected. SKB (NWMO of

Sweden) has done prototype DGR tests and experiments in their underground test facility at Aspo. Sweden has

duplicated Canada's DGR design and has already tested the engineering aspects of the design for safety and

effectiveness. Finland also has a DGR research laboratory and has already selected sites for the repositories that

will be opened for receiving fuel waste near Olkiluoto in 2020. Switzerland and Russia are also interested in

pursuing the DGR concept. The US nuclear reactor sites are currently storing spent nuclear fuels in on-site low

and intermediate term storage facilities. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was proposed as a deep

geological repository site, but plans to go ahead with the management scheme were aborted by the Obama

administration in 2011 due to persistent and widespread protest by the Shoshone Nation and many other

activists. Yucca Mountain is a very seismically active earthquake and volcanic zone, with fissured and fractured

geology that would allow large amounts of radioactive gases to escape into the atmosphere, and radioactive

liquids to leak into the drinking water supply.

31

There are more countries that have opted for fuel waste strategies that do not use deep geological disposal,

than those that do use DGR. For fuel waste reprocessing, Belgium, France, Russia, UK, Japan, China, India, and

Switzerland. There are also numerous countries that have opted to either phase out nuclear production, or not

embrace it at all. In the months after the earthquake disaster and meltdown of nuclear plants in Fukushima,

Japan, both Germany and Switzerland announced that they will immediately decommission all old nuclear plants

and phase out active plants when they come to the end of their safety period. Instead, these nations will pursue

renewable energy sources. Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein,

Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Isreal, Malaysia, Norway and New Zealand remain against the development of

nuclear power. Figure 8 shows the distribution of commercial (not reserach) nuclear power plants throughout

the world. The map clearly shows that the countries with operating reactors that are either building new

reactors, or planning to build new reactors, are located predominantly in North America (including Mexico),

South America (i.e. Brazil, Argentina), Russia, Eastern Europe, East Asia (i.e. China, S. Korea), Central Asia (i.e.

Iran) and South Asia (i.e. Pakistan, India).

Alternative Energy Policies

Moratorium on Nuclear Fuel Production

First Nations overwhelmingly call for the phase out or moratorium on nuclear energy production, nuclear

technology development and nuclear energy usage within Canada’s future energy policy. Recognizing First

Nation people’s responsibilities to respect, honour and care for Creation, the Anishinaabek, the Mushkegowuk,

and the Onkwehonwe call on federal, provincial, regional and Aboriginal governments and the energy industry to

cease the production of nuclear energy in favour of renewable energy policies. A key aspect of Canada’s

sustainable, long-term nuclear waste management plan will depend on exploring and developing an integrative

framework of energy conservation strategies and renewable energy technologies. The We are the Land

document (Appendix C) explicitly highlights a moratorium on nuclear production as a necessary action within

Canada’s waste management strategy. There exists much potential for First Nations to become leaders in

developing local strategies and broader environmental policies on energy conservation and renewable energy

sources research and innovation due to their unique perspectives, knowledges and experiences regarding

sustainable environmental use and the natural history of ecosystems.

32

Figure 10 The Status of Nuclear Energy Production Globally (International Atomic Energy Agency)

Legend

Operating reactors, building new reactors

Operating reactors, planning new build

No reactors, building new reactors

No reactors, new in planning

Operating reactors, stable

Operating reactors, decided on phase-out

Civil nuclear power is illegal

No reactors

Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Energy conservation and re-thinking and transforming our economic production, consumption and labour

systems to be less exploitative, production-centered and waste-producing than they are now should be our

preferred option. Energy conservation can be achieved through a combination of reduced energy consumption

from conventional energy sources and more efficient forms of energy use. While conservation policy would seem

to be the most obvious and inexpensive option, as compared to developing renewable energy sources,

conservation requires shifts in government, industry, corporate and societal cultures, as well as in personal

attitudes and lifestyles. However, energy conservation must be our starting point and First Nations have the

potential to be leaders on this issue. Energy conservation and efficiency measures can be as simple as being

more aware and responsible with our energy usage, improving the standards for new buildings, retrofitting old

homes and buildings with more efficient technology (especially energy-saving heating and cooling systems) and

energy-saving appliances.

The provincial and municipal governments can greatly assist a greater shift to conservation by: i) instituting

regulatory standards for industry and businesses to decrease energy usage, and ii) providing education and

incentives for commercial and residential consumers to invest in more energy-efficient and cost-effective

33

systems and appliances. Canada enacted the Energy Efficiency Act in 1992, which increases the efficiency

standards for thirty-three consumer products such as refrigerators, lights and some motors. The Act is widely

regarded “the single action taken by Canada...likely to make the most significant contribution to greenhouse as

emission reduction” (NRCan, 1999). Conservation and efficiency policy is beneficial all around because it reduces

electricity demand on non-renewable and renewable energy sources, conserves non-renewable resources,

decreases smog and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduces economic costs for companies and private citizens.

Provide government financing and other support for district energy programs. District energy heats space

efficiently by using one energy source, such as water warmed by waste heat from industry, to heat a large

number of buildings. In Denmark, Sweden and Finland, district heating meets the needs of up to 80 per cent of

the urban heating market. Twenty-three district heating projects identified in Canada could create 7,000

construction jobs, and 2,500 permanent jobs (David Suzuki Foundation, n.d.).

Energy Alternatives and Innovations in Research

Figure 11 features renewable energy sources that are being developed throughout Canada and internationally,

and maps out the benefits and issues of concern connected with each source. Sources of energy alternatives

include Bullfrog Power, solar energy, wind energy, green natural gas (biomethane), wave power, geothermal heat

pumps and biofuels. Although government and industry claim to be committed to transforming a low-carbon

economy and society, research and development of renewable energy alternatives to oil, coal and gas

production and nuclear sources still receive little financial investment or political support from either the different

levels of government, or the corporate sector. Canadian firms designing technologies for and producing solar,

wind, geothermal heat pumps and biomethane energies are industry leaders internationally, but their focus is

largely on export markets since domestic demand remains low and domestic markets have not be supported by

the government or commercial sector (David Suzuki Foundation, n.d.). However, the federal government began

the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program in April 2007 to encourage the generation of electricity from

renewable sources such as solar, wind, low-impact hydro, biofuels, and geothermal energy. As of early 2011,

“104 projects qualified for funding under the program representing investments of about $1.4 billion over 14

years and almost 4500 megawatts of renewable power capacity” (ecoAction – Government of Canada, n.d.).

Many First Nations have not only been critical of the continued production of oil and gas energy and nuclear

power, but they have taken leadership in exploring and investing in renewable energy projects for the electricity

needs of their communities. According to Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo, "First Nations

are pursuing many opportunities to become economically self-sufficient in order to create healthy, secure

communities for our people” (Canada Newswire, 02-17-2011).

34

Figure 11 Renewable Energy Alternatives

Renewable

Alternatives

Description and Benefits

Bullfrog Energy Regionally sourced, low-impact energy mix of wind, hydro and bio-methane power sources.

Bullfrog supports renewable energy generation and contributes to a low-carbon society.

Customers continue to use power normally, and Bullfrog buys an equivalent amount of

electricity from renewable energy generators across the country and pumps it into the grid.

EcoLogo-certified hydro facilities generate energy in a manner that does not adversely

impact the environment and protects against biodiversity loss.

The Tsleil-Waututh Nation has made a $2-million equity investment in wind energy

manufacturer Endurance Wind Power. As part of the partnership, TWN Wind Power Inc. will become the distributor of Endurance Wind Power's community-based wind turbines to First

Nations and Indigenous groups in Canada and the United States.

Solar Energy Solar energy is the capture of sunlight and conversion of it into electricity. Solar technologies

include both passive: architecture and thermal materials that capture sunlight to produce heat and light and active: photovoltaic (light-electricity) technologies such as solar panels,

thermal cells, mirrors, pumps and converters that supply larger amounts of energy.

Solar energy can generate clean, reliable power with little maintenance and free fuel. The

most promising solar technologies in the short term are those that capture the energy of the sun's rays to heat indoor space or water and use the sun to generate electricity.

Global solar photovoltaic capacity grew by an average of 60 per cent per year between 2004

and 2009. Its high growth rates are leading to a downward trend in prices.

Wind Energy The wind-power industry creates new jobs, generates revenue, offsets emissions from fossil

fuel power plants and enhances security of the electricity supply.

Green Natural

Gas (different from fossil fuel- based

natural gas)

Green natural gas comes from decaying organic matter in landfills. When this natural material

decomposes, an energy-rich gas is produced that can be cleaned and then injected into the

natural gas system.

Green natural gas releases only the carbon dioxide that that would be produced by the

natural decay of organic waste. It is the same carbon dioxide that is needed by the next generation of plants and animals to grow.

Unlike fossil fuel-based natural gas, green natural gas does not increase the amount of

carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (net-zero CO2 source) and does not contribute to climate change.

Wave/ Tidal Power

1) Wave power is the transport of energy by ocean surface waves, and the conversion of that energy to produce electricity or provide water desalination.

2) Tidal power is a form of hydropower that converts the energy of tides into electricity.

Although not yet widely used at a commercial level, wave or tidal power have great potential

for future electricity generation. Wave or tide energy generation are more predictable than wind and solar power sources. Northern Canada is a suitable site for tidal power.

Relatively high development and production costs and limited availability of sites with

sufficiently high tidal ranges or flow velocities have reduced the availability and creation of

commercial markets for the wave or tide power. However, recent technological developments and improvements, both in design and turbine technology have made wave or tidal power

35

alternatives more available, and economic and environmental costs have been reduced to

competitive levels relative to other renewable energy sources.

Geothermal

Heat Pumps

Geothermal heat pumps are one of the cheapest, cleanest and most reliable ways to heat

and cool residential and commercial buildings. Also known as geoexchange, earth energy, or

ground source heat pumps, geothermal heat pumps should not be confused with geothermal energy, which is harvested by large power plants to generate electricity.

In winter, geothermal heat pumps draw heat energy from the upper 3 meters of the Earth's

surface (nearly constant temperature of 10-16°C), using a series of underground pipes, and

transfer it to buildings, warming them. In summer, the heat pumps work in reverse, taking excess heat from inside and discharging it into the cooler earth.

Because the earth itself supplies the renewable thermal energy, the only requirement is a

small amount of electricity to run the pump. As a result, the systems run with almost no pollution or carbon dioxide emissions.

Biofuels or biodiesel

Biofuels are fuels whose energy comes from photosynthesis and other forms of carbon fixation. They are produced from biological material or biomass (solid or liquid) and

biogases, such as sugar cane, corn, cellulose, soy beans, animal fats, bioethanol and

vegetable oils. Biofuels are made from renewable resources, do not produce greenhouse gas emissions and are meant to supplement or even replace fossil fuels.

Biodiesel can be used as a fuel for vehicles in its pure form, but it is usually used as a diesel

additive to reduce levels of polluting materials from diesel-powered vehicles. Biodiesel is

produced from oils or fats that have been heated in order to reduce their viscosity, and filtered to remove all unnecessary residues. The biodiesel is then ready for being pumped

into the car’s tank (the only note is that a car should have a diesel engine).

Global biofuel production and usage are increasing greatly and many international governments have invested in generating biodiesel and bioethanol. However, there is much

controversy that the production of biofuels uses precious arable lands that should be used

for human food production - thus driving up domestic and global food prices.

Glossary of Acronyms

AAFN Ardoch Algonquin First Nation

AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

AFN Assembly of First Nations

APM Adaptive Phased Management

CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

CFSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

CNFWMP Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program

36

COO Chiefs of Ontario

DGR Deep Geological Repository

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

NWMO Nuclear Waste Management Organization

SRFN Serpent River First Nation

References

Assembly of First Nations. (2005). Nuclear Fuel Waste Dialogue: Recommendations to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Toronto: AFN.

Assembly of First Nations. (December 2003). Resolution No. 51. Toronto: AFN.

Blow, P. (1999). Village of Widows. Peterboruogh: Lindum Films.

Boyd, D.R. (2003). Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Cameco. (n.d.). Where are uranium deposits located? http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/uranium_science/uranium/

Canada Newswire. (02-17-2011). Tsleil-Waututh Nation Investing in a Green Future. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/768979/tsleil-waututh-nation-investing-in-a-green-future

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. (n.d.). Resources on Nuclear Accidents. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.ccnr.org/#res

Canadian Nuclear Association. (n.d.). Nuclear Facts. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.cna.ca/english/pdf/nuclearfacts/04-NuclearFacts-uranium.pdf

Canadian Nuclear FAQ. (n.d.). CANDU Nuclear Power Technology. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionA.htm

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (n.d.). Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/regulated/minesmills/

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2008). An Introduction to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. nuclearsafety.gc.ca

Chiefs of Ontario. (2011). Long Term Storage of Nuclear Waste Workshop: Background and First Nation Perspectives. Presentation made by Deborah McGregor to the Nuclear Waste Management information and

training sessions. Toronto: COO.

37

Chiefs of Ontario. (n.d.). Map of Potential Shipping Route for Nuclear Waste. http://chiefs-of-ontario.org/Assets/Map%20of%20potential%20shipping%20route.pdf

Chiefs of Ontario. (1981). Resolution 81-20. Toronto: COO.

David Suzuki Foundation. (n.d.). Renewable Energy. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/energy/solar-energy/

Down the Yellowcake Road. (n.d.). Radium Series – The Uranium-238 Decay Chain. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.downtheyellowcakeroad.org/html/sciencebasics.html

Durant, D. & Fuji Johnson, G. (Eds.) (2010). Situating Canada’s Approaches to Siting a Nuclear Fuel Waste

Management Facility, in Nuclear waste management in Canada: critical issues, critical perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.

ecoAction – Government of Canada. (n.d.) ecoEnergy Efficieny Initiatives. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/ecoenergy-ecoenergie/initiatives-eng.cfm

Ecojustice. (09-13-2011). Darlington nuclear panel conclusions a stab in the dark. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://www.ecojustice.ca/darlington-nuclear-panel-conclusions-a-stab-in-the-dark?searchterm=dar

Greenpeace. (n.d.). No Nukes are Safe: Stop Darlington. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/end-the-nuclear-threat/Get-involved/No-Nukes-are-

Safe-Stop-Darlington/

Grijalva, J. (2011). Self-Determining Environmental Justice for Native America, Environmental Justice,

4(4): 187-192.

Industry Canada. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy: industrial profile. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mse-epe.nsf/eng/home

International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d.) Fuels and Spent Fuel Management. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/physics/activities/Fuels_and_Spent_Fuel_Management.htm

International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d.). International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power. Retrieved

March 9, 2012 from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/NuclearPower/np08.pdf

Jacobs, C. (06-27-1996). Nuclear Fuel Waste Environmental Assessment Panel Public Hearing Transcripts, June

27, pp. 249-250.

Kneen, J. (04-07-2011). Baker Lake struggles under pressure to allow uranium mining. Rabble. http://rabble.ca/news/2011/04/crossroads-tundra-baker-lake-struggles-under-pressure-allow-uranium-mining

McClenghan, T. (2011). How Canada Regulates Nuclear Power. Presentation by the Canadian Environmental Law Association for the Chiefs of Ontario Nuclear Waste Management Training Session. Toronto: CELA.

Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Nuclear Waste Management Organization in Relation to Aboriginal Consultations. (08-14-2009).

38

Murphy, B.L. & Kuhn, R. (2009). Situating Canada’s approaches to siting a nuclear fuel waste management

facility, in Durant, D. & Fuji Johnson, G. (Eds.) Nuclear waste management in Canada: critical issues, critical perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Northwatch. (2011). An overview presentation about nuclear waste, its history in Canada and its hazards. Presentation for the Chiefs of Ontario Nuclear Waste Management Training Session. Toronto: Northwatch.

Northwatch. (2002). Nuclear Notes, Newsletter on Nuclear Waste in Northern Ontario, 1(1).

Natural Resources Canada. (06-14-2007). News Release. NRCan.

Natural Resources Canada. (07-10-1996). Policy Framework for Radioactive Waste. News Release. NRCan.

Natural Resources Canada. (1999). Canada's Emissions Outlook: An Update. Ottawa: NRCan.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel. (1998). Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization. (2011). Moving Forward Together: Triennial Report. Toronto: NWMO.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization. (2011). Presentations for the Chiefs of Ontario Nuclear Waste

Management Training Session. Toronto: NWMO.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization. (2010). NWMO Aboriginal Policy. Toronto: NWMO.

Nuclear Waste Management Organization. (2005). Choosing a Way Forward: The Future of Canada's Used Nuclear Fuel – Final Study. Toronto: NWMO.

Reckmans, L.K., Lewis, K. & Dwyer, A. (Eds.) (2003).This is My Homeland: Stories of the Effects of Nuclear Industries by People of the Serpent River First Nation and the North Shore of Lake Huron. Serpent River First Nation: Anishnabe Printing.

Ross, M. & Smith, P. (2003). Meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples in forest management: a focus on Canada, paper submitted to the XII World Forestry Congress. Quèbec City.

Stanley, A. (2009). Representing the knowledges of Aboriginal peoples: the “management” of diversity in

Canada’s nuclear fuel waste, in Durant, D. & Fuji Johnson, G. (Eds.) Nuclear waste management in Canada: critical issues, critical perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Timmerman, P. (2009). The long haul: ethics in the Canadian nuclear waste debate, in Durant, D. & Fuji

Johnson, G. (Eds.) Nuclear waste management in Canada: critical issues, critical perspectives. Vancouver: UBC Press.

WISE-Uranium Project. (n.d.). World Information Service on Energy: Uranium Project.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/

World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). Uranium in Canada. Retrieved March 9, 2012 from

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html

39

Appendix A Ethical Questions Relevant to NWMO’s Procedures (NWMO, 2005)

Some of the questions that arise concerning procedures are:

• Who should participate in the decision-making process? • What principles should guide consultations, deliberations, and the making of decisions?

• When facts are in dispute or unavoidably uncertain, how should NWMO proceed?

These general questions give rise to more specific ones. The list of questions that follow is not meant to be

exhaustive. For each question, the principle/s involved is/are in boldface type.

Q1. Is NWMO conducting its activities in a way appropriate to making public policy in a free, pluralistic, and

democratic society? In particular, are its activities open, inclusive, and fair to all parties, giving everyone with an interest in the matter an opportunity to have their views heard and taken into account by

NWMO? Are groups most likely to be affected by each spent fuel management option, including the transportation required by some of the options, being given full opportunity to have their views heard

and taken into account by NWMO? Is NWMO giving special attention to aboriginal communities, as is mandated by the governing legislation?

Q2. Are those making decisions and forming recommendations for NWMO impartial, their deliberations not influenced by conflict of interest, personal gain, or bias?

Q3. Are groups wishing to make their views known to NWMO being provided with the forms of

assistance they require to present their case effectively?

Q4. Is NWMO committed to basing its deliberations and decisions on the best knowledge in particular, the

best natural science, the best social science, the best aboriginal knowledge, and the best ethics – relevant to the management of nuclear materials, and to doing assessments and formulating

recommendations in this light? Equally, have limits to the current state of knowledge, in particular gaps and areas of uncertainty in current knowledge, been publicly identified and the interpretation of their

importance publicly discussed and justified?

Q5. Does NWMO provide a justification for its decisions and recommendations? In particular, when a balance

is struck among a number of competing considerations, is a justification given for the balance selected?

Q6. Is NWMO conducting itself in accord with the precautionary approach, which first seeks to avoid harm

and risk of harm and then, if harm or risk of harm is unavoidable, places the burden of proving that the harm or risk is ethically justified on those making the decision to impose it?

Q7. In accordance with the doctrine of informed consent, are those who could be exposed to harm or risk of

harm (or other losses or limitations) being fully consulted and are they willing to accept what is

proposed for them?

40

Appendix B Waste Management for Fuel Waste (Source: World Nuclear Association)

Country Policy Facilities and progress towards final repositories

Belgium Reprocessing Central waste storage at Dessel

Underground laboratory established 1984 at Mol

Construction of repository to begin about 2035

Canada Direct disposal Nuclear Waste Management Organization mandated to

contain and store high level radioactive waste Deep Geological Repository confirmed as policy,

retrievable

Repository site search from 2009, planned for use

2025

China Reprocessing Central used fuel storage at LanZhou

Repository site selection to be completed by 2020

Underground research laboratory from 2020, disposal

from 2050

Finland Direct disposal Program start 1983, two waste storage sites in

operation

Posiva Oy set up 1995 to implement deep geological

disposal Underground research laboratory Onkalo under

construction

Repository planned from this, near Olkiluoto, open in

2020

France Reprocessing Underground rock laboratories in clay and granite

Parliamentary confirmation in 2006 of deep geological

disposal, containers to be retrievable and policy

"reversible" Bure clay deposit is likely repository site to be licensed

2015, operating 2025

Germany Reprocessing

but moving to direct disposal

Repository planning started 1973

Used fuel storage at Ahaus and Gorleben salt dome

Geological repository may be operational at Gorleben

after 2025

India Reprocessing Research on deep geological disposal for HLW

Japan Reprocessing Underground laboratory at Mizunami in granite since

1996 High-level waste storage facility at Rokkasho since

1995

High-level waste storage approved for Mutsu from

2010 NUMO set up 2000, site selection for deep geological

repository under way to 2025, operation from 2035,

retrievable

Russia Reprocessing Underground laboratory in granite or gneiss in

Krasnoyarsk region from 2015, may evolve into repository

Sites for final repository under investigation on Kola

peninsula

Various interim storage facilities in operation

South Korea Direct disposal Waste program confirmed 1998

Central interim storage planned from 2016

41

Spain Direct disposal ENRESA established 1984, its plan accepted 1999

Central interim storage probably at Trillo from 2010

Research on deep geological disposal, decision after

2010

Sweden Direct disposal Central used fuel storage facility in operation since

1985 Underground research laboratory at Aspo for High

Level Waste repository

Osthammar site selected for repository (volunteered

location)

Switzerland Reprocessing Central interim storage for High Level Waste at Zwilag

since 2001

Central Low & Interim Level Waste storages operating

since 1993

Underground research laboratory for high-level waste

repository at Grimsel since 1983 Deep repository by 2020, containers to be retrievable

United

Kingdom

Reprocessing Low-level waste repository in operation since 1959

High Level Waste from reprocessing is vitrified and

stored at Sellafield

Repository location to be on basis of community

agreement New NDA subsidiary to progress geological disposal

USA Direct disposal

but reconsidering

DoE responsible for used fuel from 1998, $32 billion

fund Considerable research and development on repository

in welded tuffs at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 2002 decision that the Yucca Mountain repository was

countered politically in 2009 and struck down in 2010

Note: In most countries repositories or at least storage facilities for low-level wastes and intermediate-

level wastes are operating.