NB Gvt. and NB Power - misleading public - ARC-100 waste

[Oscar]

New Brunswick government and NB Power misleading the public about plan for ARC-100 radioactive waste

[ https://crednb.ca/2023/04/04/plan-for-a ... ive-waste/ ]

For Immediate Release - April 4, 2023 - Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED)

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) [ https://crednb.ca/ ] is rebuking the provincial government and the public utility NB Power for hiding the truth about a controversial plan for high-level nuclear waste from the proposed ARC-100 nuclear reactor.

The province has given $25 million to the ARC company to develop its nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy.

The plan to extract plutonium from the ARC-100 used nuclear fuel – using reprocessing – is described in a request for a federal impact assessment sent Friday to Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. [ https://crednb.files.wordpress.com/2023 ... red-nb.pdf ]

The request is based on new information about the ARC-100 project that has arisen since a previous designation request was submitted in July 2022, that was rejected by the Minister in December.

The new request to the Minister raises “serious concerns about NB Power's lack of full disclosure of information” about the ARC-100 project.

“The evidence is clear that the plan is to extract plutonium from the ARC-100 high-level radioactive waste. However, during the original review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, in public documents, and in testimony to recent New Brunswick Legislative Assembly hearings, both the ARC company and NB Power kept that controversial information to themselves," says Susan O'Donnell, CRED-NB representative.

Reprocessing used fuel – extracting plutonium to use as fuel in a nuclear reactor – is currently not permitted in Canada because of nuclear weapons proliferation risks. [ https://www.nwmo.ca/~/media/Site/Files/ ... ashx?la=en ] Canada's de facto ban on reprocessing began in the 1970s, after India tested its first nuclear weapon made using plutonium from a "peaceful" nuclear reactor, a gift from Canada.

On Friday, the same day CRED-NB submitted its request to the federal minister, Canada released its new radioactive waste policy that civil society groups called "profoundly disappointing." During the public consultation period in 2021 and since the start of 2023, civil society has waged a campaign for the radioactive waste policy to permanently ban reprocessing in Canada. More than 7,000 Canadians submitted letters demanding that the policy bans reprocessing. [ https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=r ... mNZHgSHXfk ]

However, the new policy released Friday states that reprocessing is outside the scope of the policy, meaning that reprocessing is both not permitted and actively encouraged.

"Abdicating responsibility for oversight on plutonium reprocessing is not only poor governance but also reckless and dangerous. The research is clear that reprocessing increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, in addition to its environmental risks," Dr. O'Donnell said. [ https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catal ... r-reactors ]

CRED-NB's request to Minister Guilbeault is a collaboration with three other groups, led by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. The two Ontario grassroots organizations – We the Nuclear Free North and Protect our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste – are each opposing plans for the nuclear industry to site a permanent repository in their communities and region.

"Reprocessing intensely radioactive spent fuel presents more opportunities for release of radionuclides than leaving spent fuel in thick metal or concrete casks," says Brennain Lloyd, spokesperson for Northwatch, one of the member groups in We the Nuclear Free North. "Reprocessing does not reduce the need for radioactive waste storage or long-term management. After reprocessing, the remaining material will be in several different waste forms, and the total volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor of 20 or more."

“The Sustainable Energy Group (SEG) has been a longtime opponent of nuclear power and was disappointed in the decision by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change not to order a federal impact assessment in December of 2022 and supports a second request based partly on errors made in the first rejection by Minister Guilbeault,” said Sam Arnold, representing SEG, a CRED-NB coalition member.

CRED-NB is a member of the Nuclear Waste Watch Radioactive Waste Review Group that prepared An Alternative Policy for Canada on Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning in 2022 that also called for a ban on reprocessing. In contrast to Canada's plan released on Friday, the Alternative Policy is based on fundamental principles of transparency, safety and the public good.
[ https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/up ... ch2022.pdf ]

-30-


For more information:

Request on March 31, 2023 to Minister Guilbeault for a federal Impact Assessment for the ARC-100, HERE. [ https://crednb.files.wordpress.com/2023 ... red-nb.pdf ]

CRED-NB memo about the plans to reprocess the used ARC-100 fuel, and risks and some implications for the New Brunswick public, HERE. [ https://crednb.files.wordpress.com/2023 ... essing.pdf ]

Susan O'Donnell, PhD, spokesperson,
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
Phone: 506-261-1727
Email: info@crednb.ca