Does public input on radionuclides matter?: Countering the government critique on public recommendations.

Our guest blogger for this post is John Jackson, who has been one of Canada’s most dedicated champions of Great Lakes protection for decades. In addition to serving in many roles for Great Lakes advocacy groups, John is a founding member of Great Lakes Ecoregion Network.

The first two posts  in this series emphasized why radionuclides should be designated as CMCs. In 2016 and again in 2022, 110 environmental, health and other advocacy groups nominated radionuclides to be named Chemicals of Mutual Concern (CMCs) under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Most recently, John Jackson coordinated the submission of public comments from 126 groups to the U.S. and Canadian governments on September 5, 2025. This post, our final in this series, summarizes the critique from these comments.

Annex 3 of the GLWQA addresses CMCs and the process by which toxic and hazardous chemicals are assessed and designated (or not) by the U.S. and Canadian governments. Since the GLWQA was last updated in 2012, only eight chemicals have been designated. In June 2025, the Annex 3 co-leads from the Canada Water Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommended to the Great Lakes Executive Committee (GLEC)—the binational committee that oversees cooperative actions between the two governments on the Great Lakes—that radionuclides not be passed on from the “initial screening” stage and instead should be removed from further consideration of being designated as CMCs.

Our review of the two initial reports that the Annex 3 co-leads submitted to GLEC indicates that there are serious flaws in the governments’ evaluations and, therefore, do not justify removing radionuclides from further consideration for CMC status. This post summarizes the five major  concerns raised in the submission that 126 environmental non-governmental organizations presented to the governments on September 5, 2025.

1.      Failure to take long-term preventive and precautionary approach

Chemicals of Mutual Concern (CMCs) are instruments unique to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 2012 (GLWQA). This means that the principles and commitments in the GLWQA that the Canadian and United States governments adopted when they signed the Agreement are the ones that the governments should use when determining the appropriateness of designating CMCs and when taking actions on CMCs. These principles include the ecosystem approach, precaution, prevention, sustainability, and public engagement. and commitments in the Agreement. The governments failed to use the GLWQA as their guide.

The major flaw in the governments’ analysis is their focus on the present situation, which they see as being taken care of adequately by government agencies and committees (despite the fact that there is strong disagreement with that in many quarters), and their dismissal of the potential for differing or growing impacts in the future. Even while admitting gaps, the government reports display overwhelming and unjustified confidence in the status quo.

This failure to use forward-looking criteria is even more important because of the nature of some radionuclides, which have serious immediate, long-term and intergenerational effects on human and non-human health. Some are extremely persistent, with radioactivity lasting for a million years or longer.

2.      Large gaps in understanding of health impacts

Our health experts, Cindy Folkers of Beyond Nuclear and Mary Olson of Generational Radiation Impact Project, concluded that there are large gaps in our understanding of radionuclides emissions on public health and emphasized the need for more data and greater health protection. They determined that “adequate measures are NOT being implemented through existing radiation regulations to fully protect public health, contrary to public claims made by the agency staff and industry.” A few of the research gaps they pointed out are: 1) effects of internal exposures, 2) disproportionate impacts on females, children and pregnancy, and 3) incomplete assessment of cancer AND non-cancer disease outcomes.”

They concluded that “our lack of understanding in these fundamental areas necessitates further research on radionuclides, and a CMC designation for radionuclides would support this need.”

3.      Serious flaws in the nuclear regulatory system

In her review of governance of radionuclides, Theresa McClenaghan of the Canadian Environmental Law Association determined that “The US and Canadian approach to evaluate criteria on management actions on radionuclides is extremely limited in scope and fails to take into consideration key factors that show that the government regulators are in a situation of regulatory capture by the nuclear industry.”  Examples that she presented on the Canadian side were that “government departments do not work independently from the nuclear safety agencies,” “absence of separating the regulatory body from promotional activities for the industry, which can lead to catastrophic results,” and “evidence that regulatory agencies support the needs and demands of the regulated industry, while not addressing concerns by civil society.”

In his report to us, Michael Keegan of the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes showed examples of similar problems on the U.S. side of the basin. He also pointed out disruption occurring on the U.S. side  with presidential executive orders “undermining the oversight authority of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” and “fast tracking of approvals for unproven new reactor projects without regard for safety, health or environmental impacts.”

4.      Governments pay minimal attention to unexpected or catastrophic events

In their critique of the citizens’ submission, the governments asserted that their regulatory systems and their standards are so good they will even cover the unexpected. Our expert, Barry Boyer, a member of the Great Lakes Ecoregion Network and a Professor of Law Emeritus, pointed out that “it is shortsighted and self-defeating to focus only on current routine releases of radionuclides while ignoring the risks of plausible but low probability catastrophic releases.” After pointing out several catastrophes around the world such as Fukushima, Chernobyl, Thee Mile Island, Fermi, and the U.S. Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP),  Boyer points out that the uncertainties that can lead to unexpected events may be increasing because “with many vectors of change and instability in play, our nations’ ability to control radionuclides for generations to come needs to be analyzed rather than assumed.”

Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch and We the Nuclear Free North pointed out the potential for major accidents during the transportation of radionuclides. For example, a disposal site for used nuclear fuel bundles (high level nuclear waste) from all of Canada is proposed to be built in Revell in northwestern Ontario. If this site is built, it would  “involve 2 to 3 shipments per day for more than 50 years with each truck hauling 35 tonnes of radioactive waste per trip. Over 90% of the shipments will come from Southern Ontario, averaging 1,700 km per trip.”

5.      Flawed public engagement

The regulatory agencies show a lack of respect for the public, even though the GLWQA emphasizes the involvement of the public. In response to the 2016 application by 110 groups urging that  radionuclides be designated as CMCs, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated the following on page 1 of their January 2017 recommendation: “Recommendation that Radionuclides Not Be Listed as Chemicals of Mutual Concern Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement”:

“Designating radionuclides as chemicals of mutual concern will unnecessarily increase regulatory burden without a commensurate increase in safety or environmental protection. In addition, the change in designation may unnecessarily increase public concerns by implying that current regulations are not protecting public health, safety, and the environment.”

As noted, since the GLWQA was last updated in 2012, only eight chemicals have been designated as CMCs. Are there really only eight substances that the public should be concerned about in the Great Lakes?

This 2013 map shows the extent of hot spots in the region. Since then some plants have closed and others have opened or have had their lives extended."

Is it appropriate to avoid increasing public concerns?

Isn’t it worse to put the public at ease when there is evidence of problems or potential risks?

The 126 organizations that supported this submission strongly believe that it is essential to designate radionuclides as CMCs and take action to protect the Great Lakes for centuries to come. Avoiding increased public concern about radionuclides could well result in long-term disaster for the Great Lakes basin and their human and non-human residents.

If you want  more details on the submission summarized in this blog or to work with the groups advocating for CMC designation by the governments , please visit  the Great Lakes Ecoregion Network website at https://www.greatlakesecoregion.org/toxics-radionuclides-team and/or contact John Jackson the GLEN Toxics and Radionuclides Issue Team chair at jjackson@web.ca.

GLEN welcomes diverse perspectives on Great Lakes protection. Please note that the views in our posts are those of the author. To learn more about GLEN please visit our website at https://www.greatlakesecoregion.org/.

To get all our posts, please subscribe to our Great Lake Together Substack at greatlakestogether.substack.com