by John Chilibeck, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Source: Telegraph-Jounal
September 18, 2026
The heavy water that leaked last week at a nuclear plant near Saint John is radioactive, NB Power has confirmed.
At just past 5 p.m. on Friday, the public utility responded to questions posed by Brunswick News early Friday morning asking if the leak at the Point Lepreau Generating Station was highly radioactive.
Critics have accused NB Power of downplaying a hazardous spill.
“The heavy water involved is radioactive and contained within the reactor building,” wrote spokesperson Elizabeth Fraser-McAllister, in an email. “The heavy water is at the levels expected in the heat transport system where it circulates.”
Blitzed with follow-up questions from Brunswick News, NB Power said it would respond Monday.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which oversees all nuclear plants in the country, said late Friday that as soon as its site inspectors stationed at Point Lepreau found out about the spill on Sept. 10, they acted.
“We are engaged with NB Power as it conducts a thorough assessment of the incident and undertakes the necessary repair activities,” wrote Sarah Dolan, a spokeswoman with the safety commission. “There has been no impact on the safety of workers, the public or the environment, and no workers have been reported to have received radiation doses above regulatory limits.”
She said the commission’s staff would continue to oversee NB Power’s response and review the results of the ongoing assessment of how to repair the leak.
Danger to workers
Still, the leak raised the alarm for Gordon Edwards, the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.
He said in an interview on Friday the coolant water from a small instrumentation line that was found leaking inside the reactor building has tritium in it.
Tritium is an isotope that is radioactive and unstable.
The heavy water normally circulates through the reactor in a closed-loop system and is used as a coolant.
Edwards said the danger would be to workers if they inhaled the warm vapour of the spilled heavy water.
“When the stuff leaks, like in this case, it’s a genuine problem for the workers, because they’re going to get a brief high exposure to the tritium that they normally wouldn’t be exposed to,” said Edwards, a retired mathematician from Montreal who’s in his eighties and has spent much of his life researching nuclear plants.
“Normally that stuff is in the pipes. It’s not out where they can breathe it. But once it gets out of the pipes, it’s mostly the water vapour that’s a danger.”
NB Power told Brunswick News on Tuesday the leak was contained to the heavy-walled reactor building and there was “no risk to the public, employees or the environment.”
In its earlier news release from Sept. 14, the public utility did not mention the heavy water was radioactive, nor did spokespeople use the word during a subsequent interview and follow up emails, until Friday evening, after Brunswick News posed more questions.
Lack of transparency
Susan O’Donnell, lead researcher at the Cedar project at St. Thomas University, which pushes for green energy transitions, criticized NB Power for not being more transparent.
“It would have been even more informative to mention that the heavy water that leaked has been in the reactor since 1983 and is now highly radioactive,” she wrote on a reader’s forum. “Interesting that nobody interviewed for the story mentioned that salient fact.”
The union representing most of NB Power’s nuclear employees, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW local 34, did not immediately reply when Brunswick News sought comment on early Friday afternoon.
The safety commission sets limits on the releases of tritium and requires all Canadian nuclear operators to conduct and report on their environmental monitoring.
Heavy water in and of itself is not radioactive. The special liquid is used in Candu reactors like Point Lepreau so they can run efficiently on cheap, unenriched natural uranium.
The heavy water has two express purposes: a neutron moderator to slow down fast neutrons and a coolant to transfer heat away from the reactor core.
The line that leaked was circulating coolant water, which Edwards said has less tritium, and as result, less radioactivity than what’s in the 360,000 litres of heavy water that just sits in the reactor moderator tank, called the calandria. It builds up radiation over time.
But the coolant is still highly radioactive, he said, estimating it had about 50 billion becquerels per litre.
For comparison, the maximum permissible level of tritium in drinking water is 7,000 becquerels per litre, so the heavy water used as a coolant was millions of times more radioactive than the maximum level of contamination allowed by law, he said.
Repairs could take weeks
It’s still unclear, however, how much water leaked, several litres or just a few drops. And there’s been no indication that the workers were unprotected and exposed to the hazardous vapours.
The commission on its website states that tritium can increase the risk of cancer if consumed in extremely large quantities.
It also states the highest average annual tritium level measured in the drinking water of Canadian communities near nuclear facilities is about 18 becquerels per litre, well below Health Canada’s recommended drinking water limit of 7,000 becquerels per litre.
Edwards said he hoped none of the workers had been exposed.
“Water with tritium generally goes right through the body, but some of it doesn’t go out. It gets absorbed into the organic molecules of the body. It’s called organically bound tritium. And this organically bound tritium stays in the body longer and continues to radiate the sensitive cells. The long-term consequences are mostly cancer.”
NB Power earlier this week said the work to repair the leak was difficult and complex and that multiple shifts of workers had to be used because the reactor building is warmer than most places. Kathleen Duguay, a spokeswoman, said the work could take days or several weeks.
In the meantime, the plant remains offline and won’t produce any electricity.
Workers leaving sensitive areas of the plant are always scanned for radiation levels.
This story was written by John Chilibeck, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter with Brunswick News.


































Commentary: No Madam Mayor, we’re not dead yet
by Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate Tantramar
Tantramar Mayor Debbie Wiggins-Colwell wearing her chain of office
Whatever you may think about municipal politics and local politicians, it’s hard to argue that Tantramar’s new mayor and council have been sitting on their hands.
Finally, it seems, we’re working towards a solution to the problems that have plagued Sackville Fire & Rescue. At long last, the province has promised to replace the Peck’s Cove Bridge in Rockport, and it appears as though a citizen’s committee will soon be struck to recommend what to do about the Wheaton Covered Bridge.
And while the premier was invited to visit Tantramar for months and months, it took our new mayor and council to get her here to listen to their, and our, concerns. Great!
But, oh, now this!
Mayor Wiggins-Colwell’s Facebook post just a couple of hours after the province announced its approval of the Centre Village Gas Plant has raised urgent questions about how committed this council is to the well-being of our community.
To say her post was disappointing is a gross understatement.
It was uncaring, dismissive and patronizing, and may finally demonstrate what many of us have believed all along – that our municipal politicians simply do not understand the perils posed by the NB Power/ PROENERGY gas plant.
In a nutshell, Mayor Wiggins-Colwell said that we must now roll over, accept the gas plant, believe blindly that the province had our best interests at heart by approving it with certain conditions and that besides, such matters fall outside the town’s jurisdiction.
So in response, let me say this loud and clear: No, Madam Mayor. We’re not about to roll over and we’re not dead yet. Not even close.
Let’s go through her post point by point.
First: “On behalf of Council…” she begins. What does that mean really? Where does the mayor get the authority to make public pronouncements on behalf of council? Any deliberative body requires a resolution to authorize the senior officer to speak on behalf of it.
So, where is the resolution? And when was the public meeting that passed it?
We’d like to see a poll. How many members of council agree with the mayor’s statement?
Second: the mayor’s statement says: “…we recognize the significant public interest” in the gas plant project.
No kidding.
Of course there is significant public interest in this brainless project. The Centre Village gas plant is the most consequential proposal to come forward to this community in generations. If built, it would change just about everything about life on the Chignecto Isthmus, for many generations and maybe irrevocably, for humans, for plant life, for birds and animals.
Significant public interest?” We’re not talking about a dog park here.
Third: “…our residents hold a range of perspectives on the project.”
Huh?
Why is this relevant? Is this mentioned as justification for not doing anything? Is the mayor saying, “Our residents hold a range of perspectives, so therefore council can’t take a stand?”
But the council has already taken a stand by passing resolutions opposing the gas plant not once, but twice. Residents held a range of perspectives then, just as they do now.
Besides, there’s “a range of perspectives” on every issue that comes before council. A bylaw on open fires? A new dog park? A slaughterhouse in the industrial park? What about changing the Mixed Use Zone to allow seven stories in our downtown? Didn’t take long for that change to get approved, despite a demonstrated “range of perspectives.”
Every issue generates debate.
We elect our mayor and council to consider all viewpoints, determine the best interests of the community, and act accordingly. Their job is to show leadership.
Fourth: “…we must move forward with the expectation that all public concerns are reflected in the conditions” attached to the environmental approval.
Madam Mayor, have you read the conditions? Do you realize that many of them are mere window dressing, requiring PROENERGY to follow the law, for example, when of course, it’s required to follow the law in any case, whether it’s spelled out in a fancy list of conditions or not?
In the last 14 months, the arguments in favour of the gas plant have been thoroughly debunked by those of us resisting it.
We’ve enlisted economics experts, climate change experts, energy experts, ecologists, medical doctors, environmental scientists, lawyers. We’ve submitted bundles of documents to provincial officials refuting the proponents’ arguments, and in virtually every case we have received bland non-responses or none at all. Instead, NB Power, PROENERGY and provincial politicians continue to trot out the same tired arguments, over and over, as if our arguments were never made or held no weight at all.
Have you read the list of conditions Madam Mayor? Have you considered how embarrassingly vague they are? How ambiguous? How jam-packed with the apparently unfettered discretion of bureaucrats in Fredericton who, so far at least, seem impervious to anything like logic, caring, or concern for our shared future?
I ask again: Have you really read them?
Fifth: “As the development moves forward, Council’s role is to consider matters that fall within municipal jurisdiction.”
This sounds so much like former Mayor Black’s position, publicly stated more than once, when he said words like “We have no levers to pull,” or just as limply, “We must stay in our lane.”
“As the development moves forward…?” No Madam Mayor, we’re not dead yet.
Councillor Butcher famously suggested at a council meeting that we can’t tell the province what do do, akin to a child telling a parent what to do or an employee telling the boss how to run the company.
Well, let’s get this on the table in the hope that any uncertainty about this subject can be removed: We know that the town is not in a position to veto the Centre Village gas plant. No one has asked council to do this. No one expects such a miracle.
But what do we expect? What is within council’s jurisdiction?
Section 5 of the Local Governance Act sets out the purposes of the municipality. Pretty basic stuff. The fundamentals. The genesis, really, of everything that’s done at our town hall. What does section 5 say?
It says that one purpose of the municipality is to foster the social and environmental well-being of its community. Notice use of the word “foster.” This is an active verb, it requires action, it suggests that the council must identify what is consistent with social and environmental well-being, and then take steps to achieve it.
This is not about passivity, it’s not about staying silent so as not to offend the boss. It’s about having a vision for the future, about the environmental and social well-being of the community, and then about developing a plan to actively foster that well-being.
But what to do if social and environmental well-being is jeopardized? What if the very purpose of the municipality is threatened by an outside force?
Don’t you fight with everything you have?
Don’t you pound your fist on the table and on the doors to the legislature?
Don’t you find every possible forum to advocate for the well-being of your constituents?
Don’t you demonstrate, over and over and over again, in solidarity with your constituents, that you recognize the threat, that you understand your responsibilities, that you will insist time after time that the well-being of your community must be protected and advanced?
Sixth: In her post, the mayor “…encourages residents to rely on official sources of information for updates regarding the process.” At every meeting of council, and in keeping with the meeting protocols set out in the Meeting Procedures By-Law, we sit on our hands, we leave our signs and banners at home, we keep our mouths shut. We are very patient, respectful of those who appear before council, deferential to the rulings of our municipal leadership.
But relying on official pronouncements for information on this debacle? Really? When all we’ve received so far through official channels is bafflegab, doublespeak and mumbofudge? Non-answers to our questions. Deflection. Disingenuous clap-trap.
Are we being encouraged to abandon the organizations we have consulted and recruited across the country on this crazy project? Many of Canada’s (and the world’s) leading thinkers on environmental health and climate change? Some of the top experts on energy economics? Many physicians and ecologists and environmental scientists? In favour of what? Are we being asked to trust the very authorities whose schemes would destroy the Chignecto Isthmus and the futures of our families along with it?
Did you really think this through Madam Mayor? Do you realize what you’re asking us to do?
No, Madam Mayor, we’re not dead yet.
The very essence of life in Tantramar is at stake here, to say nothing of the wider implications for the environment and climate change. The very essence of our community is in jeopardy.
If you don’t think this is something worth fighting for, something sufficiently important for each and every one of us to continue to raise our voices in opposition together, insistently and continuously, then I’m afraid we’ll understand why our municipal leaders avert their eyes when we meet them on the street.
Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate Tantramar scantantramar@gmail.com