Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[Jason Van Wart]

Bruce Power and OPG have done a wonderful job. Lutetium is about to be produced at Bruce Power, which is fantastic for cancer treatment.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you very much for putting that on the record.

At the end of 2016, Canada had an inventory of about 33,000 metric tonnes of intermediate level radioactive waste. I hope I have the units right. In 2019, that inventory had gone down to 15,000 metric tonnes of waste. The inventory dropped from what we had on file. The low-level radioactive waste made up about 98.9% of this total.

Ms. Swami, what caused the drop?

We heard a few hints of that today that some of the waste is getting repurposed. Could you comment on the decrease in our inventory?

[Laurie Swami]

I can't speak specifically to those numbers off the top of my head.

Radioactive waste, by its very nature, decays over time. As it decays, it becomes less radioactive, if you will. During that process...So some of these wastes, that we have in our inventory today, have been with us for many, many years. When you go back to reassess what the waste is, and what its characteristics are, you will find that it's not as radioactive as it once was.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Okay, but a three-year period was shocking to me.

[Laurie Swami]

Well, it depends on when you go about doing that study. The waste may be sitting in storage for over 20-25 years or more. If you don't look at it every day to see what the radioactive content is, when you go back to do that study, you would find that it has reduced in its radioactive content.

That could lead to a change in the inventories that are available. That's what's really important. The radioactive waste does not stay stable in the way it is today. It will decay over time. It will be less as you go forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we are out of time. Maybe a quick comment, Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I was just commenting on the new technologies that might contribute to that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We'll go to Mr. Davidson, for five minutes.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses today. I get really excited when I'm sitting here, and we're talking about Canada again as a world leader.

My question is for Mr. Van Wart. How are you doing, Jason?

York—Simcoe is about an hour north of Pickering. I like to call it the soup and salad bowl of Canada. It's home to Lake Simcoe. Many Canadians want to hear more about the benefits of nuclear energy, and how it's relevant to their lives.

We've heard about helium-3, cobalt-60 and reactors. Some of the words are scary. How does that help Canadians in their lives? Could you speak more about that?

[Jason Van Wart]

I think the most primary thing that nuclear power brings is the electricity that we're using today. As I said in my opening comments, it provides half of the electricity in the province. It's stable. It's reliable. It's cost-effective. At times, I think, in the discussion about nuclear, we forget about that absolutely core piece that we all need in our lives, which is electricity.

So I would start there. As you said, it promotes a number of jobs. Mr. Gorman could probably provide the exact number in the province.

As I talked about in my opening remarks, there is an entire by-product stream providing cobalt-60, which sterilizes medical equipment and food. When you think about the pandemic, over the last two years cobalt-60 consumption has skyrocketed to produce the PPE required for fighting the pandemic.

Molybdenum-99, which we're going to produce at Darlington, will immediately create a North American supply of tech-99 generators to allow people with lung cancer or heart disease to have the diagnostic treatments they need in order to understand their symptoms and to then have them subsequently addressed.

Mr. Longfield mentioned lutetium, which is a cancer treatment. We are working with our partners at OPG to also produce helium-3. For anyone who is interested in quantum computing, the next generation of really advanced computation requires helium-3. It's not naturally occurring on earth. It's a by-product of our tritium that we store safely at the Darlington tritium removal facility. We have innovated and invested in ways to produce a reliable source of helium-3 for Canada and for North America for the development of these technologies. It's used in 5G electronics.

We're also looking at products to help remediate the back end of our decommissioning projects. For our Pickering decommissioning, which will occur in the back half of the decade, one of the major things we need to look at is the heavy water that's left over at our facility. We are working with a number of partners on remediation of that heavy water. Virgin-grade heavy water is a strategic asset. It's not readily available anywhere. Chalk River Laboratories has a certain amount of inventory, but that is a declining inventory. We're looking at investing in remediation of that water to bring a strategic asset like virgin-grade heavy water to Canada as part of the development of diagnostic technologies.

I think those are the things I would add.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thanks very much. That is very interesting.

One thing I didn't tell you, Jason, is that York—Simcoe is also home to the Chippewas of Georgina Island; it's my family....

The proposed repository in Kincardine is within the traditional territories of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation. Can you tell the committee more about your company's commitment to your dialogue and relationships with local first nations with regard to this project?

[Jason Van Wart]

Sure. To start, we respect the rights of all indigenous peoples. Our reconciliation action plan that we released this past year commits over $1 million over the next 10 years in economic benefits to try to work with indigenous nations.

Locally here, we meet routinely with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. We routinely discuss their concerns and their issues related to the waste that's stored at facilities up here.

If you were specifically speaking to the DGR project, the low-level waste repository project that OPG had intended to start here, that project was conceived of in approximately 2005, I believe. In 2013, OPG made a commitment to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation that we wouldn't move forward with that project without their consent. We went through a process with them over nearly a decade—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, we are out of time. I am interested in that project, though, because I've been approached by....

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay.

Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by saying I'm going to be sharing my time with Elizabeth May. I'd like to give her two minutes at the end, if you can let me know when my time is out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Sure.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

I'd like to thank you, Madam Pauzé, for suggesting this study on the disposal of nuclear waste. We seem to have strayed quite far from the topic you suggested. It's good to know about all of these great by-products and the isotopes and all of the other things that are benefiting us, and I think that's wonderful. Like Mr. Duguid, I'm not opposed to any type of power that could help us reach our goals. However, I do have some real concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste, not only in Canada but worldwide, as there is still no long-term operational disposal project for high-level radioactive waste. That's really what we're talking about, I think.

I appreciate that Mr. Mazier asked about the requirements of the nuclear industry when you're talking about waste, and how much more rigorous they are, but I do believe that we all would acknowledge how much more dangerous this waste is as well.

When we're looking right now at the adaptive phased management program that's in place, the costs were estimated to be $23 billion in 2015 dollars. We still haven't found a site for that. In fact, there's a lot of opposition. We were just talking about relations with first nations, and we saw that the Kincardine site was rejected by the Ojibway Nation.

What is the realistic expectation of finding one of these sites for our waste? If we're not able to do that, what is the alternative?

[Laurie Swami]

There are a few things in your comments. First of all, facilities for low- and intermediate-level waste worldwide are operating and have been in service for some time. Certainly they vary in terms of depth and that type of thing, but essentially we will be using the same concept and the same process for used fuel that we would use for low- and intermediate-level waste, particularly intermediate-level waste. Those do exist. So we have proof of concept.

Finland's facility is under construction. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, they have applied for an operating licence and they anticipate placing their spent fuel in their repository in the next two to three years. Sweden has just approved a site. I would say that, as are all of the tier 1 nuclear nations, Canada is on the cusp of doing that.

We are working very closely with communities in two particular areas. In the northwestern part of Ontario, there is Ignace municipality, but we're also working very closely with Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. In the south we have South Bruce and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation that was just talked about. In both of those cases, we have made a commitment to indigenous communities that we will not proceed without their free, prior and informed consent. This is fundamental to our work.

As to whether I think we will be successful, I believe we will be. We have been working with these communities for many, many years, and they are beginning to understand—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Could I just interject for a minute? My time is short, and I appreciate what you're saying. Could you also address the cost part of that? We were told these costs are prefunded. Cost estimates, as you know, have a way of increasing, and those estimates were in 2015 dollars. Has that all been prefunded, and how? Is that money sitting someplace right now?

[Laurie Swami]

Yes. The money is prefunded—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 45 seconds.

[Laurie Swami]

—for the existing fuel bundles. It's sitting in trust funds that are held for the NWMO to access when we have our construction licence, and those funds continue. We look at these funds every five years to re-estimate what the costs could be. Of course, we look for cost savings because we recognize there could be a cost push, so we are always looking for efficiencies and better ways of doing it. We found one that is unique to Canada, in terms of our used fuel packaging, which is a very important part of the work we do. Our engineering team does a great job around these things.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I have one quick question. Could you please send—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. Taylor Roy, I'm afraid we've actually bumped up against your five minutes. I'm going to make an executive decision. Hopefully it won't meet with protests. I will have a question at the end. We do have a very small buffer at the end. I have a very short question and I would also like to provide Ms. May with an opportunity to ask a question at the end. I think it's in order.

We'll go to Madam Pauzé now, please.