Evidence of meeting #3 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was radioactive.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Swami, I have two questions for you, and a yes or no answer will do. Should you have more to say, please send the committee your answer in writing.
Can you commit to including radioactive waste from future small modular reactors in the waste management strategy, yes or no?
12:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization
I'm not sure I understood the question.
We are required on the APM to take in all small modular reactor waste, and it is part of our study for the integrated radioactive waste strategy.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Very good.
As you know, we import nuclear waste, but in December, your organization reiterated the fact that it manages only waste generated in Canada.
Should there be a law that prohibits waste from being imported, yes or no?
12:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Again, we don't import waste from other jurisdictions. The waste that we are responsible for is Canadian waste—
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
I don't mean your organization, Ms. Swami. I'm referring to other organizations.
Would you support a law prohibiting the import of radioactive waste, yes or no?
12:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization
I cannot comment on a bill—
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Hendrickson, as we discussed earlier, radioactive waste levels have been reclassified. Mr. Longfield said that the amount of radioactive waste had decreased, but that is due to the fact that intermediate-level radioactive waste has now been reclassified as low-level radioactive waste.
Do you see a connection between how quickly radioactive waste is being sent to Chalk River and the new regulations? Many argue the regulations go against the most basic principles of the physical sciences.
12:35 p.m.
Researcher, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
It is very challenging to actually measure many of the radionuclides in radioactive waste. It's difficult. It's easy to measure something like cobalt-60, which is a powerful gamma emitter, but for many of the beta and even alpha emitters, it takes pretty specialized equipment.
When waste is mixed—potentially low- and intermediate-level waste—it's difficult to know whether it should be classified as low or intermediate. Our concern is that a lot of intermediate-level waste that's mixed is now being categorized as low-level at Chalk River so that it can go into an above ground mound.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Either way, you're over your two and a half minutes. Sorry.
I have Madam Collins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I can ask a quick yes-or-no question of Ms. Swami, Mr. Van Wart and Mr. Gorman. I got the answer already from Mr. Hendrickson on mitigating the risk of a potential conflict of interest around who is regulating and who the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to.
I'm just wondering if each of you would welcome a change in who the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to and changing it from the Minister of Natural Resources to the Minister of the Environment.
12:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization
For clarity, the CNSC actually reports to Parliament and does not report to the Minister of Natural Resources, so I don't see a need for a change.
12:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
I would echo Ms. Swami's comment.
12:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Nuclear Sustainability Services, Ontario Power Generation Inc.
Canada's current regulatory regime aligns with international best practices from our perspective, so I agree with Mr. Gorman and Ms. Swami.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I know that Mr. Hendrickson had his hand up earlier and wanted to respond, so I just wanted to open up space, Mr. Hendrickson, for you to make your comments.
12:40 p.m.
Researcher, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area
Yes. Thanks.
You asked about climate change impacts. I think that's very important, and that's why the siting of nuclear waste facilities is so important. There is a lot of high-level waste right on the shores of Lake Ontario. We don't know what the lake levels will do in the future. It's fairly imperative to move that away.
At Chalk River, for the proposed mound, we don't know what extreme rainfall and snowfall amounts might do in terms of washing the waste off that mound and leaching waste out. That's why the IAEA says that siting is an extremely critical part of radioactive waste management.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you so much, Mr. Hendrickson.
Just going back, Ms. Swami, Mr. Gorman and Mr. Van Wart, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources, who is also responsible for overseeing the production of nuclear energy, so there is a potential for at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, given that the International Atomic Energy Agency says that, in order to be credible and to have public trust, regulators need to mitigate those potential risks—
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We'll take that as a comment, an insightful comment, but we'll have to now move to Mr. Albas.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, thank you to all the witnesses who are here.
I'd like to start with Mr. Van Wart. In regard to SMR development, obviously the Darlington site is going to be Canada's first shot at trying this out. It's my understanding that this particular Hitachi project is a third-generation modular reactor versus a fourth generation.
Could you just explain what the difference is in the technology? Also, what are their results for waste? I understand if you can't say, because fourth generation is still being tested, but could you just give us an idea? Is there going to be more waste? What kind of waste? Will it fit well into the current regime we have here in Canada? Let's start with that.
12:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Nuclear Sustainability Services, Ontario Power Generation Inc.
I think the way I would like to address that question, because I am certainly not an expert in the SMR technology, is that we have a team here at OPG, a large team, working with that project. If I could, I would provide a written response to your question as opposed to my trying to give you my less than—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
That's fine. I would appreciate a written response, because I do think the public needs to know that there is a difference between what we've traditionally used in Canada and some of the new approaches that will be used for some of the things Mr. Dreeshen has called in support of.
I'll go back to Mr. Gorman. I asked earlier about this level of support, and you said the government had given some. Now, that's despite the lack of endorsement for anything nuclear by Minister Guilbeault.
Could you tell us what the gap is right now? How can members of Parliament best encourage this government? Is it in money, encouragement or championing the work that has been done, the work that the nuclear sector will do with this technology? Could you give us an idea of money, and can you give us an idea of best ways to support?
12:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
I think all of those things are needed. I'll start with clear support from all government policy-makers, clear and ongoing repeated acknowledgement that nuclear is not only clean but needed for a net-zero future. That's extremely important for all sorts of different reasons.
In terms of financial support, I think there are a couple of important things to recognize here. One is that the industry, including four utilities and four provinces, has come together with an integrated pan-Canadian plan for the development and deployment of small modular reactors. It was developed with Natural Resources Canada over a number of years through wide consultation and followed up with an action plan from the Liberal government.
The utilities are not only forging ahead but bringing matching financing, so that financing request should be met. I think, as I remarked earlier, the tax credits and accelerated capital cost allowances that are being extended to other clean energy sources like wind and solar must be extended to the nuclear industry, and that includes the contemplated investment tax credit.
All of those things, leadership in terms of recognizing that nuclear is clean and matching financing for the first-of-a-kind rollout of these small modular reactors, are essential.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Send the committee what that would look like. Quite honestly, at this point, I would love Minister Guilbeault....
A tweet, Minister, doesn't cost very much, and chances are that tweet has been provided by no-carbon energy here in Ontario, so that would be a good start, but I'd also like to have that recognition in the House of Commons.
How can we best advance this? Is it through writing letters to Minister Guilbeault and Minister Wilkinson?