Environment Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2022

[Laurie Swami, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

My name is Laurie Swami. I am the president and CEO of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or the NWMO. It's an honour to appear before you today to discuss the work of the NWMO. I would like to begin by acknowledging that the study we are participating in today is being conducted on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today I am here to talk about the NWMO and our mandate to implement Canada's plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in a manner that protects both people and the environment.

The need for a permanent solution for Canada's used nuclear fuel has been studied and discussed for more than 50 years. The overwhelming result of this work—and work done over the same period internationally—was that over the long term, used nuclear fuel should be managed in a deep geological repository and in a location that is socially acceptable. Further, to be successful, there must be political fortitude to move waste projects forward. We have seen this fortitude in Canada as government direction has steered policy forward, starting with the creation of the NWMO by federal legislation in 2002 and the selection of Canada's plan in 2007.

We are an independent, not-for-profit organization and are fully funded by Canada's nuclear electricity producers. By funding us, the waste producers demonstrate responsibility for implementing a long-term disposal plan.

The federal government has oversight of our work. We submit annual reports, which are tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Natural Resources. We are also accountable to Canadians. Starting at the very outset, we engaged Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including first nations, Métis and Inuit.

Based on the values and priorities that Canadians and indigenous people said were important, we proposed a plan for managing used nuclear fuel in a purpose-built, deep geological repository, using both engineering systems and the rock itself to protect people and the environment. We also heard that we must locate our repository in an area with informed and willing hosts.

I cannot emphasize enough that Canadians have made it clear that we must take responsible action now rather than leaving waste for the next generation.

While utilities are accountable and continue to safely manage used nuclear fuel on site at reactor facilities, the current approach is temporary and not suitable for the long term. As we have implemented our plan, we have heard repeatedly that purpose-built, deep geological repositories represent the best way to protect people, the environment and our precious water resources over the very long term. Canada can be proud to be among the leading countries advancing repository projects and doing our part to set a safe, science-based global standard.

I would like to provide a few recent examples of the international consensus and support for deep geological repositories.

Last year, the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency issued a report on the management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste, which confirmed that geological repositories are the best approach.

This year, the International Energy Agency's review of Canada's energy policy recommended that the Canadian government support NWMO's mandate in selecting a site for a deep geological repository.

Finally, last week Sweden announced its approval of a deep geological repository for its spent fuel, just a few weeks after Finland applied for an operating licence for its repository.

Today we are well into a voluntary site selection process and are on track to identify a safe site for our country's repository, with informed and willing hosts, by the end of 2023.

I am proud of the work this country has done and continues to do to ensure that radioactive waste management remains a strength of the nuclear sector, keeping people and the environment safe now and for the future.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to leave the committee with the following quote from the Swedish Minister for Climate and the Environment regarding the approval of the Swedish repository:

The technology and the capacity are available. It is irresponsible to leave nuclear waste in water tanks year after year without taking a decision. We must not pass on this responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Our generation must take responsibility for our waste.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Ms. Swami.

I believe we're having technical problems with Mr. Edwards' equipment, and they're not resolved yet, as far as I know.

We'll proceed to the first round of questions. Hopefully Mr. Edwards' equipment starts working and we'll hear from him after the first round. If that's not the case, we'll invite him back for the next meeting.

Did you have a point of order, Ms. Pauzé?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I don't understand something. Aren't checks supposed to be done before the meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's true, but in Mr. Edwards's case, the checks weren't done. That's one of the reasons for the equipment trouble, but we aren't forgetting about him. If the problem isn't fixed by the end of the first round, we will invite him back for the next meeting.

Obviously, a technician will make sure his equipment is working.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

If the technical issues prevent us from hearing from him today, are we going to have to add another meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Hopefully, we'll have time to hear from him. If not, the steering committee can discuss it.

We will start with Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas, you have six minutes. Go ahead.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me first thank Madame Pauzé for proposing this study. This gives us a chance to talk about issues that are important to not only her voters but those right across the country.

I appreciate the attendance of everyone here today, and I hope that Mr. Edwards can be accommodated somehow, whether it be through a written statement or at a follow-up meeting.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to start by asking questions of Mr. Gorman from the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Thank you for being here today, sir.

You have stated unambiguously that nuclear energy is necessary on the road to achieving net zero. I assume that means that the rehabilitation of our existing CANDU reactors and other facilities here in Canada. I think that's supporting the development of small modular reactors here in Canada. I believe that the commercialization of that technology to sell around the world is so we can not only lower not only greenhouse gas emissions here at home to power the electric vehicles that we know consumers are looking for, but also ensure our energy security and tackle domestic and international greenhouse gas emissions.

Could you tell me, to start with, what things the government is doing right when it comes to nuclear? What things do we need to take our own policies domestically and our own technology commercially to really tackle the issue of climate change?

[John Gorman]

First of all, Canada is doing everything right when it comes to the generation, safe management and operation of nuclear. We're a tier one, globally respected nation in terms of our assets, our facilities and our regulator. We have over 50 years of providing almost 16% of Canada's non-emitting electricity in an enviable fashion.

The international community is watching us very closely, because we're doing other things right. We're taking our existing assets and we're refurbishing them on time and on budget. We're using the very healthy ecosystem that we created here on this large infrastructure project to be a world leader in the development of small modular reactors and in nuclear medicine.

In terms of what we need to do going forward and what we can't get wrong comes back to this decision around what we do with our spent fuel and other forms of nuclear by-products and waste. As my colleague Laurie Swami said so eloquently in the quote that she used to wrap up her remarks, the onus is on our generation to ensure that we take that spent fuel and find a permanent solution for it.

It's clear that nuclear is providing a very important solution in Canada now and has for 50 years and it will in the future as we head towards a net-zero future and as new nuclear is required. The onus is on us to ensure that spent fuel has a permanent storage solution.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Have you seen the government's support and funding for the development of new technology, such as small modular reactors?

Can you tell us a bit about that right now, because obviously, small modular reactors are a different technology altogether from what we traditionally view as nuclear?

[John Gorman]

Small modular reactors are particularly relevant to Canada's challenge around decarbonizing our economy.

Mr. Albas, it's true that we have a challenge ahead of us in terms of doubling or tripling the amount of electricity generation that we need in this country, so we can fuel-switch away from fossil fuels and support electric vehicles, etc.

Canada's challenge has a lot to do with how we are going to decarbonize our heavy industry; the way we create cement, steel, fertilizer. It will affect our mining operations, and the way we extract and process oil and gas. Small modular reactors are very scalable, high temperature, clean-heat machines. They can be scaled, and used in those settings to use the high temperature heat to create electricity and heat, and produce hydrogen, all at the same time, and help us decarbonize our heavy industry.

The support that the federal government has been giving toward new, small modular reactors is being used to make Canada a leader on this front. The coordinated plan that we have to continue on that pathway is going to serve Canada well, and help nations around the world with new nuclear to decarbonize.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

We know that the current Minister of the Environment has been no fan of your industry.

I would really like to talk about the future, because I believe it's quite bright.

Have you seen funding from government to support new technologies, like SMRs, that are fundamental toward meeting our own domestic targets, as well as helping the world to reduce its greenhouse gases?

[John Gorman]

We have begun to see some support from the federal government, in particular through the SIF, the strategic innovation fund. Some monies have gone toward technologies that are being developed in New Brunswick, as well as other technologies in Canada.

It is just the start of what is needed for Canada to fully capitalize on the innovation, and the first-of-a-kind cost that is required to roll out these small modular reactors into these industries that need to be decarbonized.

We have a very fulsome plan, as an industry, with utilities that are working together, and a regulator that is well equipped to be able to take a hard look at these technologies—

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm sorry, we're out of time.

[John Gorman]

—and support provinces that have signalled their desire to do these, as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We can come back to the issue.

Madame Pauzé, please go ahead.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Gorman spent all his time singing the praises of small modular reactors. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources, however, conducted a study on that topic.

Today's meeting is about nuclear waste.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's not really a point of order, Ms. Pauzé. I don't think we can avoid talking about nuclear energy and where it's headed. Your point has nevertheless been duly noted.

Our next questioner is Mr. Weiler, out on the west coast. It's still pretty early there, so we appreciate him being with us.

Go ahead, Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank all the witnesses for joining our committee meeting today.

My first question is also to Mr. Gorman.

I'm very intrigued with your career path in moving from the business side of one non-emitting form of electricity in solar to another in nuclear. It puts you in a unique position to answer my first question.

As you know, much of Canada benefits from access to cheap, non-emitting, baseload electricity in the form of hydro that's been built over the course of many decades, but you've identified some provinces that don't.

How do you see the full life-cycle costs of nuclear in provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, compared to solar energy, where we also have a lot of unrealized potential when combined with electricity storage?

[John Gorman]

This is a question fundamentally about cost, and I'm glad, Mr. Weiler, that you've pulled something to the forefront that is often overlooked when we talk about cost.

Nuclear is a non-emitting electricity source with the lowest full-life carbon cycle footprint, and it produces electricity 24-7, 365 days a year. With small modular reactors, of course, this promises the ability to make this source of electricity and clean heat very scalable. When we look at the cost of intermittent or weather-based technologies like solar, as you mentioned, and wind, we have to acknowledge that the cost of making solar and wind a reliable source of electricity requires storage or some other form of partnership.

That being said, nuclear has a very good track record of being a low-cost electricity provider in Canada. In Ontario, as a matter of fact, it is a lower cost than wind, solar and gas. The prospect of small modular reactors is that they are very responsive and scalable and can support more solar and wind. It is true that the cost has to be proven out. These are first-of-a-kind deployments, but our studies show that they are going to be competitive when you look at them from an entire cost perspective with solar and wind.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Gorman.

The next question I have is for Ms. Swami.

When we're talking about nuclear we also have to consider waste, which is the topic of the study. How did the financial securities required from nuclear waste producers and owners compare to the likely cost of storing the waste for millennia in a way that will prevent damage to human health and the environment for that time period?

What type of bonding is required up front to ensure that this cost isn't borne by the public?

[Laurie Swami]

You started this with Mr. Gorman around the cost of electricity generation with nuclear. I think one thing that's fundamentally important for the nuclear sector is that the generation of electricity from nuclear is full life cycle. It includes the disposal cost as well as the generating cost as well as the construction cost, so it's all in.

What's important about that is the funds are set aside now to implement disposal projects for the waste that exists. As we sit today, there are funds held by each of the electricity producers that will cover the full costs of disposal projects. For my project in particular, we are funded by the electricity sector to cover the costs of siting, moving through the regulatory process, and there are funds set aside now for the construction and operation of the facility for the 150 years that we will require that. That money was set aside a number of years ago, and as a generation of electricity proceeds, new used fuel bundles are created in Canada. The money is again set aside so that as future bundles are created the money is always there.

Trust funds are set aside and specifically paid into, but can only be accessed once the APM or the project—the deep geological repository for used fuel—moves into the construction phase. Once we have a construction licence, NWMO will be able to access that fund and use it for deployment of our project.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

After the 150-year mark, how are the securities accounted for after that?

[Laurie Swami]

With respect to our project, we will be in operation for a number of years. For about 30 years after operation we will be in a monitoring phase to understand what is happening with our project. We'll monitor and understand the environmental impacts, and eventually we will close our project. That will remain a known fact around the site, and we will be able to manage that going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have time for a quick comment, Mr. Weiler.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

How do we ensure—