Evidence of meeting #6 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 facility.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The committee has heard some concerns about the reclassification of some mixed intermediate and low-level waste at Chalk River and about the consistency of classification standards across the industry.
Who decides on the classification of waste and the management solution?
1 p.m.
General Manager, Waste Services, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
I can take that.
The waste classification in Canada is identified in the Canadian standards. The nuclear industry has a CSA standard that identifies different classifications of waste. That is also consistent with the CNSC. The regulator identifies the four classifications of radioactive waste within their regulatory guidance.
Just out of interest, those classifications are consistent with IEA classifications for radioactive waste as well.
1 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Have you heard the concerns about the classification standards and the consistency of classification across industry?
1 p.m.
General Manager, Waste Services, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Yes. I do think there is perhaps a perception issue. We are consistent across the nuclear industry because it is identified in CSA standards and our regulator's regulatory guidance.
1 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Desbiens, we've heard concerns from indigenous communities about the consultation process. Indigenous people have to be consulted in the selection of sites when issuing approvals. In your opinion and in the work you're doing, have indigenous people been engaged in a manner and on a timeline determined by those communities who are choosing to participate?
1 p.m.
Deputy Director, Gentilly-2 Facilities, Hydro-Québec
I can speak in regards to the Abenaki community located near the Gentilly‑2 facilities, on the territory of the city of Bécancour.
I can confirm that the members of this community have been involved and consulted since the beginning of the decommissioning process. They have not expressed any discomfort. We keep them informed of what we are doing and we visit them periodically. To my knowledge, they are satisfied with the steps we are taking to keep them informed.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're pretty much at the end of your time, Ms. Collins.
We'll go to Mr. Seeback.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Great. I'm going to try to do a little bit of cleanup as this is our last round here.
Mr. Dermarkar, you were giving an answer with respect to SMRs in earlier questioning. If you'd like to give a further answer or finish your answer, could you send that in writing to the committee, please?
For any of our other witnesses today, if you didn't get the time to fully answer a question, I would invite you to finish your answer in writing and submit that to the committee before we finish our study.
For everyone on the panel, does the system works? Are there any improvements that you would suggest? When I say the system, I mean managing nuclear waste.
1:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Perhaps I will start.
In my view, it is a very effective system. I would like to put on the record that Canada is a signatory to the Joint Convention on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. In that regard, every three years Canada puts itself in front of the world and describes what it does and how it does it. The rest of the world then has the opportunity to critique Canada and identify areas where they see gaps relative to best practice elsewhere in the world.
We have a very robust mechanism beyond Canada to confirm that what we do in Canada is in fact robust. Within Canada, we have multiple levels of oversight. We have the CNSC exercising oversight from a safety perspective. We have AECL exercising oversight from a quality, safety and financial perspective over what CNL does. We have CNL doing work to the highest standards because it's reaching back to internationally renowned experts to do its work.
Very briefly, I think we have a very robust mechanism in place for those reasons.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I see, Ms. Vickerd, you have your hand up. Please go ahead.
1:05 p.m.
General Manager, Waste Services, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Sure, thank you.
I just want to add to Mr. Dermarkar's response. From a floor level, we're responsible for an organization that manages nuclear waste every day. The system works because it protects the worker, the public and the environment. All interests are protected, ensuring that we are applying the best available technology. To me, the system does work.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Is there anyone else?
Ms. Vickerd, I just want to go back to some questions about the risk of water contamination at Chalk River. You mentioned that you live across from the site and you have a well. I'm very familiar with that. I'm a rural guy; I live with well water. How do you assess the risk of contamination at Chalk River?
1:05 p.m.
General Manager, Waste Services, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
The current waste, as we've already identified, is low, and it's going to be even lower by putting it in an engineered containment system with the near-surface disposal facility. We have a very robust environmental monitoring program that includes groundwater sampling, surface water sampling and soil and air sampling, not only on the Chalk River site but off the site as well. We also look at ways of improving that program, and that's one of the areas we've been working on with first nations, ensuring that we incorporate some of their traditional knowledge into our environmental monitoring program and perhaps even have them conduct their own environmental monitoring.
1:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment here.
I don't think it can overstated that a good portion of the waste that we have today, as I said earlier, is exposed. It is exposed to the elements. When most folks think of nuclear waste, they think of it in sealed containers at nuclear power plants. The vast majority of our waste, about 500,000 cubic metres, is soil. It is in the soil, and it is in old building materials, World War II-era buildings that are far closer to the Ottawa River than the proposed NSDF.
The desire and the design of the NSDF is to reduce the risk to the public, as Ms. Vickerd said, to our workforce and to the environment. Frankly, I think it's probably the right answer—it is the right answer to go forward.
Thank you.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I would just say that if anyone has any other information they think would be relevant to the committee, please submit it in writing.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
NDP
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, I mentioned at the very beginning that we would go over time a little bit. We're down to the last questioner, so we'll be done in five minutes.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I'm so sorry; I do have to leave. I pushed it back as long as I could, but please proceed.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's fine, I think. Yes, thank you.
Go ahead, Ms. Taylor Roy.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you very much.
I was listening with interest when you were talking about the international review and how every three years, as a signatory, you go before an international body.
The United States Department of Energy also produced an international review panel report in 2020 for the Chalk River laboratory site, and in that report, they had 35 recommendations, 76 suggestions, and five best practices that would be followed.
In keeping with that comment you made about being a signatory and getting this feedback, were there any specific proposals that came back from that United States Department of Energy study that had been implemented or that you considered moving forward?
I guess a more basic question for me is: Why did the U.S. Department of Energy conduct a study of Chalk River?