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.
11:40 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
If you're talking about accidents to spent nuclear fuel, I would say it's low.
March 1st, 2022 / 11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses, it's a very complicated topic and I really appreciate both of your perspectives today.
My question is for you, Dr. Whitlock. The Government of Canada's draft of the policy for radioactive waste management and decommissioning was released on February 1, 2022, and the public comment period is open until April 2, 2022. The draft policy specifies the respective responsibilities of the federal government and of the waste producers and owners. It states:
Waste producers and owners will: 1.6. ensure optimal protection of human health, safety, security and the environment for present and future generations in their radioactive waste management and decommissioning activities, including transportation.... 1.9. characterize, classify and document their radioactive waste in order to define and implement waste management and decommissioning solutions that are commensurate with their risks in both the short and long term; 1.10. decommission facilities and sites within an appropriate timeframe to avoid transferring the responsibility to future generations, recognizing that alternative approaches may be justified, subject to approval by the regulator.
Will waste owners be required to document waste according to agreed upon record keeping standards to ensure that future generations have the information needed to safely manage this waste in an accessible format, even as technologies evolve?
11:45 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
Yes, I believe they will be required to do that. As long as there are institutions, there will need to be these institutional controls that are elaborated in that draft policy document.
Again, the question that I was addressing at the outset was what happens when you don't have institutional controls and a mile of ice comes along and erases all of those documents? You need to have something in place for that eventuality. All of the waste policies go out the window at that point, and you're left with Mother Nature.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
On the same note, although the policy respects the polluters-pay principle, does it abdicate the federal government's responsibility to ensure that Canadians and their environment are protected now and in the future from radioactive waste?
11:45 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
No, I don't think it abdicates from that at all. I think the federal government, of course, has the oversight responsibility that would continue, and that's completely compatible with the polluter-pays principle, which is transferred to the rate base. So Canadians pay, and they are the same people behind the government itself. So everybody is responsible for our waste, which is a wonderful concept.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joanne Thompson Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
I'm not sure if you're able to answer this because it relates to Chalk River. At a February 3, 2022 meeting, this committee heard testimony about the reclassification of some mixed intermediate and low-level radioactive waste to low-level radioactive waste at Chalk River. The difference is how readily alpha, beta and gamma radiations are detected, and this was cited as a reason for concern in reclassifying mixed waste.
Could you explain the origins of this concern and discuss its validity?
11:45 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
I'm sorry; no, I cannot speak to that. I haven't worked at Chalk River for five years and I'm not familiar enough with the issue to speak to it.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay, thanks.
Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will continue my questions for Mr. Whitlock.
Earlier, you said that people who were very informed understood all the possibilities in Canada. That could be debated. In my opinion, it depends on the information that is presented to us.
What do you think about the precautionary principle?
11:45 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
The precautionary principle is that if you have any doubt, it's best to err on the side of not doing the activity. I don't agree with that. I think it's a good principle to have, but against that you also have science. Science incorporates the precautionary principle and addresses it with critical thinking, empirical evidence and objectivity. Everything has to be included, because you can't just walk away from this question. We do have to do something with the waste. We do have to do something about climate change, and that involves technologies that generate waste, not just nuclear waste. All of this has to be addressed.
When I mentioned people being informed and then supporting—
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Please allow me to interrupt you, Mr. Whitlock, as I only have two and a half minutes.
11:50 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
Okay.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
What do you think of the waste burial? Does it comply with the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, for which you work?
11:50 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
That's a different type of waste from the nuclear spent fuel that I was talking about. When you're talking about the waste from processes at nuclear facilities, which is low and intermediate waste, then surface storage, high-tech surface storage of modern engineering methods, is a perfectly rational way to deal with that. We deal with all of our waste that's of a danger in that similar way today.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
In fact, the burial does not comply with International Atomic Energy Agency standards.
I'd like to talk to you about the Chalk River plant, since you worked there, from what I've read. The Chalk River site is classified as a high probability fracture zone. In other words, the site is located within a seismic zone.
Is it normal to choose the Chalk River site for a near-surface waste management facility?
11:50 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
The people who have been doing the assessment of the location of this and the science and the technology that are going to be put into place have taken that into account. Yes, you have seismic activity that you have to address and chemical characterization of the soil and everything else, and these are taken into account. These people are very smart and have done their homework. They have analyzed the situation.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Mr. Whitlock. You have spoken about the need for rational, informed conversations and listening to people's concerns, and you had mentioned that you think the NWMO has been doing this well. We heard in one of our previous committee meetings that there are some serious concerns about the NWMO's engagement process with indigenous communities. The Grand Council Chief of the Anishinabek Nation told us that an NWMO panellist told his community that, “We could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand it anyway.”
Hearing these concerns, are you satisfied that the consultations led by the NWMO are engaging and respectful conversations with indigenous peoples and truly listening to their concerns?
11:50 a.m.
Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual
In my personal experience, travelling with the NWMO on some occasions as a guest speaker and speaking to indigenous communities in local town hall meetings of the towns that were in contention, back when there were many more than two, my comment that it was a good process was from the observations of that, plus their three-year listening process, which was painful from the point of view of not being able to provide counterarguments to what I was hearing. Then I realized that it was brilliant. They have listened for three years and written down and addressed the needs of the people they were visiting across Canada, and then going into the communities and speaking to the indigenous communities.
When there's time for respectful, rational discussion—I don't mean addressing the demonstrators out in front of the building, but I mean inside in the quiet room—looking at diagrams and asking what scares you about this aspect, what scares your family, and then answering—
