Environment Committee on March 1st, 2022

[Fred Dermarkar]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is a pleasure to be here today to discuss Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, or AECL, and our role in responsible environmental stewardship.

I would like to start by acknowledging our commitment to healing and reconciliation with indigenous peoples. In Ottawa, where I am located today, I acknowledge that the land I stand on is the traditional land and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I will be brief and focus on two key points. First, I will discuss AECL's role in radioactive waste management in Canada. Second, I will discuss what we are doing to protect the environment and manage our radioactive waste.

AECL is a federal Crown corporation, and we receive funding from the government to deliver on our mandate, which includes driving nuclear innovation for Canada and cleaning up federal nuclear legacy waste. We deliver this mandate through a government-owned contractor-operated, or GOCO, model.

Simply put, our contractor, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, manages and operates our sites across Canada on our behalf. AECL provides direction to CNL and exercises oversight to ensure Canada derives value from the GOCO. AECL continues to own the sites, assets and liabilities. This is a model that has been used elsewhere in the world, and we have drawn from international best practices and lessons learned in putting it together here in Canada.

Over the past 70 years, AECL's work has had a profound impact on the lives of Canadians, whether it is the way we power our homes, with 15% of Canada's electricity coming from nuclear power, or the way we fight cancer. The medical isotopes produced at Chalk River, which are used to diagnose and treat cancer and other diseases, have benefited millions of Canadians and people around the world.

However, like any human activity, this creates by‑products and waste. In this regard, AECL is responsible for radioactive waste resulting from scientific and medical isotope production activities. All our waste is safely stored and we are investigating long-term disposal solutions.

To respect our time limits today, I want to stress that one of AECL's roles is to represent the interests of the Government of Canada in the management of its radioactive waste and environmental liabilities.

As we look to the next generation of research on energy and health, the Chalk River labs are poised to be at the forefront of our science future, but we need to take action now to protect and care for the environment and address our legacy liabilities.

We are fully committed to working with the Canadian public and indigenous peoples in an open and collaborative manner to achieve this.

Thank you.Merci.Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Dermarkar.

I will now turn the floor over for three minutes to Mr. McBrearty, president and CEO of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

[Joseph McBrearty, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

My name is Joe McBrearty. I'm the president and CEO of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Joining me today is Ms. Meggan Vickerd, our general manager of waste services.

My remarks today will address the committee's study on nuclear waste management practices. I am quite proud of the work that we do in this area.

To begin, I believe it is important to understand the origins of the waste we are discussing.

For over 70 years, CNL and AECL have been conducting groundbreaking research at the Chalk River laboratories. This research has contributed to two Nobel Prizes and has spurred economic and technical development at home and around the world, including the invention of the CANDU reactor, which provides nearly 60% of Ontario's electricity. In addition, medical isotopes produced in Chalk River have been used in over one billion procedures to detect and treat life-threatening diseases, including cancer.

While our history has brought immense success to Canada, it has also created nuclear waste that must be cleaned up, including contaminated soil, legacy waste management areas and old buildings. While these materials are being safely managed today, permanent solutions are absolutely necessary.

In 2015 CNL began the cleanup of the Chalk River site, including nearly 200 structures, to reduce the risk at our campus. This, and other related work, includes the repatriation of 35 tonnes of high- and low-enriched uranium assets back to the United States, their country of origin; their reuse of legacy material for exciting applications for the future; and the drastic reduction of radiological and hazardous material source terms.

Today I am very proud to say that 110 structures have now been safely remediated, work which is subject to rigorous planning to minimize material that is sent for final disposal.

Most of this material is known as “low-level radioactive waste”. CNL has proposed a near surface disposal facility as the best approach to isolate and contain these materials, to reduce risk and to protect the surrounding environment.

Intermediate-level waste will undergo processing to reduce volumes before it is safely stored for the long term at a new, modern facility until a national determination has been made on its disposition.

As for high-level waste, we plan to transport nearly all of this material off-site to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization's deep geologic repository for final disposition.

Cleaning up this waste allows us to position the campus for the future: to restore our lands to their proper state; to improve accessibility to the site; and to ensure the safety of the environment, our workforce and the public. We expect that all this waste will be safely addressed by the year 2070. That may sound like a long time, but this is painstaking work that follows strict regulatory requirements.

Looking to the future, CNL is advancing new clean energy technologies, including small modular reactors and hydrogen, and pursuing another life-saving isotope, known as “actinium-225”. This is promising research for CNL and our nation, and this is enabled by our nuclear facilities and modern waste management practices.

Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to be here.

Ms. Vickerd and I would now be happy to answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. McBrearty.

We will now turn to Mr. Patrice Desbiens, deputy director of Hydro-Québec's Gentilly‑2 facilities.

You have three minutes.

[Patrice Desbiens, Deputy Director, Gentilly-2 Facilities, Hydro-Québec]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I am Patrice Desbiens, deputy director of the Gentilly‑2 facilities at Hydro-Québec.

I am pleased to join you today, and I would like to thank you for inviting us to discuss nuclear waste management at our facility. Before getting started, I would like to give you some background.

Hydro-Québec operated the Gentilly‑2 nuclear facility safely and reliably from 1983 to 2012. Since it was permanently shut down on December 28, 2012, we have been proceeding with decommissioning the Gentilly‑2 facilities, which will be fully dismantled around 2062.

Already, the first two phases of our decommissioning plan have been completed. The first phase of the decommissioning was stabilization. During this phase, the reactor was shut down, the fuel was removed from the reactor, and systems containing heavy water were drained, dried and put in a layup state. The spent fuel had to be stored for seven years in a pool before being transferred to dry storage units. This step was successfully completed in December 2020.

We are currently carrying out activities for the storage-with-surveillance phase. The key remaining activities are the radiological, environmental and physical monitoring of the site where our radioactive waste is stored.

Radioactive waste management is central to Gentilly‑2's decommissioning activities. That is what I would like to talk about today, since it is of particular interest to members of the committee.

After considering the various decommissioning strategies, Hydro-Québec selected a deferred decommissioning approach. That means we will proceed with the final dismantling of the nuclear facility after a storage-with-surveillance period of about 35 years. A number of points were analyzed and various considerations led to this choice, and radioactive waste management was a key factor in making the decision.

This scenario is based on the availability in 2048 of a permanent site for spent fuel disposal under the purview of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.

A more rapid decommissioning would involve storing and monitoring the radioactive waste from the dismantling until a long-term storage facility was available, which involves additional costs.

It is also worth noting that decommissioning over a 40‑year period means the radioactive material has more time to decay, which simplifies the protective measures required to ensure workers' health and safety.

Until this site is available, we are continuing to monitor and maintain the strictest physical security at the Gentilly‑2 facilities. We are also continuing our efforts to reduce the volume of nuclear waste currently stored on site to ensure its sustainability and optimize its future transfer to the permanent storage facility.

We, like others responsible for Canadian nuclear facilities, are aware of the great responsibilities we have toward generations today and in the future, and we take these responsibilities very seriously.

That brings me to the end of my opening remarks.

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Desbiens.

We'll start the first round.

Mr. Mazier, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I am new to this committee and I am learning about nuclear. I am always so impressed with how proactive the nuclear industry is and how they're really concerned about our future and future generations. Thank you for that.

Mr. McBrearty, is the legacy waste located at Chalk River safer by being stored in the near surface disposal facility or above ground as it is now? May I have just a short answer?

[Joseph McBrearty]

It is much safer stored in the near surface disposal facility versus above ground.

I would just add that a large percentage of our waste exists today and it is not contained. It is not isolated. It is open to the elements.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Again, going back to being proactive, you want to do better, so that's great.

There has been some concern about the NSDF at Chalk River being located close to a river. Why do you think this is? Should Canadians be concerned?

[Joseph McBrearty]

Thank you, sir, for the questions.

Folks are generally concerned because they look at the geographic separation between the proposed site of the NSDF and the Ottawa River. However, we selected the NSDF site after a fairly rigorous process to determine the best site on our campus. It is the best site to protect the Ottawa River. We looked at it from a geological standpoint and we looked at it also from a hydrogeological standpoint to ensure that the Ottawa River watershed is protected at all costs.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Excellent.

Are you seeing any delay tactics in the approval of nuclear waste storage facilities by those who are anti-nuclear energy, despite the science on its safety and its potential?

[Joseph McBrearty]

It's always a controversial topic. Folks are very impassioned by nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal to begin with, and today we actually have, I think, a very robust, very rigorous process that allows the public to express their concerns that either we or our regulator, the CNSC, can address.

It can be a long process, but I would tell you from this point we actually believe that process has borne some very good results and resulted in some changes for us as we have finalized the design of this facility.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Have you seen any delay tactics that are concerning that you think might be doing more harm than letting the process play through?

[Joseph McBrearty]

There is a statutory process that exists in Canada, operated by our regulator, the CNSC. This project in particular is under a thing called CEAA 2012. Our environmental assessment and environmental impact statement that was generated for this project started under that legislation and it has proceeded that way.

There are many questions, but I think we have been able to successfully answer all of the regulator's questions.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

How important are public-private partnerships in nuclear waste management, GOCO, or government-owned contractor-operated, models in Canada, and how dynamic?

Both of you can comment on that if you want.

[Joseph McBrearty]

Thanks. I'll start and then turn it over to Mr. Dermarkar for his view.

The GOCO, or the government-owned contractor-operated, contract offers one of the best potential contracting mechanisms that Canada can employ. There is not very much decommissioning in nuclear waste management experience that exists in Canada today. The vast majority of that experience exists in the United States and the United Kingdom. The ability to bring in high-quality engineering firms, to actually bring that talent to Canada and have it rapidly and expeditiously available, is a significant benefit and allows Canada to be at the same level as the other major nuclear tier-one nations.

I would turn it over to Mr. Dermarkar for any further comments.

[Fred Dermarkar]

Thank you, Mr. McBrearty; and thank you, Mr. Mazier, for the question.

I agree with what Mr. McBrearty said. One of the most powerful elements of the GOCO model is the access it gives us to international experience when we need it. It's not just about the management team, who are drawn internationally, but it's also about being able to draw upon a very large pool of experts for specific projects or specific issues that arise.

The one thing I would add is that having AECL as a separate oversight organization provides yet another layer of oversight above and beyond the boards of directors of CNL and AECL. That additional layer of oversight adds value as well to the process. Altogether, I believe that Canada is benefiting tremendously from having a GOCO and we are seeing it in the results that have been achieved over the last six years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Duguid now, for six minutes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome our new members to the committee, and particularly Mr. Carrie, who as you know is our neighbour on the 4th floor of the Justice Building. Perhaps we can have a few huddles every now and then to do some pre-committee business. That's just to point out, as you have, that this committee has a history of working together.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay, as long as Francis brings the coffee.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Today, he has.

Mr. Chair, I have a question also about the intermediate storage issue and the site that has been talked about near Chalk River. My Manitoba colleague also referenced this issue. It is near a river.

Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their report with a major emphasis on climate change adaptation. We are going to see floods and drought. I wonder if, in consideration of that intermediate storage, we have considered the factors contained in the IPCC report.

As one of our speakers mentioned, there still is this perception problem, and I wonder if they took that into account in making a decision on the site.

[Joseph McBrearty]

That's a very pertinent question, and one of the founding principles that we embarked on was to ensure that man-made or natural events would have no impact on this particular storage facility.

There are a couple of things that I do want to clarify. When you use the term “intermediate”, there can be several different connotations of that. Intermediate in the nuclear world, in the waste world, means something a bit different. It's a bit higher classification of waste than what we are proposing to go into this near-surface disposal facility. Intermediate-level waste does not go into this facility. The near-surface disposal facility is a disposal facility for low-level waste.

We considered all possible climate change and major weather events. We looked at back-to-back, hundred-year floods. The facility itself is about 50 metres above the Ottawa River as it is today, and it's about 40 metres above the highest expected flood plain. We analyzed not only for climate change events but also dam failures. We are on a water system that is dammed, so we looked at potential dam failures upstream of the facility, and there was no impact. As a matter of fact, the base of the facility was significantly above the highest water level hypothesized.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I think we have time for my last question.

I mentioned to this committee that while I'm intrigued with small modular reactors, I remain agnostic about them and I believe that all technologies we use in combatting climate change have to compete on cost and on safety.

I wonder if either speaker in this section of our deliberations this morning heard the previous speaker, Dr. Ramana, and his concerns about dealing with waste from small modular reactors. I'm hearing competing views, and I'm trying to sort out the science. I wonder if there has been a major look at small modular reactors from the view of their potential to reduce emissions as well as their safety as a relatively new technology.

Science, I learned in university, is a contact sport. You can see science very differently depending on the value base that you have.

Is it time for a major review on small modular reactors to answer some of the questions that are in the public realm?

[Joseph McBrearty]

I will turn that initially over to Mr. Dermarkar to give a view from AECL, and then, if you have any further questions, I will certainly follow up with you.

[Fred Dermarkar]

Our view at AECL is that nuclear is part of the solution to climate change, and there are three pathways to nuclear.

One is the refurbishment that you see going on right now in Ontario, which will ensure that existing reactors continue to operate for a few decades more into the future and provide clean energy. The second is SMRs, and the third is our own technology, the CANDU technology, looking at modernizing and refreshing it and making it available as an option.

With respect to SMRs, it is really important that we demonstrate their effectiveness. There is a lot of talk about what SMRs might do, but really the proof is in the pudding, and that comes with demonstration.