Environment Committee on March 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's a good point to end on. We can always take up the discussion with other questioners, but we're over time. I'm sorry to cut you off, Mr. Dermarkar. It's unfortunate that I have to do that.

We'll go to Madame Pauzé, and I'm sure there will be opportunities to continue with your line of thinking.

Ms. Pauzé, you have the floor.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am particularly interested in Chalk River. I think Ms. Vickerd could answer my question.

Will you redo the ambient radioactivity calculations at the Chalk River site? Will you commit to redoing that inventory if there are errors?

[Meggan Vickerd, General Manager, Waste Services, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories]

The baseline ambient radioactivity is presented in our environmental impact statement. We have calculated the ambient radioactivity that the proposed near surface disposal facility would represent. Because it is only low-level waste that's going to the facility, there's no incremental increase or hazard that the public or workers would be exposed to.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for your reply.

Let's talk about low-level radioactive waste. In 2019, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories told the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that there were plans to place intermediate-level radioactive waste in above-ground mounds. However, these statements are not transcribed in the latest CMD. It still refers only to low-level radioactive waste at Chalk River.

Finally, will it be low-level radioactive waste only or will it be mixed with intermediate-level radioactive waste?

[Meggan Vickerd]

It's a very small amount of intermediate-level waste, and that's where the environmental assessment process worked quite well. We heard from the public that they had concerns with it, so we revised our project to include only low levels. It is only low-level waste that will go into the near surface disposal facility. That's a great example of how the environmental assessment process works for the public to have input.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

I'll explain my interest in Chalk River. First, my drinking water comes from the St. Lawrence River, as the Ottawa River flows into our area. We also know that Chalk River is in a seismic zone in western Quebec. We also know that the slope criterion was changed from 10% to 25% to make the site eligible. We also know that it flows into the creek. Mr. Mazier asked a question about this earlier. The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has to be very far from drinking water sources, rather than near them.

Given all this, what is still motivating Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to continue to advocate the Chalk River site for near-surface waste management facilities?

[Meggan Vickerd]

I assume that's still directed at me, so I'll start by saying that we all have an underlying interest in protecting water resources. In fact, I live directly across from the Chalk River site. I drink well water directly in the vicinity of the facility. I believe in the proposed NSDF as an additional safeguard to protect our key water sources.

CNL's proposal for near surface disposal follows international guidance and standards. We have demonstrated that with concordance tables in our documents that are available to the public on our projects website. We've had direct webinars on the topic of how we meet international guidance and, more importantly, of how we meet the Canadian framework and the requirements in Canada for proposing a disposal facility.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I keep coming back to Chalk River, because I'd rather be proactive than become radioactive one day.

In October 2015, two months after the contract was signed, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission of its intention to build a disposal facility. After that, things happened very quickly. Six months later, in 2016, a regulatory application was made to amend the licence. A year later, in 2017, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories submitted their licence application.

Was Canadian Nuclear Laboratories able to obtain enough information to properly assess the project? There are a lot of gaps that have been raised by experts, so I'm wondering about how fast things unfolded in a project like this.

Who or what will this project really benefit? Is it the citizens, the environment, future generations, the public purse?

[Meggan Vickerd]

I'll assume that the question is directed at me. Perhaps after I start answering, Mr. Dermarkar might want to answer from AECL's perspective.

It's in the interest of everyone that we do something immediately, now, with the waste. The waste is here, as you heard from Mr. McBrearty's commentary. Some of the waste was placed in the forties and fifties. It's uncontained. It's exposed to the environment. We are being very proactive in identifying that we want to put it in a better condition in an engineered containment facility.

As far as the process goes, we are following CEAA 2012, and we are following the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act. These are very good, well-defined legislative processes.

We started our draft EIS, or environmental impact statement, in 2016, with lots of engagement from the public and indigenous first nations. Only six years later, last summer, was the environmental impact statement accepted by CNSC staff. Now we're going through a very rigorous process at the commission hearing, which is another formal avenue for the public and indigenous first nations to be involved in.

There are a number of processes at play here that—

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Vickerd. I have to interrupt you here, because I would like to take the time to ask you to give the clerk a written answer to the following two questions, if the chair agrees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, go ahead.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

What income do Canadian Nuclear Laboratories receive for storing the cobalt‑60 sources that are imported?

How much cobalt‑60 repatriated from abroad is in Canada and where will this waste be stored?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's noted, thank you.

Madam Collins.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It has been mentioned that AECL uses the government-owned contractor-operated model, the GOCO model, so AECL owns the facilities and has the responsibility for environmental remediation and radioactive waste management, and CNL is responsible for the day-to-day operations. CNL is run by a private sector consortium of which SNC-Lavalin is the majority shareholder.

My question is really around what differences exist in public access to information for information managed by CNL versus that managed by AECL. Is CNL subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act?

[Joseph McBrearty]

Thanks for that question. Mr. Dermarkar may want to provide a few more pieces of opinion on this, but we are subject to what I would call “freedom of information” acts. That's the term I'm used to since I'm from the United States—but yes.

[Fred Dermarkar]

AECL is subject to ATIP. Was that the question?

AECL does publish information on its website that discusses the activities undertaken by AECL through CNL.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So AECL is subject to the provisions but CNL is not? Is that correct?

[Fred Dermarkar]

My understanding was that CNL was not subject to the provisions of ATIP.

We've given you conflicting answers. I would like to verify that. If we can come back to it, between Mr. McBrearty and me, we will verify that with regard to CNL.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If you folks could send us some information afterwards in writing, that would be really great.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is conducting the environmental assessment of the near surface disposal facility at Chalk River. We've heard a little bit about it, but it started under a different assessment.

If the environmental assessment for Chalk River were to start today, the Impact Assessment Agency—not the CNSC—would conduce the assessment. It seems to me there would be more public confidence in the proposed disposal site if it were under this Impact Assessment Agency assessment. Is there a reason why you haven't asked for that?

[Joseph McBrearty]

I think we probably just need to make a few things clear. The Impact Assessment Act allowed for projects that were already under way under CEAA 2012 to continue under that act.

Some of the key differences between the Impact Assessment Act and CEAA 2012 were the engagements with indigenous nations and communities. We have conducted significant and extensive engagement ever since the project was started back in 2016, and we continue to do so today with significant engagement with indigenous communities.

I think it's really important to try to discuss this in a bit more detail because not only did we start and reach out from the very beginning, but it has also been an evolving process in which both sides have learned to listen and understand their needs.

We have actually gone through several changes in our approach to this project because we have heard from indigenous communities. We have had hundreds of interactions with local indigenous communities in the Chalk River area or an area that would be impacted.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks so much.

If the project were approved, what ongoing environmental monitoring, such as the monitoring of concentrations of radioactive elements in surface water and ground water would be required of the CNL, the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories? Would that data be made available to the public in a timely manner?

[Joseph McBrearty]

As part of our commitments and environmental assessment, we drew up a large number of actions we committed to, which are part of what we call our “environmental assessment follow-up monitoring plan”. That will take into account not only environment monitoring, but also areas such as forest management, noise reduction, species at risk and potential cultural impacts.

Let me go back for a second, because I think it's important that this has been an ongoing and evolving conversation with all the local indigenous people to understand what their real concerns are.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I only have a very short amount of time left.

Mr. Dermarkar, I see that your hand is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Go ahead very briefly, please.

[Fred Dermarkar]

Thank you.

I want to respond to the question on ATIP.

I have confirmed that CNL is not subject to ATIP. However, all of CNL's documents are AECL's documents. AECL is subject to ATIP. In that regard, Mr. McBrearty is vicariously subject to ATIP.