Environment Committee on March 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Good morning, colleagues, guests and panellists. I would like to call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number six of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I would like to remind all participants that the taking of screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

Given that we are still in a pandemic, the directives of the Board of Internal Economy remain in place. In other words, if we're here in person, we should respect two-metre distancing, wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room and maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided at the room entrance.

For panellists who are not used to our hybrid meetings, you can speak in either official language, as you wish. When you are not speaking, however, put yourself on mute to prevent ambient noise.

On that, I would like to welcome two new members to the committee. From the Conservative Party, we have Mr. Kyle Seeback and Mr. Colin Carrie. Welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay at our committee and I hope that you are with us for a very long time. I think you will enjoy the work that we do. It's very interesting and I believe we're a very collegial committee.

I imagine the Conservatives will want to proceed—though we could also do this on another day, if you prefer—by proposing a new vice-chair. Is that correct?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Please, go ahead.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'd like to nominate Mr. Dreeshen as vice-chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Perfect. Are there any other nominations? No.

(Motion agreed to)

It's confirmed. Mr. Dreeshen, welcome aboard as vice-chair. We're happy to have you in that position.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Albas and Mr. Davidson for their fine work on the committee.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] used to getting almost 100% of the votes, but he got 100% this time.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Even from the Liberals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's nice. That's really good.

On future business, I'll be very quick. We've invited the minister to appear on the 24th to speak to the main estimates and supplementary estimates (C). I don't know if we have confirmation yet, but we're reserving that meeting for the minister.

I'm planning on calling a meeting for March 10, during the break week, so that we can finish up with the review of the report from the plastic study and give drafting instructions to our analysts for the report of the nuclear study.

Please watch your inboxes for meeting notices for March 10. That's two Thursdays from now.

I would like to welcome—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to interrupt too much of the meeting but I spoke to you about this. We'd like the minister to come for two hours, because normally we would have him for the supplementaries for an hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, you spoke to me.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If we need to discuss that, I propose we discuss it after the meeting and after we've heard from the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. It's noted. We'll put in that request for two hours, I don't know if there's much discussion required around the request, but consider the request made. Of course, we can discuss it in camera if there needs to be more discussion, Mr. Seeback, on the 10th, for example.

I'd like to welcome our panellists. I don't know if Chief Duncan Michano is with us.

[A voice]

Not yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. He'll be joining us.

As individuals, we have Dr. Ramana, a professor at the school of public policy and global affairs at the University of British Columbia, and Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, section head of concepts and approaches in the department of safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I would like to invite Dr. Ramana to give some opening remarks for three minutes please.

[Dr. M. V. Ramana, Professor, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for providing me with this opportunity to speak with you. My name is M.V. Ramana and I teach at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. The University of British Columbia is located on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Musqueam people.

I carry out research on various technical and policy challenges associated with nuclear energy and small modular reactors. I will focus my remarks on the implications of the potential deployment of SMRs, small modular reactors, for the governance of nuclear waste in Canada.

My research shows that SMRs cannot solve the problems confronting nuclear energy, specifically its inability to compete economically with alternative sources of electricity. If they are actually constructed, SMRs could accentuate this problem.

The term “small modular reactor” actually encompasses a wide variety of reactor designs and these produce different kinds of nuclear waste. The SMRs being considered for possible deployment in Canada in the foreseeable future all have one common feature: They are all very different from the traditional CANDU reactor designs.

The designs I'm referring to are the ARC-100, which is a sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor; the micro modular reactor, a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor; the BWRX-300, a light water reactor; and Moltex, a molten salt reactor coupled with a reprocessing plant.

Each of these will produce radioactive wastes that vary in characteristics such as chemical composition, physical form and uranium enrichment. These differences mean that the methods developed for dealing with CANDU reactors will not work as such for these wastes. For example, a geological repository will have to account for the higher uranium enrichment levels because of concerns about criticality.

Some SMR designs envision the reprocessing of spent fuel. Advocates of reprocessing claim that it solves the waste problem, but except for most of the plutonium and uranium, the radioactivity present in the spent fuel is redistributed among different waste streams that enter the environment sooner or later. Most models of repository behaviour suggest that the radioactive doses to the public in the long term are dominated by long-lived fission and activation products, which will not be taken care of by reprocessing. Therefore, reprocessing makes little difference to long-term management of nuclear wastes, while making nuclear weapons proliferation easier.

The challenge with some of the wastes generated by SMRs is their chemical nature. Wastes from molten salt reactors could be in chemical forms that are not known to occur in nature and thus unsuitable for geological disposal. For fast reactors like ARC-100, the problem is that metallic sodium is very reactive.

The historical experience with wastes generated by earlier reactors of similar design reinforces these concerns. For example, the fluoride salt wastes generated by the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment that operated in the United States have been very difficult to manage, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has been spending about $10 million every year for decades, all for a small eight-megawatt reactor that operated for under four years.

To summarize, borrowing from George Orwell's Animal Farm, I would say that all radioactive wastes are problematic, but some radioactive wastes are more problematic than the others.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ramana.

Mr. Whitlock now has the floor for three minutes.

[Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, Section Head, Concepts and Approaches, Department of Safeguards, International Atomic Energy Agency, As an Individual]

Good morning, and thanks for this opportunity to address the committee.

“Nuclear waste” is a term strikes fear into the heart of many people, along with terms like “radiation”, “nuclear reactor” and “nuclear accident”. This makes rational conversations about these topics very difficult, which I can verify as someone who's been trying to have this conversation for over 40 years. This also makes big decisions about these topics very difficult because decisions, at least the good ones, need conversations.

Here's the challenge because, folks, we need to make some really big decisions if we're going to fix the problems on this planet. The biggest of these problems involve what we do with our waste, all kinds of waste, including how to make less of it and, more importantly, how to help the rest of the planet live as comfortably as we do, which most don't, without making as much waste as we do.

In Canada these big decisions will be made by ordinary citizens, and this is a challenge if we want these decisions to be made based on objective evidence, because that's not typically how humans think. Simply put, we need to have rational conversations with Canadians and indigenous peoples about waste, which includes listening.

The nuclear community has not been particularly good at this in the past, with some exceptions—the NWMO is one of these, in my opinion—and that is why 80 years after Canada led the world in discovering the most promising source of energy, health and prosperity ever harnessed on this planet, we're still sitting here worrying about autocrats and warmongers controlling vital fossil fuel supplies, wondering if we can turn around climate change and trying desperately to meet our moral obligations to do something with our waste.

Fifty years ago, Canada started a process to solve this last problem for used nuclear fuel. We're now on the cusp of implementing that solution and it needs a conversation with ordinary citizens. We need to talk about the real risks and what we plan to do about them. We need to talk about how our science learns from nature herself in isolating radioactive materials for billions of years. We need to talk about how everything we do generates waste that lasts a long time and how used nuclear fuel can uniquely be managed for this entire period due to being relatively low in volume, robust and all in one place.

We need to look beyond safe, indefinite surface storage, which we do now and are very good at. Inevitably, however, glaciers will again cover Canada with ice, up to four kilometres thick, destroy everything on the surface and spread it around the continent for future civilizations to find. So we need to talk about how the one waste these future civilizations will not have to worry about will likely be the used nuclear fuel safely ensconced in stable rock, safe from earthquakes, hurricanes, warmongers and glaciers. It's long-term geological stewardship, as nature has taught us.

Let me close by saying that I deeply believe that equity of health and prosperity on this planet, sustainably achieved, is the noblest of human causes, and this was a big part of my decision to become a nuclear scientist.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you, Mr. Whitlock.

We will begin the first round of questions, and Mr. Dreeshen will open the session.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, and certainly to the witnesses, it's great to hear your perspectives on what we are discussing here at the committee for nuclear waste.

Of course, this morning we've heard testimony discussing global security issues associated with the nuclear energy industry, the reality of spent fuel management and the unique designs that allow for massive power generation without the downstream CO2 production. Moreover, we've again just heard about the safety aspect of deep storage of spent fuel for future civilizations through glacial action and how different communities are also fearful of any nuclear expansion. When it comes to glaciers, I go about 70 miles from my place and I look at the sign that said 10,000 years ago we were under a mile of ice. The rivers that we now have came because of that. I know it seems a little odd to talk about what happens for civilizations tens of thousands of years from now, but these then do become realities. It's an interesting discussion that we have.

Mr. Whitlock, your role is to ensure that reactor design at AECL meets international obligations on nuclear weapons non-proliferation, and you're also aware of Alberta's interest in SMRs. You've done extensive work on the long-term management of spent nuclear fuel.

I'm wondering what advice you can give the committee regarding the proper management of nuclear waste now and for the future.

[Dr. Jeremy Whitlock]

Just to clarify, I'm not responsible for anything at AECL. I work in Vienna for the International Atomic Energy Agency. I do work in the area of nuclear safeguards that are applied to all countries, including Canada. In the past, I worked at AECL, and I certainly addressed the issues of spent fuel management.

The question is, what can we do best now and into the future? What we can do now is, essentially, what we're doing now. We have surface storage of nuclear waste that is among the best forms of storage of waste on the planet. It's remarkably robust. Looking at used nuclear fuel, that is the reason why we can do it, because it is a robust material in the first place and, as I mentioned, it's all in one place.

What we're doing right now is fairly good. You mentioned, and I understand why, that it's odd to talk about future civilizations. It certainly is odd, but when you think about it, that's what we're talking about with geological repositories. Otherwise, there's no reason to change what we're doing now, because we're doing a very good job. If you visit the nuclear sites in Canada, you'll see where all the nuclear spent fuel is from the reactors, and it's very safe. That's good for hundreds of years, and good for as long as we can make civil structures.

Civil structures won't last forever, and neither will civilizations. We do have to worry about the glaciers, and not just the next glaciers but the glaciation period after that, and the one after that. They'll come every several tens of thousands of years, and that is all within the life of this material. That is all within the life of any toxic material that's out there. We are looking at only nuclear waste, when we talk about this time frame. I wish we could treat all toxic material the way we treat spent nuclear fuel, and the way we look to the point hundreds of thousands of years from now instead of just hundreds of years in dealing with it.

You did say it's odd, and odd is one of the reasons why it's hard to have this conversation with Canadians, because it is something that is way beyond—even hundreds of years way beyond—the normal horizon of people's imaginations.

Why are we talking about tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years? With nuclear waste, you can put pretty good numbers on the waste, because we have it all in one place, it's all in front of us, and it's highly characterized. As soon as you put the numbers on the waste and say how long it's going to last, then people get scared. They don't realize that there's a lot of other waste out there, and a lot of it's not kept in one place, but because we can put the numbers on it, it raises people's fears about how long it lasts.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to address what you've said in your discussion with Dr. Ramana.

In your assessment—and I've read some of the work that you have done—there have been improvements in new reactor technology. I'm curious about how that works. You also discussed the fact that SMRs and the different types of cooling processes they have are different from CANDU reactors.

Is there that opportunity, though, to still have, as Dr. Whitlock had said, these products and to put them in deep geological areas so that this can be solved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You have 40 seconds left to answer the question.

[Dr. M. V. Ramana]

In principle, the answer is yes, but because the wastes are in different chemical forms, there would have to be a lot of pre-processing done before it can be placed. In some of the waste that we have seen in molten salt reactors in the United States, for example, those methods have still not been demonstrated. There is still waste that was generated 50 years ago that has still not been placed anywhere, because it's not in a form that can be placed anywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Dreeshen's time is up.

Thank you very much.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.