Science and Research Committee on June 9th, 2022

[Joseph McBrearty]

I'll start.

It is probably pretty obvious that with the amount of research that's going on and the amount of plants that we believe need to be designed and built, you need a lot of people. I don't think that's a surprise to anyone.

When we look at the amount of energy technology that has to be developed and executed over the next 10, 15 and 20 years, I think it's paramount that the government and industry invest in the education for the young people coming up. Many of the folks in the nuclear industry are starting to reach their retirement age, and having a youthful approach and new blood, so to speak, into the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Mr. McBrearty, I am sorry to do this. It's the worst part of this. Please forgive me.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much. We're always constrained with time. It's much appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Thank you, Ms. Diab.

It is now Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas’ turn, who has six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome my colleagues and the witnesses with us this evening.

My questions are for you, Ms. O’Donnell. I’d like to hear more about the Moltex project, which you know well.

In March 2021, the federal government awarded $50 million to the project. It included a letter from the assistant deputy minister of Natural Resources Canada, Ms. Mollie Johnson. The letter states that the technology used by Moltex is a potential pathway to recycling spent CANDU fuel. It could provide Canadians with emission-free energy for years to come by reducing long-lived radioactive waste.

Can you tell us if there are any scientific studies to back up these claims? Did the federal government actually have scientific peer reviews done on pyrolysis technology before funding this $50 million project?

[Dr. Susan O'Donnell]

Thank you for your question. I listened to it in French, but I’ll answer it in English.

No, to my knowledge, there were none of these studies that were done. In fact, the Moltex project is quite interesting, because they're offering a new kind of reprocessing technology. Last week, I heard some of your witnesses say that this reprocessing has been done in other countries for years.

The reason this is innovative is that it's a new type of technology called “pyroprocessing”. It's only been done in one place in the world—in the Idaho national labs in the U.S.—and it has been a technological and financial fiasco. They've been trying for more than 10 years to reduce the amount of waste and it hasn't worked out at all. What they have done is make a big mess and a lot of additional waste products that they now have to deal with. It's very complex.

The problem is that less than 1% of the fissile material that's left in the CANDU fuel bundles once they're outside of the reactor can actually be called so-called recycled, but there's no evidence to show that you can cleanly remove the plutonium from the fuel, so what you're left with is a lot materials that will still need to be dealt with for millions of years.

Plus, you'll have a lot of new liquid waste, and that's what we're mostly concerned about in New Brunswick, namely, that as taxpayers we're going to have to pick up the cost of the new liquid waste, of storing the waste. They don't even know what kinds of materials can contain these wastes. There have been no studies done on this project. We don't want to be left to clean up the big mess. That's the big problem.

I could talk about the non-proliferation aspects later, if you like.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. O’Donnell.

I will now turn to the subject of non-proliferation.

As you know, Canada signed non-proliferation contracts on everything related to the nuclear sector. A prestigious panel of American nuclear non-proliferation experts, including former senior White House advisors, wrote to Mr. Marc Garneau, who was the minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, as well as to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, stating that the processing of spent fuel and recycling of plutonium was contrary to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Could you elaborate on this warning to Canada from the United States?

[Dr. Susan O'Donnell]

Sure. What the government keeps saying about that is that we're not risking nuclear arms in Canada or non-proliferation in Canada. That's not the issue. It's the signal, and it makes it very clear in the letter from the U.S. non-proliferation experts, that it's the signal that it's giving to other countries.

In particular, South Korea has been trying to do the same type of technology, pyroprocessing, for more than 10 years and the United States has not given it permission because of the very volatile nuclear situation on the Korean peninsula.

Just last week, I was looking at a video from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are very concerned about a new nuclear test by North Korea.

The Korean peninsula is extremely volatile. What they're concerned about in the U.S. is if Canada starts doing this technology called pyroprocessing, it basically gives the green light to South Korea to do the same thing, and it risks destabilizing a very fragile situation right now with nuclear weapons around the world. You know that this is in the news every day. It's a very fragile situation right now around the world. They're concerned about why Canada is giving the signal that this type of technology is okay, given that there was an informal ban on it for many years in Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I’d like to know what you think of the statement by Moltex’s CEO, Rory O’Sullivan. He has made it clear that his intention is to sell his reactors to the world.

Doesn’t this raise the possibility that Canada’s publicly funded plutonium technologies will increase the risk of nuclear proliferation abroad?

[Dr. Susan O'Donnell]

Exactly. Some experts have said that if we start exporting that, we're basically exporting bomb-making capabilities. Of course, there are international safeguards, and there's policy and are all kinds of guidelines for it but, again, I would ask you to really consider if Canada wants to be exporting this kind of technology.

We already know what happened in the seventies in India when Canada gave a peaceful reactor to India. They actually used reprocessing technology and they exploded the their first bomb. That's when the U.S. actually banned reprocessing and they did the same in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

Dr. O'Donnell, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I'm sure if members want to follow up, they will.

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas.

We welcome Ms. Zarrillo to our committee tonight.

You have six minutes, please.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll start my questioning with Madam O'Donnell and then I have a question for Mr. Keefer.

Madam O'Donnell, you mentioned the funding of science right now. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on if there is fair and open processes right now in Canada for energy innovators and for scientists to get research and prototype funding.

[Dr. Susan O'Donnell]

That actually was the focus of my presentation. Thank you for the question, through the chair.

We have tri-councils in Canada that fund research and the one that would fund the appropriate research we're talking about tonight is NSERC. When it goes through NSERC, it's funded by independent scientific review. The public has a lot of confidence in that.

Unfortunately, the way the projects have been funded so far do not go through the same level of scientific review, so we've no guarantee that the projects have been vetted scientifically. But there is a process, and that's why I would strongly recommend to your committee that we consider moving the funding for all net-zero technologies to NSERC.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Keefer, you mentioned a possibility for refurbishment. One of my colleagues at the table also mentioned the labour shortages, so the two are together.

I had a visit recently from the boilermakers and they're very concerned about the lack of high-pressure welders and access to high-pressure welders.

I'm wondering if you have any comments on the expertise of high-pressure welders that we don't have enough of in Canada right now for the current nuclear reactors. I used to live in Pickering, so that was interesting to me.

Do you have any thoughts about those high-pressure welders and the lack of that skill set in Canada right now for refurbishment?

[Dr. Christopher Keefer]

I'm afraid I have to confess that the question is a little too specific for my area of expertise. I'm well acquainted with the boilermakers, and they are very involved in our CANDU refurbishments.

However, just briefly on the topic of refurbishment, we are again getting another 40 years of the lowest-carbon source of power that we have on our electricity grid. It's very interesting. We are refurbishing Darlington and Bruce, but not Pickering.

One of my recommendations is that we continue our refurbishment to include Pickering. The loss of that plant, which is the same age as the Bruce A one that is being refurbished, is going to eliminate all of Canada's national emissions reductions progress to date. We're going to be adding the equivalent of eight million transatlantic flights every year, because we're replacing that clean nuclear energy with natural gas. It's my group's strong recommendation that we reconsider that.

Absolutely I think that the boilermakers deserve to be listened to, and we need to be supporting apprenticeships in these essential skilled trades. The refurbishments are moving along on budget and on time, and I think that they can continue to do so. Once we finish at Darlington, we can shift those workers over to Pickering and seal in Canada's nuclear advantage.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Keefer, how many members does Canadians for Nuclear Energy have? How many members are in your group?

[Dr. Christopher Keefer]

The last count was 44.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

There are 44 members, and you haven't heard before about the lack of high-pressure welders to be able to do refurbishments?

[Dr. Christopher Keefer]

No, I haven't.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, great.

Do I have a little time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kirsty Duncan]

You have about two minutes and 20 seconds.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. McBrearty, I have a quick question.

You mentioned “expected to be much safer”. Could you elaborate a little on why there was the disclaimer “expected”?

[Joseph McBrearty]

Thanks very much for that question.

Most of the new technology involves much more passive safety features. Today's reactors require some sort of active safety measures in their design. The newer reactors are really designed to be able to walk away from it and not have to worry about decay heat and fuel damage, so they're really much safer. They're designed to be more straightforward to operate. That's the crux of the safety. The fuel is designed to be much more accident resistant. The passive designs are designed to provide cooling through any type of accident.

When you look at it from a safety perspective, that's the basis of “safer”.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm going to ask you one more question, around indigenous communities. When you started speaking today, you acknowledged indigenous communities. We know, especially in the north, that indigenous communities would like to have energy autonomy, and they'd like to manage it themselves.

Do you believe that these SMRs can be managed in communities where there are smaller populations?

[Joseph McBrearty]

That's a very good question.

The first thing you have to understand is that the industry needs to listen to the folks who are in those communities. As we go out to try to spread the message of why nuclear is valuable, the first step with the process is really getting folk's opinions and listening to their concerns.