ENVI Committee Report

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

RADIOACTIVE WASTE: THE CAUTION AND DILIGENCE REQUIRED FOR THE COMMUNITY

AND THE ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION

The Bloc Québécois wishes to thank the members of the Committee and the staff of the Library of Parliament for their work on this study. This also extends to all the witnesses, individuals and organizations who informed the study and the experts who contributed to the public debate on the topic by submitting their observations through letters and briefs. This input will undoubtedly be worth revisiting in the near future. The Canadian governance of radioactive waste raises important issues that will have a significant impact on future generations.

Our hope is that over the next few years, the public will become increasingly aware of the issues surrounding nuclear waste, and that this will provide an opportunity to address the shortcomings of this study.

To give them the consideration they deserve, we wish to highlight the informative contributions of both experts and members of the public that were not included in this report.

Below is an overview of some of the points that warrant more attention, followed by the Bloc Québécois recommendations that were not supported by the Committee.

______________

As a reminder, the following are the Committee’s terms of reference for this study, as per the motion of 3 February 2022 (emphasis ours):

On Thursday, 3 February 2022, the Committee adopted the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study for a comprehensive review of nuclear waste governance in Canada and its impacts on the environment, including the issues raised by the import of these wastes and the trade in medical technologies; that the committee invite the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Natural Resources, representatives of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), experts, and other stakeholders; that the committee hold a minimum of four meetings; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.[1]

The study introduced by the Bloc Québécois was timely, as 2022 is a decisive year in the Canadian nuclear sector:

• 1) the Department of Natural Resources will release its updated Policy on Radioactive Waste Management;
• 2) the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is also expected to release its Nuclear Waste Management Strategy; and
• 3) the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (through the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development) will release a report specifically on the issue of radioactive waste.

In February and May 2022, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) held its final public hearings on the Chalk River NSDF and Rolphton nuclear reactor entombment project, leaving open a possible operating license grant for the site (in Ontario, near the Ottawa River), as early as June 2022.

The Bloc Québécois, along with various Indigenous organizations and communities,[2] wanted the licensing process for the Chalk River/ Rolphton project to be suspended by the Minister of Natural Resources. Through the Committee’s work and upcoming report from the Auditor General’s office, it was our belief that this would have allowed a better informed CNSC decision-making process. Increased diligence, at a time when major resources and projects are underway, made a suspension suitable. Until a more comprehensive picture is available ahead of the final decision-making process, a suspension could have reduced the potential harms of a premature license grant.

The organizations queried as part of this study, offered the Committee testimony and briefs which introduced multiple issues that warrant further analysis. There is no denying the fact that this study involves highly complex information. We had to consider the many scientific and technical expert opinions, international experience, as well as issues peripheral to the waste itself (scientific research, commercial structures on emerging technologies, the role of lobbies, security analysis, etc.).

For several years, and especially since 2016, many citizens’ organisations dedicated to environmental protection, as well as scientists and radioactive waste experts, have expressed concerns about Canadian governance in this area.

The Bloc Québécois does not believe that the recommendations in this report fulfill their expected function or role, which is to provide guidance to the government and all members of Parliament on the pathways which will allow policies to be improved and issues to be resolved. This must be accomplished with a concern for thoroughness, balance, and transparency and although we are in agreement with most of the reports’ content, its recommendations do not faithfully or accurately reflect some of the compelling testimony or the quantity of written contributions (briefs).

It is insightful that, of the 41 briefs received,[3] 36 were submitted by individuals and organizations documenting their concerns, reporting questionable regulations or regulations containing irregularities or inconsistencies, as well as disturbing experiences during local consultations.

The Bloc Québécois deplores the attempt by some members of the Committee (form the very first meeting) to divert the purpose of this study. The Bloc Québécois motion clearly indicated a study of nuclear waste governance in Canada, not a study on the development of the industry or new technologies. However, some members knowingly refocused testimony on the importance of the industry, potential markets, the cost benefits of developing SMRs, etc.[4]

By leaving so little space in this report for testimony and evidence that are at odds with the nuclear industry’s vision, it becomes disingenuous to claim how important it is to “listen to the public” and carry public consultations in this spirit, whether they are organized by the industry or by a House of Commons standing committee.

If there truly is political will to listen to the communities most directly affected by these issues, then they must be given the necessary (and deserved) consideration: by doing so, problems raised can be rectified and a climate of trust and respect can give way to enhanced and transparent consultation processes leading to free and informed consent.

The Bloc Québécois’s energy policy does not support the development of the nuclear industry. This said, we do acknowledge that it is a legitimate preference for other political and economic stakeholders. However, it seems to us that it would be in the interest of the proponents of nuclear power to improve the decision-making processes and waste governance if they wish to get the social licence required for their future success.

In light this, we expected that members of the Committee, government, and official opposition members, look more closely at the serious challenges which are inherent to nuclear industry: the management of radioactive waste.

With the impending CNSC decision to authorize the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) project and the irregularities that were identified and publicly condemned, it would have been advisable for the Committee to take into account more of the concerns raised by witnesses and detailed in the briefs. Issues raised in most of the written submissions were an alleged lack of transparency on behalf of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) (and its supplier, privately owned Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL)), the lacking approach in the maintenance of national inventories, the lack of transparency in accessing these data, and the appearance of an alleged conflict of interest with the NWMO structure and between the CNSC and Department of Natural Resources.

One of Natural Resources Canada’s mandates is to develop and promote nuclear energy. However, the regulatory body, CNSC, has the responsibility “to protect health, safety, security and the environment,” and, reports to Parliament, albeit exclusively through the Minister of Natural Resources.

In regulating a technology promoted by the department, the CNSC could be drawn to adopt practices which would encourage its rapid deployment, rather than ensure a higher level of caution.

Industry witnesses repeatedly dismissed the public concerns and whistleblowing about the CNSC not acting at arm’s length. Nevertheless, several witnesses and most of the briefs received by the Committee raised the appearance of a conflict of interest and recommended various solutions.[6]

Unfortunately, these concerns are not adequately reflected in the Committee’s report. The Committee failed to provide an accurate overview of the cases that illustrated how the alleged conflict of interest might manifest itself. As examples: the short deadlines in the consultation process, the refusal to release information requested, and so forth.

The Bloc Québécois submitted a balanced, implementable recommendation that would have placed Environment and Climate Change Canada in the CNSC’s authority process, side-by-side with Natural Resources Canada. The Committee rejected our proposal.

There are several problems with the Chalk River NSDF project and the entombment of the CANDU demonstration reactor at Rolphton. Unfortunately, this report cannot be relied upon to resolve them.  

The critical principle of keeping radioactive waste away from source water is not being followed. In many respects, the project runs counter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recommendations and guidelines[7] and to the five nuclear waste principles agreed upon by the Anishinabek Nation and the Iroquois Caucus (adopted by the leaders of 133 First Nations in Ontario).[8] There was the same lack of consideration for the potential hazards associated with the site and its underground characteristics:  Chalk River is located at the intersection of geological fractures[9] and in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, a seismic belt that spans the Ottawa Valley from Montreal to Temiscaming, as well as the Laurentians and parts of Eastern Ontario. Here again, the IAEA urges extreme caution.[10] A significant volume of various radioactive wastes will be buried in the NSDF. Witnesses and experts pointed to the lack of clarity and identification of the substances to be placed in the mound.

The Bloc Québécois is extremely concerned about the hazards this project entails. The NSDF poses risks to the main tributary of the Ottawa River, a source of drinking water for millions.

The CNSC will also conduct a final review of the entombment of the Rolphton nuclear demonstration reactor in the coming weeks and months. The first reactor to provide electricity in Canada, it was shut down in 1987. The reactor was of no concern for federal authorities until 2018, when CNL (created 4 years prior) offered to entomb the reactor in concrete, on site. The IAEA calls for this procedure only in case of emergencies and severe accidents.

The Bloc Québécois sees this as a careless solution for the consortium, which allows them to avoid the more costly procedure of dismantling the structure but would have allowed more reliable long-term safety thresholds.

Given the flaws of these two projects, it is not surprising that the IAEA made suggestions and recommendations to the CNSC in 2019, following the peer review conducted by the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) study.[11] Through this review, it was made clear that Canada was not irreproachable with its management of nuclear waste and this alone, justifies the involvement of elected members of Parliament on the issue at hand.

A number of witnesses quite rightfully addressed the physical aspects of Canada’s radioactive waste legacy. However, several issues remain, one of which is particularly significant: the redefinition of what constitutes intermediate level radioactive waste, hidden inside CNSC “mega-regulation” in June 2020.[12]

AECL retiree and Deep River resident William Turner provided the Committee with a well detailed brief[13] on this issue. Gilles Provost, science journalist and co-spokesperson for Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive and a witness as part of this study, wrote in Le Devoir on June 13, 2020:

“… we then run into a scientific absurdity: in physics, the level of radioactivity of a given substance depends on its decay rate. The faster it decays, the higher its activity. This means that a radioactive material with [higher] activity according to the law of physics, would now be low-level waste according to the new definition released by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission!”[14] [translation]  

Can the impressive reduction of intermediate level waste inventories be explained, at least in part, by this new classification? This new characterisation is having a real impact, however, since the Chalk River NSDF is designed to accommodate only low-level waste.

It appears that, as a result of these regulations, intermediate level waste (according to physics) will end up in the mound, mixed in with low-level waste.

CNSC witnesses asked about this, did not inform the members on this matter.

Canada’s radioactive waste inventory at Chalk River is 98% waste from the cobalt-60 trade, produced and sold as a medical radioisotope. The Bloc Québécois recognizes and values the global production and trade of medical radioisotopes. However, re-importation (as per trade agreements) should be discussed and analyzed in terms of the impacts these trade arrangements have on Canada’s ability to act in the best interests of its citizens and the environment.

CNL official Meghan Vickerd was asked to provide relevant information in a written response[15] in order to shed light on this commercial arrangement. However, given the privilege of confidentiality voiced by the private CNL consortium, members will not be informed of the extent to which Canada will continue to inherit the radioactive waste generated by its medical isotope business.

Invoking corporate secrecy provides cover for CNL: this should alert parliamentarians to exercise caution when it comes to the responsibilities of this consortium and the authority exercised by the Crown corporation AECL in its duty be transparent and accountable. The fact that Canada has been described as a “favourable regulatory environment” by CNL [16](through the nuclear industry stakeholder Nuclear Energy Insider) should be enough to encourage the reopening of the Seaborn Panel (discussed in the report).

The cost of the federal waste management program has quadrupled (to over $4 billion) since AECL outsourced management and operation of its sites and facilities to Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in 2014-2015.

This fact alone warrants a comprehensive assessment of nuclear waste governance in Canada. The reported transparency issues cannot be tolerated further.

The Committee was presented with the issue of site determination for a deep geological repository (DGR), a desirable solution for securing high and intermediate level waste. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is mandated to manage only spent fuel (high level) waste and it appears that it will lead the selection process of a future DGR site. One site actively sought by the NWMO (and the Government of Canada) is South Bruce, Ignace County, 30 km from Lake Huron.

From the onset, witnesses in favour of this project and their point of view are presented in the report almost unilaterally, while the statements and briefs (up to 14 pages) that address the NWMO’s practices are not sufficiently addressed.

The Bloc Québécois wishes to highlight the following points, which are entirely omitted from the report:

• the NWMO’s property buyout policies for the Municipality of South Bruce and the lack of dialogue with residents requesting a referendum on the creation of the DGR in their community;[17]
• the DAD (Decide–Announce–Defend) strategy, which, according to several observers, guides the NWMO’s consultation processes in the community;[18]
• the disruption to commercial (agricultural and tourism) activities in the immediate area and legitimacy of citizens concerns on groundwater contamination.
• the questionable funds provided to the municipality by the NWMO, totalling $9.4 million, which were spent, namely, to hire municipal employees supportive of the project and fund what are considered as “good/well-being projects for the municipality;[19] and
• the fact that hundreds of residents have been requesting explanations by the NWMO on what is considered misrepresentations on their behalf over the past several years, with no result.[20]

The contents of the Protect Our Waterways brief is alarming. As with most of the briefs that raise issues around radioactive waste governance in Canada, the topics of conflict of interest, accountability, independence of designated organizations, and lack of transparency, all were raised in South Bruce.

Canada must comply with, and fulfill its responsibilities, aim for exemplary governance which is inextricably linked to all public consultation processes focused regarding radioactive waste installations.

The Committee heard testimony from two witnesses, members of Indigenous communities. The Bloc Québécois is satisfied that some excerpts of their testimony have been included in the report. Mr. Michano and Mr. Niganobe[21] did not hold back their criticism towards the of the organizations who held consultations with Indigenous communities.

“Many communities have disagreed that these processes are welcoming and accessible at this current time… Whatever process you are going through now, whether it be the [CNSC] or the [NWMO], they definitely aren’t working in our favour…”

“For communities that are far behind the Canadian standard in terms of infrastructure, housing and all these other sorts of different things—forgotten communities—it’s coercion at this point… That coercion tactic of offering money, hundreds of thousands of dollars and the potential to have these jobs sounds like a benefit to the communities, but they’re being forced to take it because there is no other way out.”[22]

The NWMO agrees that Indigenous knowledge and Western science are part of a good decision-making process when this process is based on mutual trust and a respectful exchange of information. However, witness testimony and the content of several briefs depict a very different attitude toward Indigenous AND non-Indigenous communities dealing with the NWMO, on-site.

In addition, several Indigenous communities have condemned how their communities are dependant on the Canadian government under the Indian Act. The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the First Peoples in their demands and points to its historic and unequivocal support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. AECL and CNL must do the same. According to Article 29(2):

“States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”[23]

We recognize that concerned individuals and organisations having voiced their concerns and contributed to this study, either through testimony or briefs, did not obtain the same level of interest when the time came to prepare the Committee’s report. Members discussed on the “merit” of including – or not – content from briefs.

The Bloc Québécois believes that a committee study that raises interest in the population to the extent that contributions are researched and referenced, and are submitted in a single copy,[24] deserve consideration. Obviously, when so many briefs suggest positions that do not align with those of the industry and the regulator, this can be reflected in content choices. The editorial choices made for this report came from government and official opposition members. From our perspective, this does not serve the public or the publics’ interests.

The quantity and quality of the briefs received by the Committee in connection with this study sends, in our view, a very meaningful message. When these voices feel they are not being heard - whether it be in the communications or consultations organized by the NWMO, the CNSC or CNL – citizens turn to the public authority in which they have the most trust and believe they will truly be heard: the democratically elected representatives, sitting in the House of Commons. In this case, they chose to speak through the call for briefs process of Permanent House Committee.

It is reckless to use words such as “independence,” “transparency,” “accountability,” “rigour,” “compliance”—and other comparable terms—to describe radioactive waste governance in Canada and, in the same breath, dismiss individuals and organizations (including many academics, as well as technical and scientific experts from the industry) who specifically bring up alarming issues that affect human health and the environment.

The Bloc Québécois does not object to the recommendations made by Committee members. However, it is sub-standard that these are not more specific and prescriptive. Current energy related policymaking, decisions and pathways being considered by the Canadian government, precisely require such recommendations.    

Whether or not Canada chooses to develop nuclear power, it is already having to deal with the issue of radioactive waste. In the interest of protecting the environment and public health, this waste must be managed as flawlessly as possible and certainly, meet the highest international standards.

This study initiated by the Bloc Québécois shows that robust corrective actions must be taken, particularly in terms of transparency and decision-making processes, specifically when it comes to social acceptability in local communities where facilities for disposal of radioactive waste are planned.

Under the leadership of Pauline Marois’s Parti Québécois government, Quebec made the choice to leave nuclear power behind. Quebec has the resources to accomplish the energy transition and move closer towards a truly net-zero future, without nuclear technologies. As a pro-independence political party, the Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with those communities in Canada facing the hardships and serious problems of becoming “host-communities” for these hazardous materials. We firmly believe that Quebec and Canada each have the capability to develop energy sectors that will keep long-term dangers of radioactive waste at bay. The work that we have put into this study must serve our people, as well as Canada’s.

1.    The Committee recommends that, in order to shed light on the business circumstances for importing low level radioactive waste into Canada, the Government of Canada work with the Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) to hold public hearings; and that these hearings include inventories and clear guidance to manage these wastes. 
2.    The Committee recommends that, in order to ensure a very thorough assessment of the risks of radioactive waste treatments, all radioactive waste management or production projects currently under assessment, and those not yet authorized, be assessed under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada; and that no project be authorized under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. 
3.    The Committee recommends that, in order to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest and thereby improve public trust in radioactive waste management and the nuclear industry in Canada, the Government of Canada make the necessary changes to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the Financial Administration Act so that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources.
4.    The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, through the Department of Natural Resources, review its governance practices on the boards of directors of AECL and the CNSC to ensure that they are different from each other; and that seats be set aside for members of Indigenous and non‑Indigenous communities.
5.    The Committee recommends that, in order to respect the principles of public consultation, the 140 municipalities and the large number of Indigenous communities that have specifically called for more rigour in the Chalk River NSDF project, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conduct a regional environmental study as soon as possible.    
6.    The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada implement the recommendations of the Seaborn Panel; and that the regulatory and legislative changes that would result from implementing the panel’s recommendations be developed and considered without delay.
7.    The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada actively work with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) this year to ensure that the siting of the deep geological repository (DGR), to be announced by the end of 2023, is subject to rigorous consultation with affected communities; and that Natural Resources Canada, in the renewal of its Radioactive Waste Policy Framework currently underway, plan to work specifically with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to map suitable sites specifically for intermediate level radioactive waste.
8.    The Committee recommends that the Department of Natural Resources, in order to address the lack of planning for securing low level waste stockpiles, require the Crown corporation AECL and CNL to conduct a study on international best practices for the permanent burial of this class of waste.
9.    The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada, in order to ensure the stability of non-proliferation agreements and to avoid the safety risks associated with the practice of reprocessing radioactive materials, prohibit by regulation or legislation all reprocessing of used fuel and plutonium extraction.