Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 12 - Evidence - October 26, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:16 p.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's energy sector (including alternative energy).
Senator W. David Angus (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening everyone — colleagues, Mr. Nash and our visitors on the CPAC network and on the webcast. If I may say also, anybody is welcome to visit our new website, specially dedicated to our study on the energy sector and the future of energy in Canada. The website was launched today at noon, and we are proud of it. The address is www.canadianenergyfuture.ca, www.avenirenergiecanadienne.ca. We invite all and sundry to visit the site and not only to follow our committee deliberations, but to engage in the dialogue we are soliciting from Canadians on a number of critical questions about energy and how it relates to the environment and to the all-important Canadian economy.
Having said that, I welcome everyone as we continue phase two of our study. My name is David Angus, I am a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of this committee.
It is helpful for our viewers and for our witness to know who we are. To my immediate right is our deputy chair, Senator Grant Mitchell from Alberta; to his right are two folks who are able researchers from the parliamentary library, Marc LeBlanc and Sam Banks. To their right we have, not one of our permanent members but one of our dear colleagues in the Senate who is filling in for one of his absent colleagues, Senator Campbell from Vancouver, B.C., a shy, retiring senator who has a deep and abiding interest in everything we do here. When Senator Campbell comes, he is most welcome. It was absolutely a delight for us last week when he was able to point out someone's mistaken comment. The record will show whereof I speak.
To his right is my predecessor, the beloved Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta.
Coming around the other way, to my immediate left is our able clerk, Lynn Gordon; to her left is Senator Richard Neufeld from British Columbia; then Senator Judith Seidman from Quebec; Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec; Senator Fred Dickson from Nova Scotia; Senator Bert Brown from Alberta; and Senator Dan Lang from the Yukon Territories.
That is your jury, if you will, for tonight, sir. I especially welcome the witness for this evening; Ken Nash is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. We are pleased you could be here. I think, as you know, sir, we are now starting to focus our attention in various sectors in the energy area, and nuclear is one that has our attention.
In the next few weeks we will hear not only from people like your good self, but we will visit the Chalk River facility, the National Research Universal, NRU, reactor, and then we will spend a couple of days later in November visiting one of the chemical facilities, as well as Bruce Power. We have had two witnesses already from the nuclear sector.
We are starting to understand it. The nuclear sector is a bit controversial in this country, and waste and nuclear waste, there seem to be many misconceptions about how the technology has evolved. We are looking forward to hearing your comments. Thank you for coming, sir. I understand you have a preliminary statement, and then you will answer our questions.
Ken Nash, President, Nuclear Waste Management Organization: Thank you very much for the introduction, and good afternoon. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here, and I hope my remarks can be of some assistance to the committee.
I will focus on Canada's progress on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. This material is mainly a by-product of electricity generation. Work on used fuel disposal was initiated shortly after the 1978 Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning. This commission recommended that nuclear capacity in Ontario be capped pending progress on nuclear waste management and, in particular, disposal.
This recommendation led to the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada establishing the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program where Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was assigned the responsibility for developing geologic disposal.
In 1989, mainly in response to public concern about siting a repository, the concept of geologic disposal was referred to a federal environmental panel, and a moratorium was placed on siting activities.
The federal panel conducted a comprehensive review of AECL's disposal concept, and in the 1998 report, it said that the technical safety of geologic disposal had been demonstrated at a conceptual level. However, public support had not been demonstrated and there was insufficient social acceptability to proceed. The panel made a total of 52 recommendations that were largely translated into the 2002 Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
The Chair: If I can interrupt for a moment, you referred to a federal panel in 1998. Under whose aegis was that panel struck? I believe it had something to do with Blair Seaborn. Was that the name of the chair?
Mr. Nash: Yes, the former Deputy Minister Blair Seaborn was appointed chair of the panel, and it was a federal panel under the federal environmental assessment review agency.
The Chair: Was it under a particular department of government?
Mr. Nash: I am not sure which department it was under, but it was part of the environmental review framework at that point in time.
The Chair: Thank you. I am sure our researchers will provide us with the Seaborn report. Please carry on and I apologize for my interruption.
Mr. Nash: The Seaborn panel, as it was known, made 52 recommendations, and these were translated over a four-year period into the 2002 Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
Today, used fuel has continued to be accumulated, and Canada now has 2 million fuel bundles, or 30,000 tonnes, of used fuel in safe interim storage. This fuel is principally in Ontario where it is produced.
The nuclear power plant operators have adequate future capacity for decades to come, and with care and maintenance, the storage structures they have can provide safe storage for a period of 100 years or more. However, this material will remain hazardous almost indefinitely, and requires sound long-term management.
In accordance with the requirements of the 2002 Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, significant progress has been made since 2002. The Nuclear Waste Management Office, NWMO, was formed by Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power. Its mission is to develop and implement a socially acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible and economically feasible plan for Canada's used nuclear fuel.
An advisory council chaired by the Honourable David Crombie was formed. Trust funds have been established by the used fuel owners with balances now exceeding $5 billion. The NWMO completed a study of alternative storage and disposal options and submitted a recommendation to the Government of Canada in 2005. A government decision was made in 2007 to accept the NWMO recommendation, and the NWMO published an implementation plan in 2008.
Reflecting on our three-year study of alternatives conducted in 2002-05, major efforts were made by the NWMO to address the societal aspects of nuclear waste management. Over 18,000 Canadians including 2,500 Aboriginal people were engaged, and contributions were received from over 500 experts. There were 120 information and discussion sessions held in all provinces and territories. Several pieces of research were initiated, including identifying those values that Canadians believed should apply to the management of nuclear waste.
Not surprisingly, we heard a diversity of views on this topic. However, there was common ground in several areas. Safety and security, of course, are a top priority. This generation must take action now to manage the waste that we have created. We must take advantage of best international practice, and the approach must be adaptable to allow for changes in technology and societal priorities over the period of time that this material has to be managed.
NWMO's recommendation, which we now call adaptive phased management, emerged as the approach that best meets the priorities and values of Canadians, and this plan was approved by the Government of Canada in 2007. This approach is both a technical method and a management system. The technical method is isolation in a deep geologic formation where used fuel can be monitored and retrieved if necessary. This method is aligned with international practice where almost all countries with major nuclear programs have made national decisions for a deep geologic repository.
Equally important is how we arrive there, and this approach is specifically tailored to Canadian values and priorities. It requires flexibility in the pace and manner of implementation; responsiveness to new developments and traditional Aboriginal knowledge; and openness, transparency and staged decision making with the involvement of Canadians at every step of the way. It requires the facility to be located in an informed and willing host community with a suitable geologic formation.
The Government of Canada accepted NWMO's recommendation in June 2007, and we are now responsible for implementing a national infrastructure project that will involve an investment of $16 billion or more by the owners of used fuel. The project will be a high technology project with skilled employment for hundreds over many decades and will operate as a centre for expertise for international collaboration. It will involve a long-term partnership between the NWMO and the host community, and will foster community well-being. Of course, it will be highly regulated with strict scientific and technical criteria to ensure safety.
Since 2008, NWMO has published annually an implementation plan after public consultation. The plan charts directions and milestones against seven key objectives: building long-term relationships with interested Canadians, and involving them in decision making; further developing repository technology; collaboratively developing and then implementing a process for site selection; updating the formula for trust fund deposits to ensure that those who benefit from nuclear energy pay for the long-term management costs; research into alternative technologies and societal expectations to ensure that our plans are adapted as necessary; continuous improvement in our governance structure; and continuous improvement in our organizational capability.
Building relationships and involving interested Canadians in decision making is a fundamental part of our plan. We see ourselves as working on behalf of Canadians to implement adaptive phased management, and we can only succeed if we maintain a social licence to proceed.
We have established several mechanisms to achieve these objectives in a systematic way. The mechanisms include a forum of Aboriginal elders from across Canada and projects with Aboriginal groups, a forum of municipal association leaders and frequent dialogues with the reactor communities. A diversity of engagement methods are used, including multi-party dialogues, citizen and government round tables, dialogues led by Aboriginal organizations, public information sessions and briefings on request, and of course, ongoing provincial and federal government briefings. We use these mechanisms on a frequent basis to seek input to our implementation plans and, more recently, on our plans for site selection.
Probably the most challenging task is selecting the site for a used fuel repository. In 2008 and 2009, using those mechanisms I have described, NWMO held two rounds of public dialogue and focused first on the principles and then on a draft process for site selection. Throughout these dialogues Canadians continued to express the values, objectives and principles they expect to see to guide the process: safety first; consistency with international standards; the need for this generation to take action; adherence to the principle of the informed and willing host community; a commitment to community well-being; and the importance of a fair, inclusive and transparent process involving all those who may see themselves affected.
In May this year, NWMO initiated the site selection process, and has been actively involved in building awareness of the project. The capacity building program offers communities an opportunity to learn more about the project. Several communities in Saskatchewan and Ontario have taken advantage of this program. The full site selection process involves a series of progressively more detailed studies to evaluate candidate site for technical safety and social acceptability. For the final site selection, it will be necessary there for NWMO to demonstrate a robust safety case against regulatory requirements and for the community to demonstrate strong support.
In summary, Canada, together with its international partners, does have the technology for the safe, long-term isolation of used nuclear fuel in a geologic formation. Canada has the benefit of a strong government policy and legislative framework to support progress. Trust funds and mechanisms are in place to ensure that financial burdens will not be passed to future generations. As a result of successive reviews, extensive dialogues and government decisions over the past 25 years, NWMO now has a mandate that is consistent with the expectations of Canadians who expect us to take action and make progress.
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Before I go to the list that is becoming longer by the moment, I omitted at the beginning to describe your background. Can you give us some of your professional qualifications and your evolution to the point where you became the CEO or President of Nuclear Waste Management Organization, and who you are accountable to?
Mr. Nash: I graduated as a mechanical engineer in England. That is probably noticeable. I spent about eight years with British Nuclear Fuels in the nuclear industry there, working on fuel design and nuclear waste management issues. I came to Canada in 1981, and had the privilege to work for the then Ontario Hydro, and then, Ontario Power Generation, where I held a number of positions: finance, nuclear operations, environmental planning and policy development.
When the NWMO was formed, I was one of the founding directors and became the chairman. For the first number of years, I was chairman of the board, and now I am the CEO. Our board of directors, in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, is appointed by the waste owners — Ontario Power Generation, Hydro-Québec and New Brunswick Power — and this formulation, in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, is consistent with how the legislative framework and responsibilities work in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. If you look internationally, the framework in these countries tends to lead to the best progress.
That is how we are formulated, and it is in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
The Chair: Again, without going into a lot of detail, you have talked about Canada together with international partners. Who are these partners?
Mr. Nash: The partnerships come in several forms. We have exchange agreements with our equivalent organization in Sweden, Finland, France and Switzerland. We choose these partners to have exchange agreements with because they are considered leaders in the field. There are other forums where we exchange information, through the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and we have an organization called the International Association for Environmentally Safe Disposal of Radioactive Materials, EDRAM, where the leaders of eight European, the U.S., Canada and Japan — my equivalents — meet twice a year to exchange information.
Unlike the power reactor business where there is a degree of competition, as you have probably heard, there is a huge amount of cooperation between our equivalent organizations internationally. We are part of a collective effort to deal with this subject matter.
The Chair: These exchange agreements involve more than information, I take it. You exchange technology and transfer it?
Mr. Nash: Yes; only last week I was in Sweden and Germany, and we were doing exactly those activities.
The Chair: Excellent; without further ado, I will go to the deputy chair, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Nash. It is good to have you with us.
France has a great commitment to nuclear energy for electricity. I think it is 70 per cent or 75 per cent. How do they store their nuclear waste?
Mr. Nash: France has a national energy policy engaged in recycling their fuel. Initially, their used fuel is stored at the nuclear power plants, then transferred to a place called La Hague where it is reprocessed into plutonium, uranium and the by-products — the nuclear waste that exists after that process. Their long-term plan is to store that nuclear waste in a deep geologic repository.
Senator Mitchell: What is the risk trade-off between transporting waste some distance and storing it? It sounds like France is trying to develop a single storage site. Can waste be stored in a single storage site, thereby suggesting that transportation is not as risky as storage?
Mr. Nash: The transportation of used or spent fuel has been carried out over many decades, especially in Europe. There are operations that transfer spent fuel from Japan to France and England over long distances. I think the safety report is excellent. There are international regulations that are complied with by every country. From a technical point of view, transportation of used fuel is well demonstrated. It has an extremely good safety record.
Senator Mitchell: What is the worst that happens? We have a lot of waste stored in some geological reserve and people ask what happens if there is an earthquake or some disruption. Are we talking about explosion, or the dissemination of radiation? If so, how far does the radiation travel? Is this waste inert so it will not explode?
Mr. Nash: I mentioned in my opening remarks that this material remains hazardous for a long period of time. It is important that it is well managed. The hazards of storage in a deep geologic repository are mainly the release of radionuclides and how that release could come back to impact humans and the environment.
An explosion, especially in the case of CANDU fuel, is almost a technical impossibility because we would have to create the conditions to have nuclear fission. The main concerns are the transfer of the radionuclides back to the environment. Without going into detail, the used-fuel repository concept is based on a multi-barrier system. There are several barriers that prevent the radionuclides coming from a deep geologic repository into the environment where they may impact humans and the environment itself.
Senator Mitchell: If waste is being transported and someone hits the truck that is transporting it and the waste flies out, how serious is that accident?
Mr. Nash: It is safe to say that if there is an accident between a vehicle transporting used fuel and some other vehicle, the vehicle will come out worse. These containers are huge. They are typically a 12-inch- or 1-foot-thick wall of stainless steel with many bolts holding the lid on, and they are torture tested against huge impacts and fires. There is zero risk of any significant radiation leakage.
Used nuclear fuel is in the form of solid material. It is not a liquid that can leak out if there is a small leak in the container. It is solid material. The fuel itself is in the form of a ceramic, and the ceramic itself is in a metal, corrosion-resistant, zircaloy tube, so the chances of any radiation escaping during even a very serious accident are extremely limited and the risks are very small.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned in your presentation this idea of a search for a community. I think you say community. Are you saying there will be one site in Canada? What is the spatial relationship between concentrations of plants and a storage facility?
Mr. Nash: Used fuel is currently stored in seven different locations in Canada, and the plan for adaptive phased management is for one geologic repository to be located in an informed and willing host community with a suitable geologic formation, so the plan is for one geologic repository that will store all the used fuel.
Senator Mitchell: Again you mentioned the idea of a community. Why would you have to locate this repository near a community? It seems to be something you would locate relatively far from a community.
Senator Massicotte: In Alberta?
Mr. Nash: The risk levels from a geologic repository are not such that it has to be moved far from a community. The release of radionuclides to the environment is such that it would not harm a local community, now or looking way into the future.
When one looks at the geography of Canada, although there are big open spaces, someone may feel that space is close to them, especially if one looks at traditional Aboriginal lands. There is an affinity with the land, and anywhere in Canada is considered important to an Aboriginal community somewhere.
Senator Mitchell: Terrorism is current and a concern. Can you talk about terrorism in the context of storage?
Mr. Nash: Yes; there are important security considerations related to this material, and there are extensive protective measures taken to ensure the safeguarding of the material. Canada has certain obligations under international treaties, and inspectors come to Canada to review our procedures and ensure that our material is safely stored. That review occurs now and would apply to this situation.
Having said that, it would be a difficult task for someone to remove this material and make mischief with it.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you, Mr. Nash, for being here. Relating to the deep geological formation — and Senator Mitchell asked about France — does France presently use that approach? Do they have a deep geologic formation, or a number of them, where they store the fuel that you are speaking of?
Mr. Nash: As of today, there is no country anywhere storing used fuel in a deep geologic repository. As I mentioned earlier, most countries with major nuclear programs have made a national decision to work towards a deep geological repository, and France is one of them. The French have identified an area where they want to build their deep geologic repository, and their target date to have that facility in service is around 2025. It would not, under the French concept, store used fuel. As I mentioned earlier, France is in the business of recycling, and they remove the uranium and plutonium from their spent fuel and have a by-product that is known as high-level waste, but it has similar hazards to the used fuel that we have. Their plan is to store that high-level waste in a deep geologic repository.
Senator Neufeld: Help me a little bit, please, but I have heard lots about Yucca Mountain in Nevada where they have been digging for the last numbers of decades. This project goes back probably 30 years or more. Is that project similar to what you are speaking about now? Is that what they are looking for, some geological location where they can store their nuclear waste? They have been digging for that long and still have not gotten anywhere, and yet we are saying that France, which generates almost all their electricity by nuclear power, will have something in place in 2025?
Mr. Nash: The target date for the French repository to be in service is 2025, which is 15 years from now.
Senator Massicotte: It has probably been pushed back three or four times already.
Mr. Nash: Perhaps I will make a few remarks about Yucca Mountain. The federal government in the United States made a decision — I think it was some time in the early 1980s — that the location for their deep geologic repository would be Yucca Mountain. That decision was made by the federal government. It was not supported by the State of Nevada, and the State of Nevada, I think, since the early 1980s has been resisting that. The Obama administration made the decision shortly after they came into office that Yucca Mountain was not the way to proceed. Now in the United States they have something called the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future that is now studying how the United States should move forward with the back end of the fuel cycle.
Senator Neufeld: Is any work taking place in Yucca Mountain as we speak?
Mr. Nash: I understand not.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. You talked about $16 billion to develop this site to hold the spent fuel. I assume that is the spent fuel that you estimate will be produced for many years to come, or is that amount to take care of the approximately 2.2 million tonnes that are now stored at different generating sites?
Mr. Nash: I mentioned that the volume of used fuel we have now is 2 million fuel bundles. We project over the lifetime of the existing reactors we will have generated in Canada 3.6 million fuel bundles, so the $16 billion relates to the 3.6 million fuel bundles that are projected from the current reactors.
Senator Neufeld: What cost will that projection add to the generation of electricity from those plants?
Mr. Nash: I do not have an up-to-date figure, but I think it is in the order of somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour. If one averaged it over the 3.6 million fuel bundles that were created, and estimated how much electricity was generated in terms of kilowatt hours, and then divided that into the cost, I think you come to a number something like 0.1 to 0.2 cents per kilowatt hour.
In the United States, for instance, to put money into their trust fund, they charge a levy of 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour.
Senator Neufeld: However, the ongoing cost will be huge to start with. Over a period of 100 years, I guess we can dispute that number a little bit, but the upfront cost of developing deep geological storage will add a fair cost, I would think, to the initial process of building a site.
Second, you said that responsibility —
The Chair: You are not going to ask him if he agrees?
Senator Neufeld: He will tell me.
The Chair: His little nod will not show on the record.
Senator Neufeld: Do you agree?
Mr. Nash: Maybe I will explain. From my perspective, a big part of that $16 billion is the upfront fixed cost of the repository. If more fuel is generated, the incremental cost of managing that fuel is probably less than the number of 0.1 to 0.2 cents that I mentioned.
Senator Neufeld: Are you telling me that the upfront cost of building a site and transporting these 2.2 million bundles to a repository will raise the price of electricity tomorrow only by 0.1 per cent?
Mr. Nash: Perhaps I will explain. The price of electricity now includes the cost of this repository.
Senator Neufeld: Where is the money? If it is already included, there must be a fund someplace. Where is it?
Mr. Nash: Under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, one of our responsibilities is to estimate the cost of the long-term management of used fuel. As I say, for 3.6 million fuel bundles, as we estimate, it will cost $16 billion to develop, build and operate the deep geologic repository.
Another responsibility we have under the act is to determine how much each waste producer in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick should contribute to the trust funds. Today, in terms of funds that are now in place in those different provinces, there is over $5 billion, and there is a schedule of payments that are being made today to top up those trust funds, such that we will reach $16 billion.
The funding formula is in place, and trust fund contributions are being made today towards that $16 billion. There is no need to raise the price of electricity any further to deal with this material.
Senator Neufeld: I have one observation. I have a feeling that when a $16 billion project is taken on, someone will say we better raise the price of electricity to pay for it; not that we have all that money put away. I do not dispute what you are saying, but it will be interesting to see how that transpires.
You said this repository is the responsibility of these generators of electricity in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. What responsibility does the federal government have? We have had people here from the federal government talking about who is responsible for this nuclear waste. Who is responsible for it at the end of the day? Who picks up the tab; the taxpayers of Canada or these generators and these generators alone? We know in the refurbishment of these plants, the taxpayer of Canada is participating in that cost.
Mr. Nash: In 1996, the Government of Canada issued a policy framework for how to deal with the long-term management of radioactive waste. In that policy framework, the federal government said that it was responsible for policy, regulation and oversight, and those that produced nuclear waste, under the polluter pay principle, were responsible for the long-term management, and for paying for the long-term management, of nuclear waste. Those principles are embodied in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
Senator Banks: To follow up on Senator Neufeld's question, is it not the case that, unlike every other means of generating energy of any kind from any source, nuclear energy generation is exclusively the purview of the federal government? Is that correct?
Mr. Nash: My understanding is, the federal government is responsible for regulation and energy policy, and decisions about energy production are the purview of the provincial government.
Senator Banks: Say the last part again, please?
Mr. Nash: The purview of the provincial government policy, in terms of the selection of generation types, is the responsibility of provincial governments.
Senator Banks: I think I understand what you are saying.
The Chair: To be clear, because this point is fundamental, what I think we are hearing is that each individual province decides what form of power generation they will use. Once they decide, if nuclear is that decision, the regulatory oversight is provided by the federal government. If the decision was to use wind or something else, oversight would be provided by the province.
Mr. Nash: Absolutely.
Senator Banks: I did not quite follow the answer that you gave to the chair's question about to whom you are responsible. You are administering the NWMO under an act. To you, does the NWMO report directly to a minister and, if not, to whom, and in which ministry does it report? Is it environment, natural resources or industry?
Mr. Nash: Perhaps I can explain the requirements under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, and the interplay with the federal government and the NWMO.
Under the act, the waste owners are responsible for forming the NWMO. Under the act, the NWMO is required to make a study of different alternatives and make a recommendation to the government. Under the act, the government has the decision power to accept that recommendation or not.
Senator Banks: When you made the recommendation, to which office did you send it?
Mr. Nash: We report through the Minister of Natural Resources. The recommendation was reviewed by the federal cabinet and was approved through that process.
On an annual basis, we make a report to the federal government by March 31 each year. That report goes to the minister. The minister tables the report in Parliament.
Senator Banks: Then we all receive that report.
Mr. Nash: After the government has approved the recommendation, or made the decision — and the government made the decision in June 2007 — in addition to the annual report, we are also required to submit a triennial report. The triennial report is a document that looks back over the past three years on our progress, and it looks forward over the next five years.
We will submit that triennial report by March 31 next year.
Senator Banks: I think that Canadians who are watching this issue and paying attention to this question will be interested in knowing where the hammer lies with respect to choosing the site.
I will give you a hypothetical scenario. You answered to Senator Mitchell that there will be a centrally located site, and that is it. It is interesting to note that all the governments in the world have decided to approach the issue this way, yet none has done it. We may be the first.
Let me ask you hypothetically, because you have listed the principles that say the site must be a willing community. What happens if there is not a willing community, or if you decide, the government decides or someone decides that, notwithstanding a certain amount of resistance from a community, that is the best, safest place to put the repository? Where does the hammer lie in the final moment? When the final decision is made, who will decide that site?
Mr. Nash: Again, I will take you back to the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.
Senator Banks: We passed that act.
Mr. Nash: You asked me where the hammer lies, and my understanding is that, in accordance with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, NWMO submitted a recommendation. The government accepted that recommendation.
Our mandate is to work in accordance with that recommendation, and it requires a willing host community. Neither the government nor NWMO under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act can make a decision to force a community to have this facility.
Senator Banks: Are there communities at the moment that are clamouring for it? Is there competition?
Mr. Nash: Perhaps I will make one more clarification to the point. Canada is not in the lead. The two countries in the lead are Finland and Sweden, and both countries have secured willing hosts and are in the process of working toward the construction of the final repository. In Finland, they have sunk their geologic workings down to 400 metres close to the repository depth, and they will have their facility in service by 2020 in a willing host community. The Swedes will have their facility shortly after, again in a willing host community, so it is possible to achieve the willing host community.
In Canada, as I mentioned earlier, we initiated our site selection process in May this year. One of the first activities was capacity building, making people aware of this process. We have a program where people can learn about it, and four communities have declared publicly an interest in learning more about this process, so they have entered the process. There are two communities in Saskatchewan and two in Ontario. It is a long way and there is a great deal of capacity building before any final decision can be made.
Senator Banks: This is more an observation, I guess, but I know you will have considered this point, Mr. Nash. History is often the best predictor of the future. Can we assume, should we assume, might we assume, ought we to assume that the relationship between the original cost estimates of building the repository at Yucca Mountain and the money that has been spent so far may happen in Canada? Would it be good to assume this relationship might end up happening to the $16 billion estimate?
Mr. Nash: That will all depend on how it is managed. There are good examples of nuclear projects being managed well and there are examples that this committee is probably aware of where nuclear projects have not been managed well. If this project is managed well, there is no reason why the $16 billion estimate cannot be realized. The work is in two components.
One component is what I would call close to standard mining techniques, which can be estimated handily. Of course, there are always geologic conditions that can cause additional cost, and then there is the packaging of material. The Swedes, for instance, have demonstrated the cost of building containers and the cost of handling those containers, and the cost estimate we have in the $16 billion is more or less taken from the Swedish experience. If the project is managed well, there is no reason why the $16 billion cannot be properly achieved.
The other thing to recognize is that under the mechanisms in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, we have a responsibility of adjusting the cost estimate as we go along. If the project is managed well, it will not be necessary to adjust the payments to the trust fund. The senator pointed out that if it is not managed well, there may be a need to increase the payments in the trust fund.
Senator Banks: The chair will recall that when this committee went to Europe, among other things it did while there, it met with many of the people responsible for spent fuel management. In the course of this study, it would be a good idea to meet with them again because there has been a lot of development since we were last there.
The Chair: I understand you will mention that point in your speech in the Senate chamber, which will help us.
Senator Banks: I will. Thank you, Mr. Nash.
Senator Lang: Welcome, Mr. Nash. This subject is interesting, and I was surprised to hear you state that there is not an existing deep geological repository anywhere in the world for the purpose of storage of this waste.
Mr. Nash: To clarify, there are no deep geologic repositories in operation for spent fuel or used fuel. There is a deep geologic repository in operation in the United States for other forms of radioactive waste.
Senator Lang: Going back to the fact that there is not at present a deep geologic repository being utilized for this purpose, you say this is safe. The most outstanding issue to the public is whether this repository meets all the criteria and gives us the comfort and assurance that once it is built, there will be no mishaps. Perhaps you can expand for us why you are so confident that it is safe and why we do not have one in existence.
Mr. Nash: In the document I provide here under the project description, if you turn to that page, that pictorial view is what a deep geologic repository could look like. The safety is based on something called a multi-barrier system. That means there are several barriers that prevent the release of radioactivity. The first barrier is the fuel itself. It is in the form of a ceramic pellet so the radioactivity by and large is trapped in the pellet. The pellet itself is in a zircaloy tube that forms the fuel bundles. The zircaloy tube is a corrosion-resistant metal that will be closed. There we have two barriers.
The fuel bundle itself, in this case, is placed in a copper container, and the Swedes, through studies, have proved, and we have verified various aspects here in Canada, the same as in Finland and other countries, that the copper container would have a long lifetime. When it is deep underground in this container in this rock formation, it is then surrounded by clay material called bentonite that itself is a retardant for nuclear waste, so for any radioactive particles being released; and then of course there is the geosphere. This facility will be 500 metres below ground typically, and in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield, although there is water down there, research has shown that it has been down there for literally millions of years. The scientists can confirm how long that water has been down there by its salinity. There are other geologic formations in Canada called sedimentary sequences where the water has been down there even longer.
Based on that research, those are the principles around safety. The International Atomic Energy Agency has endorsed this approach, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD has endorsed it, and the European Union has endorsed it, and it is expected that soon the European Union will require its member states to make progress toward a deep geologic repository. There is international consensus in policy and decision making that has concluded that deep repositories are a safe way of storing this material, and protecting people and the environment in the long term.
Senator Lang: I want to visualize this facility. Will it be like a big stadium 1,500 metres down? Was it 500 metres or 1,500 metres?
Mr. Nash: It is approximately 500 metres.
Senator Lang: There is a big amphitheatre, and then, is this waste stacked up like cord wood or how does it work?
Mr. Nash: Unfortunately, this diagram does not go into that level of detail, but the expectation is that it will be a series of galleries or tunnels. There will be a shaft to access the repository and a series of galleries and tunnels that could have a cross-section similar to this cross-section. These copper containers will be placed in bore holes in the floor or bore holes in the walls of the tunnels.
Senator Lang: I will ask about another area. You spoke about recycling for various other nuclear institutions and plants. I assume that recycling will be the case here; we will recycle and whatever waste is left will be stored?
Mr. Nash: On the question of recycling, during our public consultations in the study phase and the consultations we have now, the question of recycling came up time and time again. Canadians asked the question: how do we recycle this material? Do we recycle this material?
When we conducted the initial study, we looked into the possibility of recycling. Frankly, from a waste management point of view, there is no significant value in recycling. If one looks internationally, France recycles and Japan plans to recycle. China has plans to recycle, but several other countries that once sent their material for recycling have decided not to recycle. Those decisions not to recycle have been taken because of the cost — it is high — and other considerations such as proliferation and environmental. For a country like France, and for Japan and China, the policy there appears to be one of energy security, because if they recycle they can extract more energy from the material.
From a waste management point of view, we do not see any value. We keep a watching brief on this area and our analysis shows that recycling is not on the horizon, certainly not in Canada. If one looks into detail at recycling for CANDU fuel, it is a poor candidate for recycling. As this committee is probably aware, in other countries, they use pressurized water reactors using enriched fuel. The spent fuel they have has more usable products in it, uranium and plutonium, that can be reused, and CANDU fuel has natural uranium. CANDU fuel is a poor candidate for recycling. Given that other countries have gotten out of the recycling business, it does not appear that recycling will appear any time soon in Canada.
As mentioned, in adaptive phased management, we hold out the possibility that in the future, recycling could occur so the deep geological repository we are aiming for would have a provision for retrievability. If future generations find a potential use for this material, it could be recovered and recycled.
Even so, if we look at France where they recycle, they still need a deep geological repository to store the by-products of recycling, which is high level waste.
Senator Lang: Lately, there has been controversy about exporting nuclear waste. Is that correct? We were planning to recycle that waste somewhere in Europe?
The Chair: It is not waste; it is cylinders from the generators.
Mr. Nash: Perhaps I can provide my understanding of that situation at Bruce Power. I understand the president was here some time ago. He probably explained their plans or activities to rehabilitate reactors. Currently, in part of their rehabilitation program they have removed 16 steam generators. These steam generators are slightly contaminated and are currently stored on the Bruce Power site. My understanding is that the plan was for Bruce Power to ship those generators to Sweden. In Sweden, they would recycle those steam generators and return the radioactive waste back to Canada, and the metal would be reused for other purposes.
Senator Lang: My next question relates to the long-term objectives of the repository if we were to proceed and it was to be put into place. Is that repository to store only what waste we produce or will it have the capability, if we chose, to import waste from other jurisdictions?
Mr. Nash: As I mentioned earlier, our ability to proceed is based on our social licence to proceed. We recognize that we cannot proceed on a topic like this one without the support of Canadians. The social licence we have is for fuel that is produced in Canada. Canadians, in general, are willing to take the hard decisions that are necessary to manage the used fuel that is produced in Canada. We do not have a social licence to proceed with a deep geological repository that will accommodate fuel from outside Canada. Frequently we are reminded, that capability is a completely different set of circumstances.
Senator Campbell: How much waste do Denmark and Sweden produce, versus what we produce?
Mr. Nash: To my knowledge, Denmark has no nuclear reactors. Sweden and Finland have nuclear reactors.
Senator Campbell: My apologies.
Mr. Nash: Sweden has 12 nuclear reactors and they are pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors. I think they have less capacity than we have.
The pressurized water reactors by volume produce a smaller volume of nuclear waste than CANDU reactors, because at any given tonne of light water or boiling water reactor fuel, the burn-up or the electricity generated is probably four times as much as it is from CANDU fuel. That is because their fuel is enriched by four times the 0.7 that occurs naturally. Their volume will be less than ours.
Senator Campbell: It seems like we are on the horns of a dilemma. We have had production since 1957, off and on, but it started in 1957. We are continuing to produce waste without a solution for storing it until now when we propose to have this deep geological repository. However, you have a skeptical public who have lived through Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other disasters. Do you agree that one of your biggest difficulties is selling this approach to the Canadian public?
Mr. Nash: When I made my opening remarks, when it came to the question of site selection, I described it as one of the most difficult tasks. There is no question that there is apprehension about questions of nuclear. Those communities that have nuclear power plants and live with nuclear, by and large, have a degree of comfort and acceptance of it. Communities that do not have them need to have the time and space to learn about this technology.
As I mentioned earlier, a number of communities are interested in learning about this waste facility. From my perspective, it will not necessarily be those communities that are interested that will make the difference between success and failure. Will other Canadians who might not be interested in these facilities support communities that are interested because this is a national infrastructure project that can be for the benefit of Canada? The community that is interested in it will be given fair space and opportunity to take a serious look at this facility.
We understand that it is not for every community. Our process is based on the fact that a community can choose to enter the process and can choose to leave the process.
Senator Campbell: I support nuclear energy. What is your concept of community? When you are dealing with nuclear power, if something happens, it will happen farther afield than the immediate community. Whichever way the prevailing wind is blowing, the waste will go with it, but you talk about communities. For example, let us say that I live in Regina, and a nearby community decides that it would be nice to have this facility in their community for all the great reasons talked about. You would have to convince many more people of these benefits, such as in Winnipeg, Regina and perhaps even communities in North Dakota. It is fine that a community might be in favour of the facility but the waste from this kind of operation can spread far and wide.
Mr. Nash: The point you are making was made repeatedly to us during the two years of dialogue we had on what a suitable site selection would look like. The question of community is not easy to answer. There are different definitions, depending on location. We are working on principle that anyone who feels impacted by this facility has a right to be involved in the decision. We recognize it is not only the particular geographic host community, a particular municipality or a First Nation group that needs to consider this facility. The region, as we move through the different stages of our process, needs to be involved. There is no question about it.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much; and good luck.
Senator Massicotte: Certainly, you are well informed, so I will take the occasion to ask a couple of questions so that I understand this project better. On the point of communities, I wish you all the luck. I am glad to see that you are optimistic, but you will have to give some incentive to communities. Otherwise, you will not have agreement. Talking about nuclear waste, I understand Russia is one of the largest contractors today of nuclear reactors. One of their major selling points is that they will receive and store nuclear waste. Is that selling point a big deal? If it is not, how come it appears to be such a big deal? You said it is not a problem to bury this waste deep in the ground. It is an education and openness issue. Explain the relevance of that selling point to me. Why is it so important?
Mr. Nash: I will preface where we are. As an organization, we specialize in dealing with nuclear waste in Canada. We have no opinion on electricity generation choices, whether nuclear otherwise. Our job is to manage the nuclear waste that exists now and into the future in Canada.
I can provide you with my understanding of the question you raised about Russia. In Russia, they accept fuel from other countries. They have plants and, to a small extent, they reprocess used fuel. I understand they have been able to secure orders for reactors partly on that basis. Again, I am not a specialist in that area so I apologize for not being able to deal adequately with your question.
Senator Massicotte: I understand from a security sense that the United States has the technology relative to spent fuel to do something to it to ensure that it is never used in a terrorist act or any other form of threat to another country. They somehow adjust the spent fuel and store it. Is that accurate?
Mr. Nash: I am not familiar with the question of fuel processing because we deal with direct disposal, as it is known.
Perhaps the information you have comes from this area. The French system of reprocessing separates out uranium, plutonium and high-level waste. The separation of plutonium becomes a potential proliferation issue. There are considerations in the United States by some universities and research institutions to try to develop a reprocessing system that does not separate out the plutonium and, thereby, to produce a reprocessing or recycling system that carries less risk for proliferation reasons.
I do not know whether that issue is the source of your question, but that is my understanding of some of the developments in the United States.
Senator Brown: Mr. Nash, can you clarify the recycling done in France? Does that recycling relate to what is known as the breeder reactor?
Mr. Nash: The French, as I mentioned, have a recycling program at a processing facility in La Hague. They separate the uranium, plutonium and high-level waste. The first and current use today in some places of the recycled material is called mixed oxide fuel. MOX fuel can be reformulated as plutonium and uranium, put back into a fuel bundle and re-burned in the current reactors that the French have.
The breeder reactor, sometimes known as the fast reactor, can use the uranium and plutonium in a different way to create today's reactors that use fission. These reactors also use fission but it is a different kind of nuclear reaction. The fast breeder reactors have a better potential for continuous reuse of the material. The system is far from having commercial viability because it has huge technical difficulties, as I understand. That system is well down the road, probably several decades away from becoming a commercial reality.
Senator Brown: The breeder reactor supplies more fuel from the same starting point.
Mr. Nash: That is correct.
Senator Brown: Can you clarify something else for me? People have mentioned Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Is my understanding correct that nothing really escaped from Three Mile Island?
Mr. Nash: It is correct to say that events at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were completely different levels of radioactive releases. The releases at Three Mile Island were low. I understand that they created minimal impact on the environment whereas the Chernobyl incident was extremely severe.
Senator Brown: I understand what happened at Chernobyl. Some of the material I read indicated that nothing escaped at Three Mile Island.
Mr. Nash: I apologize. I am not an expert in this area, but it is my understanding that the releases, if there were any, were limited. The main concern I understand about Three Mile Island is that it came very close to being serious.
Senator Brown: My understanding from what I read is it never escaped the plant.
Senator Seidman: All my questions have probably been touched upon in one way or another by other senators. I want to review some areas to have a clearer understanding for myself.
In your overview of Canada's plan, this lovely booklet that explains everything, I think Senator Lang prompted you to look at the project description and talk about the construction of the site and its safety. You said that Sweden and Finland had dealt with the safety issues and that there was some international consensus on the safety.
Is that only theory or has the safety been tested? Has evidence been produced to demonstrate the safety?
Mr. Nash: To clarify once again, the repository and the system has to be safe over literally thousands of years, so no one has demonstrated it over a period of thousands of years. That is evident.
The demonstration of safety comes in several forms. It comes in the forms of theory and computer codes.
It comes in the form of corrosion resistance testing of the materials.
It comes in the form of testing, deep underground at 500 metres, how long water has been down there. Is the water recycled into the environment, and what period of time does that take? A great deal of evidence says that it takes literally thousands of years, if not millions, for the water deeper than 500 metres to be recycled.
Other evidence is "natural analogues"; things that occur in nature. For instance, at Cigar Lake in Saskatchewan, a uranium deposit has been there for literally a billion years, and the release of the radioactivity to the environment is virtually nonexistent.
There are examples of naturally occurring reactors in places in India, where natural recurring reactions have taken place in the past, and the radioactivity has not been released to the environment.
There are examples where copper-type materials have been found that have been placed on the seabed or in different places where corrosion has not occurred over literally hundreds of years.
Multiple lines of reasoning say that deep geologic depositories can be demonstrated to be safe.
Regarding the criteria that are looked at, we have a joint project with the Finns and Swedes in Greenland to assess the impact of the next ice age. For instance, several thousand years ago in Canada, there were a couple of kilometres of ice where we are now. The predictions are that several thousand years from now, an ice age will occur again, and so the assessments are, what would happen to the repository in the next ice age.
All these conditions have been looked at internationally, and the conclusions have been drawn from the evidence along the lines I have described.
Senator Seidman: I understand that conclusion better. It is based on computer modelling in that case.
Mr. Nash: Computer modelling is part of it, but the computer modelling is also validated by other forms of tests and the natural analogues that I mentioned.
Senator Seidman: That is helpful.
You spoke about building relationships with Canadians in your presentation a great deal, so you understand how important it is. I want to know how building relationships with Canadians is progression. How do you feel that area is progressing?
Mr. Nash: I think it is progressing well. I will describe circumstances that I have been in.
One mechanism we use periodically is to draw together focus group sessions where we pay people a small sum to come in. The people know nothing about the subjects; they are Canadians who demonstrate a degree of interest in policy matters. We bring in maybe 12 or 15 of them together, and start talking about nuclear waste. One of the first reactions is, "Well, this is a scary subject." They will ask questions such as, "Why did we create this in the first place when we did not have a proper answer to it?"
By and large, when people think about the subject and talk about it, they want to reach a proactive place. They recognize it is difficult, but they want to see a solution and they want to see progress made.
Several senators have rightly pointed out here that it is not an easy topic, and there is a degree of skepticism about whether we can succeed. Rightly, there is a question about whether we, as a whole, in Canada are ready to move ahead with this subject.
People want to move ahead with this subject. They have moved ahead with it in Finland and Sweden, and there is a question as to whether we can move ahead with it. Can we find willing host communities? There are communities that are interested because of the nature of the project. It is a high-technology project. Regulatory regimes are in place to ensure it is safe. There are economic development opportunities over a long period of time, so on those bases, communities are interested.
Will we succeed in that facility? As I mentioned earlier, it will depend partly on whether we as Canadians can support those communities and whether opinion leaders can support them to take an honest look at it and allow them the time and space to do that. There are examples in the rest of the world where projects like this one have been derailed because there has not been the proper preparation and the proper opportunity for people to look at it.
The question of building relationships is important. It is important that provincial governments understand where we are going; it is important that we obtain the best advice from municipal leaders because this question is one for a local community to deal with. It is important that we understand the big regional politics around this issue.
It is important that we understand how Aboriginal people consider this issue. We have two Aboriginal communities in Saskatchewan; frankly, the view among Aboriginal communities across Canada is not uniform. We have the opportunity to speak to different groups, and some groups believe that because of the sacredness of Mother Earth, this material should not be put into Mother Earth. At the other end of the spectrum, in Saskatchewan, there are elders that believe that because this material was taken from Mother Earth, there is a right to put it back to Mother Earth. There is a wide spectrum of views like this, and Aboriginal people recognize that this is a difficult problem, but a number of elders are willing to assist in helping us move this facility along. As I mentioned earlier, we have the forum of Aboriginals from across Canada, and Inuit, First Nations and Metis that come together and provide advice and guidance on this subject.
I would say that the building relationships part is going well, and most people want to work towards a solution.
Again, we continue to receive a wide diversity of views on how we arrive there, and the question about what is a community is a key consideration. There is no one uniform view of community.
The Chair: You elicited a fulsome answer, Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: I want to add one thing. Building relationships is going well, but you might say what is the biggest problem you encounter, or the biggest challenge you encounter in building these relationships.
Mr. Nash: We have established good relationships without looking at specific communities. For instance, the forum of Aboriginal elders has come together, and is providing advice and guidance that we move this project forward. They are not looking at it from their own community perspective.
We have a similar forum of municipal leaders. That is going well. I think probably the most challenging area is building relationships, and the trust and understanding needed at the potential host community level. The most challenging task is giving the community time and space to take a serious look at the project before they close the door on this question.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for the frankness of your response. I appreciate that.
Senator Lang: I will follow up on two aspects of the previous speaker. These communities that have volunteered to consider this type of an industry in their community or region, is it public knowledge who those four are?
Second, when a final decision is made in respect of a region, will it be required that the provincial government give authority to go ahead with this project?
Mr. Nash: In answer to the first question, the four communities have made their interest public, so it is public knowledge.
In answer to the second question, for any construction project like this one, provincial permits will be required. Putting the provincial permits to one side, we have always had the view that if a community goes through this process and decides it wants to move ahead, the provincial government needs to be at the table. That is a question for communities when they start to show an interest in this project. They ask where the provincial government is on this matter.
Senator Dickson: Thank you for your excellent presentation. As a senator from the east, and focusing in on what Senator Campbell said about willing community and how we define community, I am thinking about Atlantic Canada in particular. In your consultative groups — Aboriginals and leaders at the municipal level, as well as the provincial government level — is there any participation from those groups in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Nash: We had dialogues and sessions with the Union of New Brunswick Indians.
I think at least two of the municipal associations in New Brunswick are members of the municipal association forum that I mentioned.
Senator Dickson: There is no participation then from the other Atlantic provinces, I take it?
Mr. Nash: Originally, when we conducted the study, we were in every single province and territory in Canada. We have tended to focus, over the last while, on the provinces that participate in the nuclear cycle: that is Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. We focus on them by virtue of their uranium industry.
Senator Dickson: You are familiar with the geography of the Maritimes. When the nuclear plant was first built in New Brunswick, it was controversial in Nova Scotia and especially controversial in Prince Edward Island. I am sure that both those communities would want to be involved in the process of learning more.
When I was looking at your material, on the first page it says:
Communities that express an interest in learning more are not obligated to participate.
I wonder whether the process of bringing up the level of knowledge could be more proactive rather than reactive. In other words, the community has to express an interest first, if you want to bring a lot of people together.
Mr. Nash: What is the awareness building and where do we build awareness? One of the places we build awareness is, for instance, at the conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. All Canadian municipalities are at that conference and we have a booth and make presentations.
Through that mechanism, as an example, from what we call non-nuclear provinces, we are building awareness. Anyone from those provinces is welcome to become part of the program.
Senator Dickson: It may well be worthwhile, considering the website that was launched today, to have some way of interacting with this group so that Canadians can give input to Mr. Nash's organization.
The Chair: I expect he will be tweeting us in the very near future.
Senator Lang: For the record, the new website is working. We have 18 associates, or hits, as we speak.
The Chair: That is encouraging. I think the first one we received said that at last someone in the Senate understands how powerful social media are, and how important it is to be aware of social media and start using them for proliferating, engaging and facilitating a dialogue.
We will have a second round. Senator Banks, you indicated an interest in having a second round.
Senator Banks: I expect we could go on for a long time, chair, because this subject is so interesting and invites exploration, and it changes every few days.
I hope, though, that the website that you and Senator Mitchell launched will convince our colleagues to shine even more light on what the Senate does by means of the proposal made by Senator Segal, which is still before us.
I want to go back to Senator Lang's question about the provinces saying "yea" or "nay." Your answer was that they had to be at the table. I understand the politics, but I want to know what your understanding is under the act, under which the NWMO is formed; whether you think that a province or territory has, in effect, a veto on the establishment of the repository.
Mr. Nash: My understanding under the act is that, no, the province does not have a veto power.
However, I think, in reality, if one looks at the situation that occurred in the United States, where the State of Nevada decided from the get-go it did not want the repository because of the long time frames involved, in reality the province must have a degree of agreement to this project. Otherwise, I do not think it would work. I am not sure whether the community, the board of directors, or me personally, would wish to proceed too far with a willing host community if the provincial government is not at the table.
Senator Banks: We do not have to, do we, because there are already 17, for all intents and purposes, willing communities? There are 17 places in which spent nuclear fuel is presently being stored; are there not?
Mr. Nash: There are seven places where nuclear fuel is being stored.
Senator Banks: I thought it was 17.
Mr. Nash: There are small quantities in different places, but in the book, there are seven locations for what is classified as used fuel.
Senator Banks: There are seven places?
Mr. Nash: There are seven locations, yes.
Senator Banks: The point I want to ensure I understand correctly is that the spent nuclear fuel with which we must deal does not simply appear on the day the repository is ready or, in fact, on the day that you take ownership of it. You do not have any ownership of any spent nuclear fuel now, and you do not until the day someone brings a truck over and signs something. Then you have it and they do not. Do I have that right? We are already storing spent nuclear fuel in Canada.
Mr. Nash: Correct.
Senator Banks: Thus far, at least, it is safe. It is in swimming pools for all intents and purposes, and we think that it is being stored safely now as we speak.
Mr. Nash: You are correct that it is stored safely, and it is under a strict regulatory licence. It is licensed from a regulatory point of view by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
Senator Banks: A concept was floated about a few years ago, and backed at the time by the United States, that the place that originates the fuel, not the spent fuel, must be held responsible for storing the spent fuel, and we produce a preponderance of uranium in the world. Is that concept alive and kicking? Has anyone subscribed to it? Does it have any traction? This is in relation to the question that Senator Lang asked earlier about the importation of spent nuclear fuel because that importation could be commercially viable, but it also has been out there as a proposal to which international agreement was solicited.
Mr. Nash: I understand you are referring to the concept of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership that was proposed by the Bush administration, and various members signed up for that partnership. I am not sure exactly where that proposal is. I think it is probably at a lesser place than it was originally conceived to be. I do not see any great traction towards that.
Senator Banks: Did Canada ever sign it?
Mr. Nash: I am not totally familiar with this proposal. It is my understanding that Canada did join the partnership but that there was a clarification that Canada had not signed up for this question of taking Canadian uranium that is exported and returning it back in the form of used fuel. Canada did not sign up for that.
As I tried to explain earlier, we do not have the mandate to proceed with that and we do not have a social licence. It would be a completely different situation.
Senator Banks: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions for the witness? I see no hands up. Mr. Nash, I cannot say enough how much we appreciate your thoughtful presentation, the advance documents you were able to provide to us and for your participation in this discussion this evening. I hope you found us at least modestly interested and perhaps aware of the main issues and that you will remain available to us as we go forward trying to find the appropriate energy framework for the future of our wonderful country. Would you like a last word or two?
Mr. Nash: I would like to thank the committee for the time, their attention and their interesting questions. Certainly this is an important meeting for me. It was a privilege to be with the committee members. As I have tried to explain, it is important to us that we elicit the views of all Canadians, and senators are an extremely important part of that process. It is valuable that we receive your questions and input here, and I thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. I think there were maybe one or two areas that you might clarify, where you were not 100 per cent certain. If there are any of those clarifications, we would be delighted if you could send them to our clerk, Lynn Gordon. In like manner, you have heard about the website www.canadianenergyfuture.ca.
Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)