Lettre au Comité permanent des comptes publics de la Chambre des communes

Le 29 juin 2020

Cher M. Allison et membres du Comité permanent des comptes publics,

Dans son rapport d’examen spécial, à l’automne 2017, sur Énergie atomique du Canada limitée, le vérificateur général du Canada a fait la recommandation suivante:

La Société [EACL] devrait élaborer un cadre d’information plus détaillé afin d’améliorer les évaluations réalisées et de mieux démontrer à la population canadienne qu’elle renforce son efficacité et efficience tout en maîtrisant et en réduisant les coûts et les risques au fil du temps.

EACL a tenté de donner suite à cette recommandation mais, à notre avis, elle n’a pas réussi. Le document de travail ci-joint “Les déchets radioactifs du gouvernement du Canada :  La croissance des coûts et obligations en partenariat public-privé” note que depuis le début d’un partenariat public-privé en 2015, le financement public d’EACL a pratiquement quadruplé pour atteindre 1,3 milliard de dollars en 2020/21. De 2015 à décembre 2019 (données les plus récentes), le passif déclaré d’EACL a augmenté de 332 millions de dollars. 

Voici les conclusions du document de travail:

1.  Le coût du nettoyage des déchets nucléaires du gouvernement fédéral, estimé à 8 milliards de dollars, est supérieur à l’ensemble des 2 000 autres obligations environnementales du gouvernement.  Mesurées en dollars courants, ces obligations sont beaucoup plus élevées et ont récemment été évaluées à 16 milliards de dollars.

2. Le précédent gouvernement conservateur a tenté de réduire les coûts et d’accélérer la réduction des obligations relatives aux déchets nucléaires en mettant en œuvre un partenariat public-privé – un contrat d’organisme gouvernemental exploité par un entrepreneur (OGEE) entre Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL) et un consortium multinational.

3. Le financement public d’EACL destiné à réduire les obligations fédérales en matière de déchets nucléaires a plus que quadruplé depuis le début du contrat OGEE ; les obligations nucléaires augmentent plutôt que de diminuer malgré un déboursé de milliards de dollars de fonds publics.

4. Dans le processus de la mise en oeuvre du contrat OGEE, la surveillance du gouvernement a été considérablement réduite et le contrôle des installations nucléaires et des déchets radioactifs du gouvernement canadien a été largement transféré à des intérêts américains.

5. Le contractant d’OGEE fait avancer des installations de déchets radioactifs de qualité inférieure qui ne sont pas conformes aux normes et obligations internationales ; les évaluations environnementales sont embourbées dans la controverse et accusent plusieurs années de retard.

6. Le Parlement devrait intervenir pour rétablir le contrôle et la surveillance des installations nucléaires fédérales et des déchets radioactifs, et devrait s’assurer que les fonds publics sont sagement investis dans les meilleures stratégies disponibles pour maintenir les déchets radioactifs hors de notre air et de notre eau potable, afin de protéger les générations actuelles et futures de Canadiens.

Nous soutenons qu’EACL n’a pas démontré aux Canadiens qu’elle améliore son efficacité et sa productivité ni qu’elle maîtrise ses coûts.  En fait, il semble que ce soit le contraire. Nous vous demandons instamment d’enquêter sur cette question et nous vous demandons instamment d’enquêter sur cette question et nous vous suggérons de lire le document de discussion complet. 

Nous sommes impatients de vous entendre et serions heureux de fournir des informations supplémentaires et / ou de répondre à toutes les questions des membres du comité.

Nous regrettons que le document de travail ci-joint ne soit pas encore disponible en français; nous vous ferons parvenir la version française dès qu’elle sera disponible.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Président et membres du comité, l’expression de nos salutations distinguées,

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D, Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire

Éric Notebaert, MD, M.Sc., Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement
Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Document ci-joint: (anglais) “Les déchets radioactifs du gouvernement du Canada :  La croissance des coûts et obligations en partenariat public-privé”

Letter to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts

June 29, 2020

Dear Mr. Allison and Members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts,

In his Fall 2017 special examination report on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Canada’s Auditor General made the following recommendation:

The Corporation [AECL] should develop a more detailed reporting framework so that it can better measure and demonstrate to Canadians that it is enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, and is containing and reducing costs and risks over time.

AECL has attempted to address this recommendation but in our view it has not succeeded. The attached discussion paper “The Government of Canada’s Radioactive Wastes:  Costs and Liabilities Growing under Public-Private Partnership” notes that since the start of a public private partnership in 2015, taxpayer funding to AECL roughly quadrupled to $1.3 billion in 2020/21. Between 2015 and December 2019 (most recently reported data), AECL’s reported liabilities increased by $332 million. 

The discussion paper’s conclusions are as follows:

1. The estimated $8 billion remediation cost for the federal government’s nuclear waste liabilities exceeds the total of more than 2,000 other federal environmental liabilities.  The un-discounted liability is much higher and was recently reported to be $16 billion.

2. The previous Conservative Government attempted to cut costs and accelerate reduction of federal nuclear waste liabilities by implementing a public-private partnership or GoCo contract between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and a multinational consortium.

3. Taxpayer funding to AECL for reduction of federal nuclear waste liabilities has more than quadrupled since the start of the GoCo contract; nuclear liabilities are increasing rather than decreasing despite expenditure of billions of dollars of public funds.

4. In the process of implementing the GoCo contract, Government oversight was greatly reduced and control over Canada’s federally-owned nuclear facilities and radioactive wastes was largely transferred to American-owned interests.

5. The GoCo contractor is advancing substandard radioactive waste facilities that do not comply with international standards and obligations; environmental assessments are mired in controversy and several years behind schedule; 

6. Parliament should intervene to restore control of and oversight over federal nuclear facilities and radioactive wastes, and should ensure that public funds are spent wisely on the best available strategies to keep radioactive waste out of our air and drinking water in order to protect current and future generations of Canadians.

We submit that AECL has not demonstrated to Canadians that it is enhancing efficiency and effectiveness and containing costs.  In fact the opposite appears to be true. We urge you to investigate this matter and to read the full discussion paper. 

We look forward to hearing from you and would be pleased to provide additional information and/or answer any questions that committee members may have.

Yours truly,

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D,  Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Éric Notebaert, MD, M.Sc. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Ole Hendrickson, Ph.D, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

Attachment: “The Government of Canada’s Radioactive Wastes:  Costs and Liabilities Growing under Public-Private Partnership” 

Micro Modular Reactor Project at Chalk River: Comments on the proposed scope of factors to be considered in the conduct of an EA (Impact Assessment Agency Reference #80182)

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

June 1, 2020

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area wishes to comment on factors to be considered in the environmental assessment of a “small modular reactor” (SMR) proposed to be built at the Chalk River Laboratories, located in Renfrew County on the Ottawa River.  We are a non-governmental, volunteer organization that has been working for the clean-up and prevention of radioactive pollution from the nuclear industry in the Ottawa Valley for over 40 years.

Global First Power – a partnership between Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation and Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) – is proposing to build a “Micro Modular Reactor” (MMR) at the federally owned Chalk River Laboratories.   The MMR project description says OPG would “provide licensing and operations capability for the MMR facility during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the project.”  Project funding sources are unclear, but Global First Power said in a May 20^th “SMR Telephone Town Hall” that the MMR would cost in the range of $100 to $200 million dollars. 

With regard to the environmental assessment of this project, CMD 20-H102, Submission from CNSC Staff on the Proposed Scope of Factors to be Considered in the Conduct of an Environmental Assessment for a Project Proposed by Global First Power, recommends that “the scope of the factors for this EA include the factors mandated in paragraphs 19(1)(a) to (h) of the CEAA 2012 and no additional factors.” 

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) was bundled into an omnibus budget bill and passed in great haste and secrecy, without an opportunity for careful consideration by Parliamentarians.  In contrast, Canada’s House of Commons and Senate had prolonged and sometimes contentious debates in 2019 before passing the Impact Assessment Act– which supersedes CEAA 2012.  However, the MMR project was launched just prior to the coming into force of the Impact Assessment Act.  Its project assessment under CEAA 2012 may not benefit from the new Act’s measures pertaining to sustainability and Indigenous rights, to name a few, that are now legal requirements.

In Section 22 (1) of the new Act, the list of “factors to be considered” in a project assessment differs from the equivalent section 19 (1) of the old Act.  Parliament added the following factors, all of which are relevant to the MMR project and should be included in the scope of the project assessment:

• the “need for” the project;
• the extent to which the designated project contributes to sustainability;
• alternative means of carrying out the project that include use of “best available technologies”; 
• the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada; 
• “community knowledge provided with respect to the designated project”; and 
• “the extent to which the effects of the designated project hinder or contribute to the Government of Canada’s ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change.”

The project’s ability to contribute to Canada’s climate change commitments must include the project’s carbon dioxide and GHG emissions. The CNSC’s Interim Strategy for Environmental Assessments (https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/greenhouse-gas-emission-assessments-canadian-nuclear-fuel-cycle.cfm, proposes “that proponents assess the total GHG production as part of CNSC-led environmental assessments,” using “a lifecycle analysis approach that includes estimation of upstream and downstream GHG emissions,” that “may include the following stages:

• mining and milling
• refining
• fuel fabrication
• nuclear power plant
• waste disposal (low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste disposal).”

All five stages are relevant to the MMR project.  The CNSC should require the proponent to carefully evaluate the emissions from each of these stages, including all the uncertainties involved.   In particular, GHG emissions associated with the MMR fuel fabrication stage (involving production of enriched U-235 fuel not currently used in Canadian nuclear power reactors) should be thoroughly assessed.

The MMR project would represent “the first commercial deployment of a private sector funded Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology in Canada,” intended to “demonstrate the commercial viability of the MMR technology to prospective customers.”  This is not intended to be a “one-off” project.  It has implications for future deployment of SMRs, and should be assessed with this in mind.

The MMR project description refers to remote communities “with no access to grid power for their heating and electricity needs” as prospective customers for MMR deployment.  Many of these remote communities are Indigenous; however, the increased protections provided to Indigenous rights in the new Impact Assessment Act are not requirements within CEAA 2012.  To quote from the new Act, “the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group and any adverse impact that the designated project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada” must be considered as a factor in the project assessment.  We further note that the Chalk River Laboratories were established without consultation or accommodation with Algonquin peoples who never ceded their rights to the 3,700 hectare site. At a minimum, the MMR project will be located on this site for several decades, potentially with impacts lasting thousands of years.  The proponent should consider in detail the MMR project’s impact on the exercise of their traditional rights.

Our group made a previous submission on the project description with details on a number of technical issues (waste management, description of physical works related to the project, accident probabilities, nuclear weapons proliferation risks).  We requested these be addressed in the EA.  We repeat our request that our previous submission be addressed in the consideration of the scope of the EA. 

 In that submission we noted that the project description does not describe “Financial support that federal authorities are, or may be, providing to the project,” which is a requirement of the Prescribed Information for the Description of a Designated Project Regulations under CEAA 2012.  We questioned the proponent’s assertion that “Federal authorities are not providing financial support to the Project,” and noted that this side-stepped the issue of support that may be provided to the project in the future. 

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the federal crown corporation that owns the Chalk River site, provides the privately-owned Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) with roughly a billion dollars annually in federal funding.  CNL has created a Canadian Nuclear Research Initiative “to make CNL’s technical capabilities and expert knowledge available and accessible to the SMR community in order to equip them with the technical support required to progress towards SMR deployment in Canada,” and is negotiating terms of a cost sharing arrangementwithUltra Safe Nuclear Corporation “to resolve a broad array of technical questions in support of its Micro Modular Reactor (MMR).”  

Noting the MMR project objective of demonstrating commercial viability of SMRs, we ask that the following additional factor be included in the scope of the EA:  Financial support from government authorities, including the crown corporations AECL and OPG, for the project. The assessment should also detail any in-kind support that AECL and OPG have given or expect to be offering in the future.

Finally, we wish to raise an issue regarding the process through which the CNSC’s Commission will make its determination on the scope of the MMR EA.  The scope of three previous EAs currently being conducted under CEAA 2012 was approved by a panel composed solely of the CEO and President of the CNSC, who also serves as Commission Chair.  A Commission Decision on the Scope of Environmental Assessments for three proposed projects at existing Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ facilities wasmade at a Commission Hearing on March 8, 2017 with the only Member present being the past CNSC President, Michael Binder.  While this is shown on the CNSC website as a “Hearing in writing,” no Notice of Meeting was issued prior to this “public” hearing, and no documentation was available for consideration other than a written submission from CNSC staff (CMD 17-H100).

In the current matter, CMD 20-H102 refers to a “Hearing in writing based solely on written submissions scheduled for June 2020,” with no further details as to the date of the hearing, which Commissioners may be present, whether the public would be allowed to listen to any discussions that might take place, or whether submissions such as the present one will be included as CMDs for the hearing.  

Based on the limited information currently available, the decision-making process for the hearing on the scope of the MMR EA could be similar, if not identical, to that followed for the March 8, 2017 hearing. 

Given that the current CNSC President and CEO, who is also Chair of the Commission, is a former senior manager responsible for new nuclear reactor projects at OPG – and given that OPG would “provide licensing and operations capability for the MMR facility during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases of the project” – using a “Hearing in writing” with only the current Commission Chair present creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.  

We recommend that the CNSC use an alternative decision-making process for the scoping decision that provides transparency and that does not affect public trust in the independence and credibility of the regulator.  In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, we also recommend an extension in the submission deadline for comments, so that all interested parties have ample time to consider this important matter.

from Kerrie Blaise, Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association

For both NPD and Whiteshell, the revised EIS has been found to be incomplete and the CNSC has sent it back to the proponent. The CNSC is currently undertaking their completeness review for NSDF. 

1. Whiteshell DecommissioningStatus: Revised EIS deficient and sent back to proponentProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80124

April 30, 2020 – On March 27, 2020, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) submitted a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed In Situ Decommissioning Of the Whiteshell Reactor #1 Project to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), which included an updated EIS, updated technical supporting documents, and consolidated responses to all federal and provincial information requests. CNSC staff conducted a completeness check and determined that insufficient information was provided to enable the federal and provincial review team to proceed with the EIS technical review. CNL is expected to provide additional information and resubmit the revised EIS and supporting documents at a later date. 

   
2. Near Surface Disposal FacilityStatus: Completeness review underwayProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80122

April 9, 2020 – The Federal and Provincial Review Team (FPRT) has completed their technical review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility, including updated supporting documents, and responses to all federal and provincial comments and information requests (IRs) (step 26 in Appendix A of the CNL–CNSC Administrative Protocol for the Proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility), available here.

Led by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal and provincial authorities that participated in the technical review included Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and the Quebec Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changement climatiques. The FPRT technical review resulted in 37 IRs in total, several of these follow-up comments on existing IRs as well as several new IRs resulting from the review of new information. The CNSC submitted the consolidated table of federal and provincial comments from the FPRT technical review to CNL on April 3, 2020. CNL must now respond to these additional federal and provincial comments. The CNSC, in collaboration with the FPRT, will then make a determination on whether the information provided in CNL’s submissions is complete.

3. Nuclear Power Demonstration Status: Revised EIS deficient and sent back to proponentProject Page: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/evaluations/proj/80121

May 05, 2020 – On March 31, 2020, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) submitted a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), which included an updated EIS, updated technical supporting documents, and responses to all federal and provincial comments and information requests. CNSC staff conducted a completeness check and determined that insufficient information was provided to enable the federal and provincial review team to proceed with the EIS technical review. CNL is expected to provide additional information and resubmit the revised EIS and supporting documents at a later date.