Public Accounts Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Richard Sexton]

First of all, AECL doesn't propose it directly. That's proposed by CNL.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Are you saying that it's not your responsibility? Your job is—

[Richard Sexton]

No, it's our responsibility because it's our liability. I'm very familiar with IAEA's view, and I think it's important to note that this is guidance, and that other countries have similar nuclear liabilities. Take, for example, the United States. Their regulatory process allows for what's called entombment, which is very similar, so it's not something that is not allowed or outside what is determined by other regulatory bodies, and it's safe.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

I'm sorry to cut you off again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Arya, let's try to keep it coming through the chair so it's not directed back and forth.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, once again through you, Mr. Sexton mentioned it's just guidance. However, those guidelines are brought forward after a great deal of study, so I don't think it's acceptable to say it's just guidance.

[Richard Sexton]

Let me point out that it's not AECL's decision to determine which guidance should or should not.... That is CNSC's clear responsibility. That's not within our mandate.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Are you aware that currently, e-petition 1450 is collecting signatures from Canadians and it deals with this nuclear waste?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I'll allow the question.

Again, we want this committee to look more at the scope of the Auditor General's report and recommendations coming out of that. I also recognize that all politics is local, and in this area, you're bringing constituents' concerns, but we do want to try to keep on the scope of the AG. I will allow that question, but just from here on in, we want to stick closer to the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Sexton.

[Richard Sexton]

I think the question is, is AECL aware of that? Absolutely. We very closely monitor the concerns that are being raised. We are very aware of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Arya.

We will now move to Mr. Deltell, please.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, welcome to the House of Commons.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to raise the issue that I am very proud to sit behind the MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, because she knows what she is talking about. Chalk River is in her riding, so this is why I am very pleased. If you have any questions about that, she's the one to ask if you're not here, for sure.

As you are here, first of all, I want to thank you, because it's a very important issue to address. We all recognize the importance and the historical role played by Chalk River, the installation that we have, and the Canadian atomic energy we've had for the last century. We are very proud of what you have done, what you are doing, and what you will do.

I would like to bring two points to your attention.

I'd like to discuss the disposal site with you, but first, Mr. Lajeunesse, you said in your statement that your projects included the decommissioning of old buildings, remediation of contaminated land, and building management facilities.

What is your game plan regarding the decommissioning of old buildings and the remediation of contaminated land? How many are there? How much will it cost? How long will it take?

[Claude Lajeunesse]

The program has been developed, and the Government of Canada approved substantial funding to allow us to conduct the decommissioning and clean-up operations.

I'm going to ask Mr. Sexton to provide more detail, but the board of directors is well aware of the plans that were developed. These plans will allow us to have a site where there will be far fewer buildings in a few years, and one which will be much cleaner and much safer for employees.

[Richard Sexton]

Yes, thank you.

There is a detailed plan that exists. It has existed for at least probably 10 years, but don't quote me on that. It lays out a long-term plan. I think it ends in about 70 years, and it has estimates on the amount of waste and cost.

I think more relevant is the 10-year plan that we have worked on with CNL. CNL developed very detailed 10-year and five-year plans. I'll give you some examples. There is a plan to decommission about 120 buildings.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

At Chalk River?

[Richard Sexton]

At Chalk River.

I'm happy to report that approximately 50 of those facilities have already been decommissioned. In that 10-year plan, it lays out in a good amount of detail in what order the facilities will be decommissioned and what areas will be decommissioned. There is a very similar plan at Whiteshell, which is a closure site. I would say that those are the two that we're really focusing on.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

For the next 10 years, what is the budget, and who will pay for that? Will it be the Canadian taxpayers or will you get money from your operation?

[Richard Sexton]

Essentially, the decommissioning comes out of the decommissioning fund. The fund is valued at approximately $7 million, and it comes out of that funding.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Does this funding come from taxpayers?

[Richard Sexton]

Yes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

From taxpayers.

[Richard Sexton]

Because it's a Canadian liability.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I was just talking earlier about the benefits of the work done at Chalk River, and reminded people, as did Mr. Lajeunesse, that more than a billion people were able to benefit from medical isotopes. It's important to point that out, because there is a lot of prejudice against the atomic industry—people may say it's awful, it's a scary facility. However, when things are well done, it can be extremely beneficial to humanity as a whole. You have in fact demonstrated this over the past 70 years.

Since I have some time left, I'd like to talk about the disposal site.

Obviously, it is the source of a lot of concern. This is an important project, but many people are wondering why you located the disposal site in a damp area, so close to the river that provides water to millions of people. Why?

[Richard Sexton]

First of all, we are aware of the proximity to the river. In the analysis of the site, the strategy was, again, to minimize the transport of the material. That was the strategy laid out to try to site the facility, which is done very frequently across the world with these types of sites, to have the site at the facilities so you're not transporting this material all over the place.

The decision to site it is a complex one, and not one that I am qualified to say is either the right site or the wrong site. What I can tell you is that it is part of the process by which the CNSC will review the location, and more importantly, the location is not as important as the degree at which the material is contained.

I'll give you an example, actually, at Port Granby. The radioactive material currently is sitting really right on the banks of the lake. What we're doing is simply moving it away from the lake, maybe 700 metres or something, not even a kilometre, and then it's contained.

On the issue at hand, I recognize the sensitivity around impact to water. I can assure you that AECL is equally concerned. As Claude mentioned, we are very conscious of protecting the environment. That's part of our mandate. However, we really have to rely on the expertise of a very robust regulatory process that comes in the form of CNSC to assure ourselves that there will be no impact on the river.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Monsieur Deltell.

We'll now move to Mr. Lefebvre and Mr. Chen on a five-minute split.