Public Accounts Committee on May 8th, 2018

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think the issue there may be that on the website, although you have Mr. Sexton's bio, there are no bios on any of the other new board members.

[Claude Lajeunesse]

Martha Tory was appointed, first of all, on a one-year term and then was reappointed for the three years. Martha is an auditor. She retired from Ernst & Young, where she was a partner specializing in serving not-for-profit organizations. She also has served, and is continuing to serve as a senior level board member for more than 20 not-for-profit organizations. She brings to the board the audit background and also the expertise as a board member who can really contribute to the strength of the board.

Jim Burpee was appointed as one of the four. Jim has almost 40 years of experience as a senior strategist in the electricity industry. He has worked in a variety of senior management positions for Ontario Hydro and Ontario Power Generation. He was also president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association. He brings to the board expertise on the nuclear side and also with major projects.

The third person I would like to mention is Carmen Abela. Carmen brings in absolutely outstanding expertise as a risk expert, amongst other talents. She was the interim risk officer for the Bank of Canada, and she was the chairperson of the board for The Institute of Internal Auditors of Canada, so her experience is absolutely pertinent to an important part of the report.

Finally, the fourth person appointed was Philip Jennings. Philip is currently the associate deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada, and prior to that he occupied a variety of senior management roles: Natural Resources Canada, assistant deputy minister; major projects offices; and other responsibilities in government. He brings in this knowledge of government, and he's a very important member of our board in the sense that his pertinence on the board is to make sure we keep track of what the government thinks about and needs from the organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How will Bill C-69 impact AECL's decision-making process?

[Claude Lajeunesse]

My understanding is that the bill is currently being discussed. Once the bill is approved, we will have to look at the implications. However, let's be clear: most of the impact of the bill will be on CNSC, which has the responsibility for the approval of the activities in the nuclear industry.

Perhaps Richard would like to add to this.

[Richard Sexton]

Yes, we are aware of the bill. As Claude correctly identified, it's our understanding that it's still being drafted. As many are aware, we have three environmental impact assessments—that is we in the CNL—that are under review by the CNSC. It's my understanding those will proceed as is and will not be subject to Bill C-69 at this point. In the future we do recognize, both CNL and AECL, that if there are other significant changes to the facilities of the plant that require a full environmental impact assessment, we will have to engage in that process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sexton and Ms. Gallant.

We'll now to move to Mr. Angus.

Welcome to our committee, sir. You have seven minutes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honour to be here.

Mr. Lajeunesse, you mentioned a number of times about decommissioning and waste. Under AECL, what are the responsibilities for decommissioning and waste? You have Port Hope, you have Chalk River, and you have the demonstration reactor. Do you have other sites as well? What is the sum total of decommissioning and waste that you're responsible for?

[Claude Lajeunesse]

I will let Richard answer in detail, but let me first of all say that in all of these activities the foremost intent we have is safety and security. We want to make sure this is always the primary consideration in anything we do.

I'd like to ask Richard to move on from that.

[Richard Sexton]

I think you identified most of the sites, Chalk River being the largest site for decommissioning and waste management activities. Port Hope is not far behind. It's a relatively large project. There's Whiteshell. There are the two demonstration projects. Then there are what we refer to as “historical waste projects”, which are typically in the northern regions, where material was mined and then transported down to Port Hope. Those are the areas we have responsibility for.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

What is the long-term plan? Are you looking for one site or are you going to decommission the sites and bury them at the location? What is the plan for assessing the waste at Port Hope or the other sites?

[Richard Sexton]

I'll start with Port Hope. Port Hope is fairly straightforward. There's historical material used as fill, from the historic Eldorado processing. That material is being relocated into a highly engineered long-term waste management facility, very similar in design, I might add, to what's being proposed at Chalk River, a near-surface disposal facility. In that case the material is retrieved; then there's an assessment to make sure the material has in fact all been moved; then that material and that facility will be capped; then there's a long-term monitoring program for the long-term disposal facility.

That kind of paints a fairly simple picture, but it's not dissimilar to what will happen at Chalk River, where there are redundant buildings and there are places where soil contamination occurred due to historical operations. Again, that material will be retrieved. If there is approval for the near-surface disposal facility, that will contain the material, and it will then be moved to that facility. Again, it will be capped, and then there will be long-term monitoring of that facility.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has looked at a number of sites: Kincardine, Ignace, and Hornepayne. They once came through our region, but we put the run on them in Elk Lake.

Would the stuff from Port Hope be going to one of those facilities if they find a site in the north or do you have a separate site that will be just for Port Hope waste?

[Richard Sexton]

I think there are two questions there. On the material for Port Hope and Clarington, there are two facilities being built. One is for Port Hope, and one's for Clarington. That will be placed there in long-term monitoring. I think the NWMO's mandate is the management of used fuel. That's the only material that they are currently managing—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay.

[Richard Sexton]

—and we do, as AECL, have used fuel. We are working with the NWMO. At the point where they site the facility, then the fuel AECL has will be transported to that facility.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Okay. You would transfer used fuel to a site that they would run, but for Port Hope and the waste there, you would have a site that's relatively local. One of the things we hear about all the time is the transportation of waste, and you are going to run into serious issues with municipalities along the road, so the closer to the site you are, the less blowback you get from the public. I'm just wondering how far you're looking to transport.

[Richard Sexton]

Let's take Chalk River. In general, the actual design and the kind of philosophy around the near-surface disposal facility actually address that issue. In general, it's the safest, and it's most cost-effective not to transport the waste a long distance unless you have to.

Let's take Whiteshell. Some amount of low-level waste will be transported from Whiteshell to Chalk River for final disposition in a near-surface disposal facility, so there is some transportation.

Fuel is another example where we intend to consolidate the used fuel at Chalk River as a way to manage it until the NWMO has their facility. It makes it easier. Again, it minimizes the transportation. You have one place to go to, one place to transport it to.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I don't know how you store nuclear waste, but you're going to have soil and you're going to have decommissioned buildings and other radioactive waste. Are you looking at a deep containment? Is that the plan?

[Richard Sexton]

Well, it does depend on the waste. Obviously, fuel is the highest radioactive material we manage. The plans are for that to be disposed of in a very deep geological disposal facility. There's a class of waste called intermediate level. We're still looking at how to best handle that for AECL, and CNL is working on that.

The vast majority of the material that's generated out of our decommissioning operation is low-level waste. That is placed in a highly engineered facility that, again, is very similar and almost exactly the same as what has been built and is actually being filled as I speak, at both Port Hope and Port Granby. Those facilities have a lot of layers and engineering. You monitor to see if there's any compromise to the containment. The idea around those designs is to contain the radioactive material.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Angus.

We will now move to Mr. Arya, please, for seven minutes.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sexton, you've used the term “near-surface” facility. Should we call it an “above-ground” facility?

[Richard Sexton]

I'm sorry?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Is “above-ground” facility not the appropriate term?

[Richard Sexton]

Well, it's referred—