Environment committee  Perhaps I'll start, and then Mr. Dermarkar can add. Specifically, that study was an independent review that AECL commissioned to review our safety case for the near-surface disposal facility. With respect to the recommendations, we've incorporated all of the feedback we heard into our safety case already.

Environment committee  Sure, thank you. I just want to add to Mr. Dermarkar's response. From a floor level, we're responsible for an organization that manages nuclear waste every day. The system works because it protects the worker, the public and the environment. All interests are protected, ensuring that we are applying the best available technology.

Environment committee  The current waste, as we've already identified, is low, and it's going to be even lower by putting it in an engineered containment system with the near-surface disposal facility. We have a very robust environmental monitoring program that includes groundwater sampling, surface water sampling and soil and air sampling, not only on the Chalk River site but off the site as well.

Environment committee  I can take that. The waste classification in Canada is identified in the Canadian standards. The nuclear industry has a CSA standard that identifies different classifications of waste. That is also consistent with the CNSC. The regulator identifies the four classifications of radioactive waste within their regulatory guidance.

Environment committee  Yes. I do think there is perhaps a perception issue. We are consistent across the nuclear industry because it is identified in CSA standards and our regulator's regulatory guidance.

Environment committee  I'll assume that the question is directed at me. Perhaps after I start answering, Mr. Dermarkar might want to answer from AECL's perspective. It's in the interest of everyone that we do something immediately, now, with the waste. The waste is here, as you heard from Mr. McBrearty's commentary.

Environment committee  The baseline ambient radioactivity is presented in our environmental impact statement. We have calculated the ambient radioactivity that the proposed near surface disposal facility would represent. Because it is only low-level waste that's going to the facility, there's no incremental increase or hazard that the public or workers would be exposed to.

Environment committee  It's a very small amount of intermediate-level waste, and that's where the environmental assessment process worked quite well. We heard from the public that they had concerns with it, so we revised our project to include only low levels. It is only low-level waste that will go into the near surface disposal facility.

Environment committee  I assume that's still directed at me, so I'll start by saying that we all have an underlying interest in protecting water resources. In fact, I live directly across from the Chalk River site. I drink well water directly in the vicinity of the facility. I believe in the proposed NSDF as an additional safeguard to protect our key water sources.