���������

1

HEARING DAY TWO1

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited:2

Application for the renewal of the Chalk River3

Laboratories Nuclear Research and Test4

Establishment Operating licence5

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Commission6

is conducting three parallel hearings on the Chalk7

River Laboratories, MAPLE and the New Processing8

Facility. The Commission notes that the9

facilities are within the same general site and10

share a number of common systems, facilities and11

programs. Therefore, to reduce repetition and12

ensure there is a complete record for all three13

hearings, the Commission, in making its decisions,14

will consider any relevant information regarding15

those common elements as it is presented during16

the course of the hearings.17

The first item on the agenda today18

is Hearing Day 2 on the application by Atomic19

Energy of Canada Limited to consider an20

application for the renewal of the Chalk River21

Laboratories Nuclear Research and Test22

Establishment Operating licence.23

The first day of the public24

hearing that I referred to earlier on this25

���������

2

application was held on January 15, 2003.1

The public was invited to2

participate either by oral presentation or by3

written submission on Hearing Day 2 today. March4

10th was the deadline set for filing by5

intervenors. The Commission received 45 requests6

for intervention.7

MR. LEBLANC: CMDs 03-H3.43 to 03-8

H3.47 were received after the deadline. Based on9

its consideration of these matters, a panel of the10

Commission accepted the interventions. A further11

submission received significantly after the12

deadline was rejected by the panel of the13

Commission. The Commission strongly urges all14

parties to file their submissions within the15

deadlines set in the public notice of hearings, in16

compliance with the CNSC Rules of Procedure. A17

Record of Decision will be published on our Web18

site and sent to affected parties.19

The Notice of Public Hearing 2003-20

H-1 was published on November 8, 2002.21

Presentations were made on Day 122

by the applicant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,23

under CMDs 03-H2.1 and 03-H2.1A and by Commission24

staff under CMD 03-H2.25

���������

3

April 2nd was the deadline for1

filing of supplementary information. It is noted2

that supplementary information has been filed by3

the applicant and by the CNSC staff.4

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are now ready5

to start.6

7

03.H2.1C to 03-H2.1G8

Oral presentation by Atomic Energy of Canada9

Limited10

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now11

start with the oral presentation by Atomic Energy12

of Canada Limited as outlined in CMD Document 03-13

H2.1C.14

I would turn it over to the15

President and Chief Executive Officer of AECL, Mr.16

Van Adel.17

Mr. Van Adel, you have the floor,18

and welcome.19

MR. VAN ADEL: Thank you very20

much.21

Before we begin, I will ask Paul22

Lafrenière to introduce our team here today, and23

then I will make my remarks.24

M. LAFRENIÈRE: Bonjour chez nous.25

���������

4

I would like to first of all1

introduce Bob Van Adel, Paul Fehrenbach, Jean-2

Pierre Létourneau and myself.3

We are very proud to have you here4

today among us. With that, I will turn it over to5

Bob.6

M. VAN ADEL: Merci, madame Keen7

et membres de la Commission pour la possibilité de8

vous parler aujourd'hui. Je suis Robert Van Adel.9

Je suis président et directeur-général de l'EACL.10

On behalf of AECL employees and11

management, I want to thank you for scheduling the12

Day Two licensing hearings in the community in13

which we operate at Chalk River Laboratories and14

providing a venue for our neighbours to become15

personally involved in the process.16

My presence here today has several17

purposes: first, to inform you that I regard the18

licensing process as critical to our business.19

Chalk River Laboratories are essential to AECL's20

future as the research and other deliverables21

produced here have national and international22

impact.23

And second, to support the efforts24

undertaken by AECL's management team with respect25

���������

5

to the three licensing applications being heard1

today.2

And finally, to hear the3

community's concerns.4

We insist on openness with respect5

to our operations, and we welcome the6

stakeholders' input. We appreciate today's7

opportunity to immediately address any concerns8

that we might be able to.9

If there is one message that I10

would like to impart, it is that AECL is totally11

committed to meeting and exceeding one of our12

primary objectives: the safe and environmentally13

responsible operation of our site, both now and in14

the future.15

As CEO, I have placed this vital16

commitment at the heart of AECL's vision.17

The first vision element, as you18

can see on the slide, is to protect the health and19

safety of our employees, the public and the20

environment. Statistics relating to our21

performance in all three areas prove that our22

track record is excellent. That message is being23

widely recognized, and we thank those who have24

come forward today to support us.25

���������

6

Our business comprises research1

and development, nuclear products and services and2

reactor sales. To realize the second element of3

our vision, to be the top worldwide nuclear4

products and services company and achieve business5

success, we must build and modernize our6

infrastructure consistent with protecting the7

health and safety of employees, the public and the8

environment.9

We have made substantial progress10

in these areas during the current licence period,11

and I endorse all the continuing effort to improve12

even more.13

The third element is to minimize14

the nuclear legacy obligations for future15

generations. So in addition to securing Treasury16

Board funds for remediation projects related to17

legacy wastes, Natural Resources Canada, AECL and18

the CNSC are now entering into discussions on the19

long-term management of AECL's radioactive wastes20

and decommissioning liabilities, with a report21

back to Cabinet before the end of a two-year22

period with substantial recommendations.23

These initiatives take time,24

however, and many issues, including public input,25

���������

7

have to be considered. We are serious about1

sharing this information, and we will continue to2

inform the public of our intentions and seek their3

input as we move forward with these new4

initiatives.5

Meanwhile, we are further reducing6

environmental impacts by minimizing the upfront7

production of radioactive waste. The modular8

above-ground storage system is reducing low-level9

solid waste through segregation and compaction.10

When the new processing facility is operational,11

it will solidify liquid waste from the production12

of Moly-99 thereby eliminating the need for long-13

term storage of fissile and active liquid wastes14

in storage tanks.15

A safe operation is based on a16

positive safety culture. Excellent procedures and17

well designed systems help in this regard, but at18

AECL we recognize the value of encouraging and19

expecting staff to question the way they work.20

Identifying and becoming part of the solution of21

safety issues is paramount.22

Nowhere is this more manifested23

than in our recently launched value statement, the24

basis for the attitudes and behaviours we deem25

���������

8

acceptable for all staff. Our fundamental1

philosophy says we cannot protect the public and2

the environment if we don't protect ourselves3

first. Errors must be understood and corrected.4

Wilful violations are not tolerated.5

In this regard every effort is6

made to ensure that staff are fully trained, they7

understand what is expected of them and they8

proactively bring safety issues forward for9

action.10

As a corporation, we are11

continuing to ask ourselves three questions: Is12

safety stated a primary objective of our13

organization? Second, do we have meaningful14

safety culture philosophy and a program in place15

to deal with it? Third, do we know that it is16

effective?17

I am confident we are doing well18

on all three fronts. Our vision statement, which19

addresses the first question, is a key component20

of our corporate policies and safety is addressed21

in all aspects of our work. Philosophies and22

programs start at the top and are applied23

throughout the organization. Regular monitoring,24

oversight and reporting on the nuclear facilities,25

���������

9

health, safety and environmental performance is1

done through the line and is also independent of2

the line.3

Independent reporting is done on a4

quarterly basis to the board of directors and to5

me via the Science and Technology Committee.6

Numerous departments use balanced scorecards to7

track and report upwards on their safety8

performance. Safety issues are reviewed at the9

monthly Nuclear Laboratories Management Committee10

and Joint Union-Management Site Safety and Health11

Committee meetings.12

Our operating experience, OPEX13

Program, is active and our Occupational Safety and14

Health Group monitor issues like housekeeping.15

The Safety Review Committee, the16

SRC, assesses all new projects to ensure potential17

safety and environmental impacts are taken into18

account before any work proceeds. Furthermore, we19

never underestimate the value of training and20

helping staff learn the importance of protecting21

themselves, the public and the environment.22

So measuring our performance23

effectiveness is critical.24

Chalk River recently celebrated 125

���������

10

million person-hours without a lost time incident.1

Annual reports demonstrate the2

improving downward trend in both radiological3

exposures and releases. Employees are reporting4

more minor events, which ironically is positive5

from a safety culture perspective because it6

demonstrates openness.7

All of this indicates that we are8

successfully creating a transparent safety9

culture.10

Improvement means fine tuning our11

organization. For instance, you will note that12

the responsibility for AECL's Safety Review13

Committee rests with our Chief Engineer Basma14

Shalaby, who reports directly to me.15

One of the most significant16

demonstrations of our commitment to safety was the17

appointment of a chief quality officer to refocus18

our attention and activities on quality throughout19

the company.20

Reporting directly to me as well21

is Dr. Aly Aly, who in his previous role with the22

CNSC was well informed on areas requiring23

improvement at AECL. His organization has been24

expanded to ensure an effective, independent25

���������

11

corporate quality organization, and we welcome his1

leadership and vision in this area.2

He will elaborate on his3

activities soon, and I am confident that you will4

see that we are making good progress on the5

quality front across AECL.6

To be the top worldwide nuclear7

company, we must focus on safety, quality and8

product excellence while being responsive to our9

customers' needs and future market demands. We10

are undertaking this new challenge through a11

cultural shift. Employees must feel empowered to12

challenge and innovate. They must be committed to13

learning and teamwork.14

We encourage staff to accept15

personal responsibility and accountability and16

engage in honest open communications.17

I will give you a few examples of18

this demonstrable change.19

The corporate-wide Operations20

Management Team, or OMT, as we call it, was formed21

in 2001 and has responsibility for the day to day22

business activities of the firm. Under the23

oversight of the OMT the process is put in place24

by a number of associated committees, such as the25

���������

12

Resource Management Working Group, who ensure that1

issues such as safety and quality have2

accountability in our daily performance.3

The appointment of Paul Fehrenbach4

as Chief Operating Officer in June 2002, and more5

recently promoted to Vice-President of the Nuclear6

Laboratories Business Unit, puts special emphasis7

on the importance of this asset.8

Paul's responsibilities include9

integration and oversight of compliance program10

effectiveness, as well as all activities and11

policies being carried out at the labs.12

His participation in my weekly13

executive management meetings allows Paul to bring14

operational issues tied to the CRL licence-listed15

facilities, all of which have been moved to his16

organization with the exception of the items that17

you see listed on the slide.18

These changes improve the19

effectiveness of our activities and afford a means20

of priorizing resource allocation.21

The MMIR Executive Oversight22

Committee created in 2001 reviews the progress of23

the MMIR project, including quality and safety24

standards. I personally chair this committee. It25

���������

13

meets on a biweekly basis, and the two senior1

vice-presidents with operating responsibilities2

are also members.3

While all of these changes in my4

view facilitate cultural shift, additional5

transformations demand more focused attention.6

Improving the robustness of our safety culture7

requires strong management commitment. This8

commitment is supported by our vision mandate and9

value statements and a rigorous corporate planning10

process. All of these efforts are collectively11

helping to achieve the necessary cultural shift.12

While safety first is our working13

motto, safety culture can only be embraced when14

employees clearly understand their roles and15

responsibilities and the company's expectations.16

Our safety management system ensures they are17

fully informed of the company's safety18

philosophies, policies and procedures. Without19

safety knowledge and without employees' co-20

operation we cannot move forward.21

Communication therefore becomes22

crucial. We communicate regularly through23

quarterly staff updates that I personally deliver,24

which I did yesterday in Chalk River and the day25

���������

14

before in Sheridan Park. Through our employee1

newsletter "ReAction" I am involved in the2

editorial process to ensure that goals,3

objectives, visions and values are represented in4

this company-wide communiqué; and furthermore, I5

insist that managers share activities highlights6

so employees stay informed.7

Madam Chair, when we protect our8

staff first, we not only minimize the risk to our9

neighbours and the environment, we instill public10

confidence. It is for this very reason that I11

encourage employees to report all suspected and12

real events and to become familiar with our OPEX13

program.14

Examples of lessons learned are15

featured regularly in "ReAction", our magazine,16

often with key changes highlighted. To enhance17

the communication learning process, I have18

strengthened and empowered AECL management to19

follow through on lessons learned to prevent re-20

occurrences.21

As with large complex22

organizations, resourcing is an important issue.23

The decision to create the MMIR Executive24

Oversight Committee ensures that the right25

���������

15

engineering and technical resources needed for the1

MMIR commissioning are available. The Resource2

Management Working Group, which I mentioned is3

part of the OMT, has been charged with similar4

responsibilities for allocation of resources5

across the company.6

Management feedback must justify7

the actions taken to address issues like safety.8

Enhancements in process development require9

managers to quickly and carefully investigate and10

disposition any safety issue that is brought11

forward. Follow-up communication to employees is12

critical because feedback confirms our action or13

inaction. That is why we require staff to perform14

self-assessment and, when appropriate, to interact15

and benchmark with other organizations. The16

learning process, especially as we undergo this17

cultural shift, allows our attitudes and18

behaviours to broaden personal learning through19

continued interactions with our regulator,20

supplier and customers.21

In closing, Madam Chair and22

Members of the Commission, AECL has inspired and23

diligent professionals who continue to seek out24

innovative ways to enhance our operations each day25

���������

16

and every day. I am proud of the people who make1

AECL the company that it is.2

I would also like to note that3

AECL staff have been working closing with the CNSC4

staff to address all issues raised during the5

evaluation of our operations. We remain committed6

to improving in the areas noted in our efforts to7

interact with you.8

Merci, madame Keen et membres de9

la Commission. Je vais maintenant céder la parole10

à Dr. Aly Aly.11

DR. ALY: Thanks, Bob. Good12

morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission.13

For the record, my name is Aly Aly. I am AECL's14

Chief Quality Officer, reporting directly to Mr.15

Van Adel, the President and CEO of AECL.16

To outline my presentation on17

AECL's quality improvement program, I will start18

first with a brief introduction, to be followed by19

a summary of what we consider as the main elements20

of quality improvement and our success in21

addressing these elements.22

I will then summarize our current23

activities and priorities and conclude by24

describing the road map we are following today to25

���������

17

achieve excellence in quality.1

When I joined AECL last April, Mr.2

Van Adel assigned to the new corporate quality3

organization the broad responsibilities of4

ensuring that AECL adheres to the highest quality5

standards, prescribing quality requirements6

through company-wide manuals and procedures, and7

development and maintaining the overall management8

system.9

Needless to say, AECL's operations10

are very diverse and by the nature of the business11

are also very dynamic. These operations include12

research and development, design, procurement,13

construction, commissioning, operation of nuclear14

facilities, in addition to waste management and15

decommissioning activities.16

The main challenge is to put in17

place an effective management system that18

prescribes the company-wide high level19

requirements through company-wide manuals and20

procedures without impairing the ability of our21

diverse operational units to establish specific22

local requirements.23

In brief, I wish to assure the24

Commission that major improvements in corporate25

���������

18

quality are taking place today and that AECL is1

committed to the principle of continual2

improvements.3

For AECL, the main elements of an4

effective quality improvement program include an5

effective management system, an independent6

quality organization, effective corporate7

oversight, a healthy safety and quality culture,8

as well as a clear vision of where the company9

intends to go, which I refer to as a road map to10

excellence.11

The first element of quality12

improvement is the continual improvement of the13

overall management system. The shown pyramid14

indicates the main elements of AECL's overall15

management system.16

At the top is the AECL management17

manual, which is approved by the President and CEO18

and endorsed by all Executive Management Committee19

members. The AMM defines the purpose and20

describes the structure of the organization,21

provides roles and responsibilities of executives22

and senior management positions, provides roles of23

panels and committees, describes AECL's business24

process management and compliance management,25

���������

19

documents the code of conduct principles and1

policies and provides the management2

responsibility matrices.3

Below the AMM are the company-wide4

QA manual and its procedures and company-wide sub-5

tier QA manuals and procedures. These manuals6

include the corporate QA requirements and are7

owned by the corporate quality organization. The8

manuals also demonstrate the AECL commitment to9

comply with the CSA N286 series of standards.10

As indicated earlier, due to the11

diversity of AECL's operations, projects and12

facilities developed specific QA manuals and QA13

plans consistent with their respective activities14

but in compliance with the high level corporate-15

wide requirements.16

Seventy to 80 per cent of the17

procedures listed in these lower tier manuals are18

actually company-wide procedures. The remaining19

procedures are those that are specific to the20

project or facility. This is a significant21

improvement as compared to the status a few years22

ago, since the total number of procedures has been23

reduced from about 2,000 to just over 200.24

The lower base of the pyramid25

���������

20

indicates that evidence of compliance is obtained1

through audits, assessments, records, forms and2

reports. This management system is subject to3

periodic program reviews, and all manuals are4

updated regularly.5

The second quality improvement6

element relates to the independence of the quality7

organization. In the past few years, corporate QA8

at AECL was part of the office of the chief9

engineer and the technology unit. CNSC staff10

considered this reporting structure as a sign of11

lack of independence. With my appointment last12

April, and as shown in the org chart, the office13

of the Chief Quality Officer now reports directly14

to the President and CEO. This ensures15

independence of corporate quality from costs and16

schedules.17

I wish also to emphasize that at18

CRL senior quality representatives, or SQRs,19

report directly to general managers rather than20

facility managers to ensure independence within21

the line from costs and schedules.22

In addition, all SQRs have23

reporting lines to corporate quality to ensure24

adequate guidance on following requirements as25

���������

21

well as a further independence in reporting1

quality issues.2

The third quality improvement3

element is related to the effectiveness of4

corporate oversight. This has been also a CNSC5

staff issue in the past.6

When I joined AECL last April,7

corporate QA consisted of only one director and8

six QA staff. The structure reflected the9

decentralized QA model used at AECL in the past10

decade. We have moved over the last year into a11

new model where a balance between strong QA12

presence in the line, as well as a strong13

corporate quality organization, has been14

established.15

With the full support of the16

President and the Executive Management Committee17

and the Operations Management Team, the corporate18

quality office today has 22 positions, including a19

number of senior managers. Subject matter experts20

in design, procurement, construction,21

commissioning and operation QA have been22

redeployed to corporate quality to ensure23

effective and consistent oversight on all our24

projects and activities.25

���������

22

The dotted lines shown on the1

chart show additional venues available to SQRs to2

report directly quality issues, as indicated3

earlier. The Corporate Director, Nuclear4

Laboratories QA and Compliance is located at Chalk5

River and he reports directly to myself.6

I will now turn to our current7

activities and priorities.8

As Mr. Van Adel covered safety9

culture in his presentation, I intend to focus10

here only on quality culture.11

At the top of our priorities is a12

genuine effort to strengthen our customer and13

regulatory confidence. We intend to pursue this14

goal through strengthening our corporate oversight15

on quality, as indicated earlier, and by enhancing16

quality culture through awareness and training17

sessions.18

In that regard I wish to refer to19

a series of quality culture seminars delivered at20

all AECL sites last year to over 250 managers by21

an expert in safety and quality culture.22

We have also developed a new and23

robust corrective action program that has been24

issued for use last December to replace five old25

���������

23

procedures.1

In addition and as a result of a2

very comprehensive overall quality assurance3

program review that was completed just a few weeks4

ago, we are also proceeding to update and improve5

over 20 company-wide procedures and are following6

up on other recommendations for improvements.7

Finally, we are working diligently8

in developing a quality and quality assurance9

training plan to upgrade staff and management10

knowledge and skills.11

I wish also to advise the12

Commission that we intend to monitor our quality13

improvement progress on a quarterly basis through14

the use of a Quality Index that we have developed15

and also intend to improve trending at the project16

as well as at the corporate level.17

An important milestone this summer18

will be the migration from the ISO 9001:1994 to19

the ISO 9001:2000 certification company-wide.20

On my last overhead I have21

summarized what we consider to be a road map to22

excellence. This road map includes:23

(1) the solid management24

commitment that has been demonstrated at all25

���������

24

levels;1

(2) the quality management working2

group that I chair myself and includes 12 senior3

managers from all our operational units. QMWG is4

empowered by the Operations Management Team to5

lead in enhancing quality culture in the company.6

(3) comprehensive program reviews7

are being conducted company-wide;8

(4) a strategy to improve our9

business process management has been developed and10

is being implemented;11

(5) a strategy for ISO 9001:200012

certification has been developed and is being13

implemented, and we anticipate the company-wide14

certification this summer;15

(6) a comprehensive quality and16

quality assurance training requirement analysis17

has been completed and a training plan is near18

completion;19

(7) we have established effective20

communication channels with all our customers, as21

well as with CNSC staff, to address all quality-22

related issues in a timely manner;23

(8) we are committed to work with24

many national and international organizations in25

���������

25

our quest for continual improvements. This1

provides these organizations.2

Madam Chair and Members of the3

Commission, I trust that my presentation provided4

enough information to demonstrate AECL's solid5

commitment to quality and quality assurance and6

also identified real progress that should now be7

recognizable to CNSC staff.8

We will continue to work with CNSC9

staff to ensure that all quality or Chalk River10

specific quality issues will be adequately11

addressed.12

Madam Chair, this concludes my13

presentation. I wish now to invite Dr. Paul14

Fehrenbach to proceed with the presentation.15

DR. FEHRENBACH: Thank you, Aly.16

Madam Chair, Members of the17

Commission, for the record my name is Paul18

Fehrenbach, Vice-President of the Nuclear19

Laboratories Business Unit.20

As mentioned by Mr. Van Adel and21

as shown on the first slide, as of April 1st AECL22

has reorganized into five business units. The23

main thrusts of the new structure are to align24

fully with AECL values and business lines, to25

���������

26

ensure accountability, to permit rapid adjustment1

to market realities and to align our activities2

with customer and stakeholder needs and3

expectations.4

While it is not appropriate here5

to get into detailed organizational charts, I6

think it is worth mentioning that within the7

Nuclear Laboratories Business Unit the8

organizational structure at senior levels remains9

essentially the same as it was the last time we10

spoke to you: specifically, Paul Lafrenière11

remains general manager of Facilities and Nuclear12

Operations; Bob Speranzini is general manager of13

CANDU Technology Development; and Bill14

Kupferschmidt is general manager of15

Decommissioning and Waste Management.16

The primary roles and17

responsibilities of the Nuclear Laboratories18

Business Unit are:19

(1) to provide safe, responsible20

and cost effective operation of AECL's nuclear21

sites and facilities;22

(2) to ensure the safety,23

licensing and design basis of CANDU Technology;24

(3) to develop advanced, pre-25

���������

27

commercial CANDU Technology;1

(4) to support Canadian public2

policy and regulation for nuclear technology in3

Canada and elsewhere;4

(5) to manage decommissioning and5

radioactive waste on behalf of AECL and the6

Government of Canada;7

(6) to manage and operate8

commercial research reactor fuel manufacturing9

facilities at Chalk River Laboratories; and10

(7) to support the commercial11

application and development requirements of other12

AECL business units using Nuclear Laboratory13

facilities and expertise.14

As Mr. Van Adel alluded to, once15

the MMIR project is complete and the facilities16

are in operation, responsibility for operation of17

the new isotope production facilities will also18

transfer to the Nuclear Laboratories Business19

Units. At that time we will make application to20

the CNSC for appropriate modifications to the21

respective operating licences to reflect that22

change.23

To summarize, the responsibilities24

of the Nuclear Laboratory Business Unit therefore25

���������

28

include operation of the Chalk River and1

Whiteshell sites, decommissioning and waste2

management, nuclear laboratories research and3

development and support for the activities of4

other AECL business units.5

The authority for nuclear6

operations within AECL is delegated to me as Vice-7

President of the Nuclear Laboratories Business8

Unit. In turn, I am empowered to delegate9

authority to the site licence holders.10

To end the summary of my11

responsibilities and authority, I should mention12

that I chair the Nuclear Laboratories Management13

Committee, mentioned again by Mr. Van Adel, which14

provides regular oversight and co-ordination of15

health, safety, security, environmental and16

compliance activities at AECL's nuclear17

laboratories.18

With that, I would like to19

introduce Paul Lafrenière, General Manager of20

Facilities and Nuclear Operations and the site21

licence holder for Chalk River, to brief you on22

recent developments affecting our site licence23

application.24

Paul.25

���������

29

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you, Paul.1

Madam Chair, Members of the2

Commission, as site licence holder for the Chalk3

River Laboratories, I accept responsibility for4

ensuring that you receive the information you need5

from AECL in order to properly assess our licence6

request.7

I trust that you will have8

received the supplementary information package9

that AECL staff prepared and submitted to your10

staff on 2003 March 13. Supplementary information11

was compiled in response to your request made12

during the course of Day 1, and it includes13

summary descriptions of the fissile solution14

storage tank, or FISST; the environmental15

protection initiatives; radiation protection16

issues and performance; NRU safety17

characteristics; actions being taken by AECL to18

address "C" ratings; preventive maintenance; and19

an update on performance data from the year 2002.20

AECL staff have also responded to21

the issues raised in the CNSC staff's Commission22

Member Document tabled at the Day 1 hearing. A23

series of meetings were held with CNSC staff in24

the past two and a half months to reach a common25

���������

30

understanding of all issues. AECL is progressing1

well toward resolving these issues.2

The next few slides constitute a3

brief report card on AECL's responses to CNSC4

staff's constructive criticisms. Some items are5

dealt with quite briefly here because they are6

dealt with in depth later on in my presentation.7

AECL's safety culture has8

underpinned the success of operations at CRL for9

more than five decades. Management continues to10

emphasize safety first, and that is reinforced by11

the President right on down through the entire12

AECL organization.13

Later on I shall present examples14

of measures of AECL's solid and improving safety15

culture.16

Let me point out here that this is17

about continuous improvement. We are improving,18

and we will improve further.19

There were three corporate quality20

assurance issues of concern to CNSC staff in 200321

January. Dr. Aly subsequently led an AECL team22

which met with CNSC staff, and it was agreed that23

outstanding issues with the AECL overall QA manual24

would be closed pending CNSC feedback on two25

���������

31

issues.1

Similarly, CRL operations QA2

specialists met with CNSC staff in February and3

agreed on required revisions to the Nuclear4

Operations QA Manual and the supporting Conduct of5

Operations Procedures.6

The issues were use of mandatory7

language, prescriptiveness of procedures and8

properly characterizing the site licence holder as9

the single line of authority for all licence-10

listed facilities.11

As you are aware, AECL was12

assessed by CNSC staff on the quality of programs13

and their implementation in seven safety areas.14

In 2003 January CRL was assessed as having nine15

"Bs" and five "Cs". Since then we have been16

informed that on the basis of advances made in17

nuclear security implementation the rating has18

changed to ten "Bs" and four "Cs".19

We also understand that on the20

basis of recent CNSC staff observations,21

performance trends for performance assurance and22

radiation protection have been recharacterized as23

"improving" rather than "little change", as24

indicated by the characterization in January.25

���������

32

We are confident with the plans we1

have put in place to bring all ratings up to "Bs"2

in the near future.3

I will return to AECL's action4

plans to continue to enhance performance later on5

in my presentation.6

The AECL management manual now7

makes it clear that the site licence holder for8

CRL is the designated authority for all CRL9

licence-listed facilities. Also, changes that10

become effective 2003 April 1 transfer line11

management responsibility for the nuclear fuel12

fabrication facility to the general manager FNO,13

who also serves as the CRL site licence holder.14

The AECL management manual has15

been modified to define the mandate and16

responsibilities of the Nuclear Laboratories17

Management Committee, for which Dr. Fehrenbach is18

responsible.19

In addition, a new position of20

Corporate Director of QA and Compliance for CRL,21

reporting directly to Dr. Aly, the Chief Quality22

Officer, has been created to provide an23

independent oversight function, for instance, of24

CRL line management.25

���������

33

As I have reported to you on1

previous occasions, the CRL nuclear site2

management system has been under development for3

the past several years. Key to the system is a4

set of approved processes which define5

responsibilities for interaction between staff of6

nuclear facilities, compliance programs and other7

support groups.8

Shortly before the Day 1 hearing9

in January AECL was approached by CNSC staff with10

a view to making certain documents available to11

intervenors prior to the Day 2 hearing. AECL has12

co-operated with CNSC staff to make information13

available to intervenors in a timely fashion.14

The information transfer was done15

such that it does not establish a precedent,16

compromise security, and the action is without17

prejudice to AECL's rights under the Access to18

Information Act.19

As you know, AECL last year20

contracted with specialist consultants in the21

ecological assessments to provide AECL with an22

ecological effects review for the CRL site, the23

first draft of which has been provided to the CNSC24

in instalments for review.25

���������

34

Environmental monitoring on the1

CRL site and in the surrounding area has been2

conducted for many years. The quality of the data3

has been verified independently by specialists4

from Laval University.5

I would like to point out that Dr.6

Barbeau of Université Laval est ici aujourd'hui,7

if there are any questions.8

In Chapter 3 of the supplementary9

package, Figure 3.3 presented data indicating a10

manyfold decline in concentrations of three11

radionuclides, tritium, strontium 90 and cesium12

137, in the Ottawa River in the 1960s to present.13

The current levels are less than 1 per cent of the14

acceptable concentration for drinking water; in15

fact, less than a tenth of that.16

Concentrations at Rolphton and17

Deep River upstream from CRL are only marginally18

lower than for Pembroke downstream of CRL.19

The Rolphton water was sampled20

from upstream of the hydro dam, which is upstream21

of the NPD nuclear power demonstration facility.22

The relatively high concentrations of tritium,23

strontium 90 and cesium 137 in the 1960s were due24

to fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons25

���������

35

testing elsewhere in the world. The comparison1

serves to illustrate how little the Ottawa River2

is affected by effluents from CRL.3

Following the Day 1 hearing in4

January AECL followed up on the Commission's5

suggestion and approached representatives of6

several unions and members working at CRL to come7

here and speak with you on the safety culture at8

CRL. I am happy to say they are available.9

The individual union members opted10

to have their umbrella organization, the Canadian11

Nuclear Workers Council, make a presentation to12

you on their behalf. I am pleased that Dave Shier13

of the CNWC is here today representing the14

unionized workers' viewpoint.15

I was pleased to note that AECL's16

security program has been re-evaluated to a "B"17

rating. CNSC staff audited the security18

arrangements at CRL in 2003 March and registered19

improvements in security training and in security20

systems programs that merited an overall "B"21

rating for the program.22

AECL acknowledges CNSC staff's23

recent trend rating of our radiation protection24

program to "improving", and we have agreed to a25

���������

36

series of actions and a schedule to implement six1

further enhancements to the program. The plan was2

summarized in Chapter 6 of the supplementary3

information package, and we are working now toward4

enhancing four areas: namely, organization and5

administration; radiation exposure and dose6

control; respiratory protection; and personnel7

dosimetry.8

AECL's radiation protection9

program has been a success in that collective and10

average doses to CRL workers have declined11

steadily by factors of about two over the past12

decade or so.13

More than ten years ago AECL took14

the initiative to reduce and maintain maximum15

employee doses in NRU and elsewhere at AECL16

laboratory sites to below 20 milisieverts per17

annum rather than AECB's regulatory limit of 5018

milisieverts per annum. We have not only achieved19

our objective of keeping the maximum doses below20

20 milisieverts, but we are pleased to note that21

we are continuing to achieve reduction in doses.22

In 2002 NRU workers not only remained below the 2023

milisievert limit for the year, but also the doses24

for all workers were below 15 milisieverts.25

���������

37

As mentioned earlier, AECL has1

just been reorganized effective April 1st. The2

organization chart for Facilities and Nuclear3

Operations is shown on this slide. The two4

central columns deal with the operating nuclear5

facilities and programs, some of which are6

company-wide compliance programs to ensure7

compliance with safety, security and environmental8

protection requirements.9

Facilities and Nuclear Operations10

is a division of the Nuclear Laboratories Business11

Unit, whose Vice-President is Dr. Paul Fehrenbach.12

Turning now to safety culture. It13

is a senior manager's responsibility to14

demonstrate an overriding commitment to safety15

throughout all our diverse activities. I invest a16

good portion of my time praising good practices17

and challenging poor ones. I encourage18

conservative decision-making and prohibit19

shortcuts from being taken where there are20

potential deleterious safety culture safety or21

environmental considerations.22

During the past year there have23

been several occasions when managers of the NRU24

reactor and the Moly-99 hot cell production25

���������

38

facility put production on hold to ensure safety1

concerns were properly addressed.2

I provided praise for putting3

safety ahead of productivity and publicly thanked4

the managers for their demonstrated devotion to5

safety culture in the pages of the "ReAction"6

newsletter. When managers and staff do the right7

safety things, it is important that senior8

managers reinforce those behaviours so that safety9

culture, like quality culture, becomes a natural10

way of doing business.11

Our efforts to emphasize safety12

were rewarded in 2002 when CRL celebrated a13

milestone in which over one million person-hours14

were worked without a single lost time injury.15

We believe that satisfied16

employees are more likely to work safely. We all17

know that to be true.18

Over the past three years we have19

been measuring employee job satisfaction and have20

noted a 50 per cent increase in job satisfaction21

in that period. Morale has improved for a variety22

of reasons, not the least of which is the kudos23

strong performers are receiving in the pages of24

the "ReAction" newsletter. Recognition by their25

���������

39

managers and peers means a lot to our employees.1

This is key to people.2

Managers and senior management at3

CRL regularly visit the workplace, reinforcing4

good practices and gathering feedback from5

employees.6

I would like to take the time7

right now to thank our President and CEO for the8

vision that he has put in front of us. I can9

assure you that has been a most positive step.10

It has been my experience that11

organizations that look deep in the grass for12

fairly innocuous unplanned events and report them13

and analyze root causes are the organizations14

least likely to incur serious unplanned events.15

The lessons learned from non-16

reportable unplanned events could include lessons17

needed to prevent precursors of more serious18

accidents. Thus I make no apologies for having19

gone out of my way to encourage CRL staff to be20

vigilant in reporting relatively minor events so21

that lessons learned could be shared with others.22

Regulators could further reinforce23

this positive aspect of safety culture by24

accepting an increasing number of non-reportable25

���������

40

events as a positive indicator.1

Commitment to safety culture and2

environmental responsibility is considered in3

personnel performance appraisals of AECL employees4

at all levels of the organization. It gives me a5

lot of pleasure to acknowledge the 126

organizations, identified by this slide, who have7

stepped forward in support of AECL's licence8

application. We appreciate your vote of9

confidence, and we pledge in turn to continue10

operating Canada's foremost national nuclear11

laboratory safely, responsibly, and to be a good12

neighbour to those of you located in the upper13

Ottawa Valley.14

Similarly, we appreciate the15

support offered by several CRL unions who have16

asked Dave Shier of the CNWC to represent them17

collectively at this hearing. We acknowledge that18

there are individuals or groups who express19

concerns about nuclear safety and environmental20

issues. We want to reassure them that we are21

running a reliable and safe operation.22

AECL has responded positively to23

the potential additional security challenges since24

the terrorist attacks in the U.S. of September 11,25

���������

41

2001. Since then we have doubled the strength of1

our nuclear security guard force. It was2

gratifying that AECL became the first licensee to3

comply fully with the CNSC Annex Order with4

respect to site access clearances.5

After investing $20 million in6

security enhancements and working very hard to7

comply with all applicable regulations, there8

should be no doubt that AECL is very good value9

for the "B" rating recently awarded by your staff.10

Turning now to the longer term11

future of NRU, AECL has informed the CNSC in a12

President to President letter, dated 2003 February13

18, that we wish to operate the NRU reactor beyond14

2005 December 31.15

Three key factors influenced this16

decision.17

First, AECL has a comprehensive18

safety analysis of NRU completed, including seven19

major safety upgrades installed in the past few20

years. The NRU reactor is now capable of21

operating safely beyond 2005.22

Second, access to a research23

reactor is essential to maintain and advance CANDU24

nuclear power technology and to support other25

���������

42

Canadian applications of nuclear technology, such1

as the NRC program of material science using2

neutron scattering.3

Finally, a commitment to build a4

Canadian neutron facility, a reactor proposed to5

replace the research capability of NRU, has not6

yet been made by our shareholder. The new safety7

analysis of using up to date analytical tools and8

based on modern analytical standards demonstrated9

that NRU is safe.10

Furthermore, the analysis showed11

that there were no technical reasons why NRU12

should not be operated beyond 2005.13

In addition, we have initiated14

work to systematically assess NRU's capability to15

meet continued demands. We believe that safe16

operation in 2006 and beyond can, and will, be17

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CNSC staff18

and this Commission.19

If at any time for any reason that20

situation were to change, we would not of course21

proceed with the upcoming request to extend the22

licence of NRU beyond 2005.23

Before leaving the topic of NRU, I24

would like to mention to you Chapter 5 of the25

���������

43

supplementary information package entitled "NRU1

Safety Characteristics". This short document2

captures the high degree of redundancy, diversity3

and, as a result, depth of the safety features of4

the reactor with respect to concept, operating5

design, safety systems, mitigation and emergency6

preparedness.7

Having worked extensively in power8

reactors and now with several years of experience9

in research reactors, I can assure you this is a10

safe reactor.11

This slide shows that NRU's12

reliability has been improving over the past few13

years, and the number of reactor trips have been14

decreasing. This is testimony to the performance15

of our employees.16

One of the most notable17

achievements at CRL over the past ten or twelve18

years has been the reduction of radiation doses.19

The data provided in Chapter 8 of the20

supplementary information package indicated21

continuation of the downward trend in collective22

and average worker doses in 2002. For the first23

time in half a century no workers at CRL received24

a whole body dose of 15 milisieverts or higher.25

���������

44

The ALARA practices at CRL are paying off. In the1

two previous years the number of workers with2

doses exceeding 15 milisieverts were 12 and six3

respectively, and in 2002 there were none.4

I am going to show you a slide5

illustrating the dose reduction and another that6

is a composite more broadly based index designed7

to enable management to evaluate, through a single8

parameter, how well CRL is performing in9

industrial and radiological safety.10

This graph shows the collective11

dose reduction at CRL from 1991 to 2002. Please12

focus on the trend rather than the absolute13

values, because there are different numbers of14

employees and of course facilities at a large15

national laboratory and the various types of16

nuclear power plants that are also depicted on the17

figure.18

In the years 1991 to 2000 CRL19

exceeded the WANO reductions in year over year20

reductions by over 50 per cent. This indicates21

effective ALARA practices were implemented.22

The CRL employee safety23

performance index is a composite index comprising24

66 per cent radiological safety parameters and 3425

���������

45

per cent industrial safety parameters. The red1

line indicates an improving overall trend.2

Much progress has been made in3

addressing the CNSC audit of November 2002. AECL4

has formulated action plans and submitted them to5

the CNSC staff 2003 March, and they are already6

being implemented.7

Finally, Madam Chair and Members8

of the Commission, on the subject of licence9

duration, AECL accepts CNSC staff recommendation10

for a licence period of 38 months. This increased11

confidence on the part of CNSC staff will be12

heartening to my staff, who have worked hard,13

developed a sound safety culture and obtained14

tangible performance improvements.15

The CRL team is committed to16

continuous improvement and the laboratories will17

be operated safely, securely and with due18

consideration for the health of employees and19

public and protection of the environment.20

Madam Chair, that concludes my21

presentation. Thank you.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any23

further comments, Mr. Van Adel, at this time?24

MR. VAN ADEL: No, that is it.25

���������

46

1

03-H2.B2

Oral presentation by CNSC staff3

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like4

then to turn to CNSC staff for their presentation5

before we open the floor for questions.6

With that, I turn to Mrs. Cait7

Maloney for an oral presentation, as outlined in8

CMD Document 03-H2.B.9

Mrs. Maloney.10

MS MALONEY: Good morning, Madam11

President, Members of the Commission. I am Cait12

Maloney, Director General of the Nuclear Cycle and13

Facilities Regulation.14

With me today are Barclay Howden,15

Director of the Research Facilities Division, and16

Mr. Glenn Martin, CNSC's single point of contact17

for the Chalk River Laboratories.18

CNSC staff has reviewed the19

operation of the Chalk River Laboratories and the20

application from AECL to continue to operate the21

Chalk River Laboratories and has formed a position22

on the application and put forward recommendations23

for your consideration.24

I will now turn the presentation25

���������

47

over to Barclay Howden, who will outline these for1

you.2

MR. HOWDEN: Good morning. My3

name is Barclay Howden.4

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited5

has applied for the renewal of the licence to6

operate the Chalk River Laboratories. CNSC staff7

prepared CMDs 03-H2 and 03-H2.B for the Commission8

on this application.9

This presentation provides a brief10

overview of the key issues of this application and11

CNSC staff's recommendations.12

Our presentation is broken down13

into five sections: updates since Hearing Day 1; a14

revised proposed licence length; a proposed new15

licence condition for NRU; our overall16

conclusions; and our recommendations to the17

Commission.18

This slide shows a summary of CNSC19

staff's ratings of the safety areas as they apply20

to the Chalk River Laboratories site. Changes to21

the ratings since Hearing Day 1 are shown in the22

shaded boxes. I will speak briefly to the changes23

only.24

For performance assurance, AECL25

���������

48

has resolved the issues related to their overall1

quality assurance manual. AECL has also completed2

a formal collective review of the effectiveness of3

its quality assurance program, in response to a4

finding from our November 2002 comprehensive5

audit. AECL has developed a comprehensive plan to6

address remaining deficiencies identified by CNSC7

staff during that same audit.8

This progress is sufficient for9

CNSC staff to upgrade the trend for this program10

to "improving".11

For radiation protection, AECL has12

completed its ALARA study of the Moly-99 facility.13

AECL has performed a significant amount of work to14

correct deficiencies identified in the CNSC staff15

November 2002 audit, and AECL has developed a16

comprehensive plan to address the remaining17

deficiencies.18

The progress on this safety area19

is sufficient for CNSC staff to upgrade the trend20

for this program to "improving".21

For nuclear security, AECL has22

acceptably addressed identified deficiencies such23

that CNSC staff has upgraded the implementation24

rating to "meets requirements".25

���������

49

Previously there was an improving1

trend for this program, and this continues to be2

the case.3

CNSC staff has just completed its4

risk assessment of radioisotope production. This5

assessment focused on the risks posed from the6

handling of the high level radioactive wastes that7

are being produced in the Moly-99 facility and8

will be produced in the new processing facility as9

part of the MAPLE reactor project.10

The primary conclusion from the11

study is that both facilities meet regulatory12

requirements but the new processing facility, when13

in operation, will pose lower risk to the14

operating staff, the public and the environment.15

AECL has undertaken a number of16

actions at the Moly-99 facility that should reduce17

the doses and the releases from the facility to as18

low as reasonably achievable, ALARA.19

CNSC staff is actively using its20

compliance program to make sure that AECL21

continues implementing these actions.22

For decommissioning plans for the23

site, AECL has met the application requirements by24

submitting all the required preliminary25

���������

50

decommissioning plans. The site-wide1

decommissioning plan is currently not acceptable2

to CNSC staff, and AECL has committed to revising3

it by July 31, 2003.4

This issue is part of a broader5

issue related to AECL's integrated plans for6

operation of the site, decommissioning of the site7

and remediation of legacy issues at the site.8

CNSC staff and AECL staff have agreed to a senior9

management meeting to discuss the broader issue10

prior to CNSC staff taking the next regulatory11

step in the process.12

CNSC staff has revised its13

position on the length of the proposed licence and14

now recommends a 38-month period. The basis of15

the recommendation is related to good progress16

made by AECL in the safety areas. As well, AECL17

has formally notified the CNSC of its intent to18

operate NRU beyond 2005.19

Given the significance of this20

issue, CNSC staff recommends that it be considered21

as a licensing issue separate from that of the CRL22

site licence. Further details on the proposed23

licence length have been provided in CMD 03-H2.B.24

To address the issue of NRU25

���������

51

operating being 2005, a licence condition is1

required to restrict NRU operation. The licence2

condition is outlined on this slide.3

CNSC staff concludes that no4

further environmental assessment pursuant to the5

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is required6

as the conclusions of the 1996 environmental7

assessment and subsequent environmental8

assessments for several projects remain valid for9

the proposed licence renewal.10

AECL is qualified to carry on the11

licensed activities. AECL has made and in the12

opinion of CNSC staff will continue to make13

adequate provision for the protection of the14

environment, the health and safety of persons and15

the maintenance of national security and measures16

required to implement international obligations to17

which Canada has agreed.18

The overall performance of AECL at19

Chalk River during the current licence period is20

meeting requirements, and taking into account21

AECL's commitment to address identified weaknesses22

in certain programs CNSC staff is of the opinion23

that AECL will continue to meet requirements24

during the term of the proposed operating licence.25

���������

52

CNSC staff recommends that:1

The Commission accept CNSC staff's2

assessment that no further environmental3

assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental4

Assessment Act is required.5

Approve the issuance of the6

proposed operating licence for a 38-month period,7

to July 31, 2006. This recommendation is outlined8

in detail in Section 3 of CMD 03-H2.B and is not9

in agreement with AECL's original request for a10

licence term of 53 months.11

And delegate to the Director12

General of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities Regulation13

the exercise of authority to determine the14

acceptability of the financial guarantee to be15

proposed on the recommended licence condition16

12.1.17

That concludes my presentation. I18

will go back to Mrs. Maloney.19

MS MALONEY: Thank you, Mr.20

Howden.21

That ends staff's presentation.22

We are available to answer questions you may have23

of us.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mrs.25

���������

53

Maloney.1

2

03-H2.1B3

Written submission from Atomic Energy of Canada4

Limited5

6

03-H2.A / 03-H2.C7

Written submission from CNSC staff8

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would like to9

note that AECL and the CNSC staff have filed10

written submissions, as outlined in CMD 03-H2.1B11

from AECL and 03-H2.A and 03-H2.C from CNSC staff.12

These are in response to a request from an13

intervenor, Mr. Hendrickson, to release some14

documents.15

Mr. Hendrickson is scheduled to16

present his submission later today.17

With those notes read into the18

record, I would like to now open the floor for19

questions from the Commission Members to either20

the applicant AECL or to CNSC staff.21

Dr. Barnes will start.22

MEMBER BARNES: It may be timely,23

Madam President, to take up that last issue that24

you mentioned, the material requested both by Mr.25

���������

54

Hendrickson and also I think by Mr. Martin, both1

of whom are on our agenda later today.2

The issue of freedom of3

information was raised at Day 1, and we have heard4

a good deal from AECL about limiting the5

environmental legacy and also a concern of a6

number of the local communities of the potential7

for that environmental legacy being a serious8

issue.9

So I was surprised, in looking at10

the material that had been provided to Mr.11

Hendrickson, how much of the material had been12

redacted, in other words blacked out, particularly13

dealing with decommissioning.14

I wonder if I could ask AECL and15

also staff why the extent of this blackening out16

was so extensive, given the fact that you have17

advocated throughout your presentation your strong18

commitment to environmental issues and limiting19

the long-term environmental legacy.20

DR. FEHRENBACH: Thank you,21

Commissioner, for your question. For the record,22

my name is Paul Fehrenbach.23

First of all, I want to reiterate24

that AECL wishes to be as open and transparent as25

���������

55

it can be with respect to our operations. We1

currently do make a significant amount of2

information relating to our activities publicly3

available; for example, through annual reports,4

business plans tabled in Parliament, annual5

reports to the CNSC on a range of our activities6

at Chalk River and other sites, that are in turn7

made available to the public. We also have open8

houses and meetings with the public and local9

governments at our sites.10

At the same time, we do have trade11

secrets, confidential, commercial, technical and12

business information relating to our technologies13

and businesses that, if disclosed, we feel would14

prejudice AECL's competitive position and harm our15

business.16

In addition, some information17

relating to AECL's Canadian sites is sensitive18

from a security standpoint. Accordingly, we must19

find a balance between the desire for openness and20

the necessity for maintaining some information21

that is confidential.22

The Supreme Court of Canada did23

very recently recognize the importance to AECL of24

it being able to maintain the confidentiality of25

���������

56

certain information in a case that had been1

brought by the Sierra Club.2

With respect to process, when3

government departments or agencies such as the4

CNSC receive access to information requests that5

relate to AECL information, and AECL is in turn6

asked for its input concerning the suitability for7

release, AECL staff carefully review the8

information. If the case for exemption must be9

made, it can be exempted from release under the10

Act for confidentiality or business, commercial11

reasons; i.e., under section 20 of that Act.12

AECL also makes recommendations to13

the government department with respect to any14

information that should be withheld on security15

grounds. But it is open to the requester to seek16

a review if they believe that more information is17

releasable.18

In the specific case of the19

preliminary decommissioning plans, a significant20

amount of information in those documents has been21

released. AECL's staff reviewed in detail a large22

number of the documents requested by the23

intervenors, determined what information in them24

should be exempted from release on confidentiality25

���������

57

grounds, and identified information that should be1

withheld on security grounds.2

In response to the complaint made3

by the requester, which AECL was made aware of4

only recently, we have again reviewed these5

documents and are making further submissions on6

exemption of information, as is provided for under7

the Access to Information Act.8

In short, we intend to comply9

fully with the provisions of the Access to10

Information Act.11

MEMBER BARNES: Is there any12

response from staff?13

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden14

speaking.15

With respect to the information16

requested, there was a number of sets of17

information: decommissioning information;18

regulatory gap analysis; environmental effects19

review; and information on the risks of handling20

Moly-99 wastes.21

The last three sets were released22

with very little redaction done.23

With respect to the24

decommissioning information, in particular the25

���������

58

preliminary decommissioning plans, the information1

that was released was the same as that that was2

released to a requester in August 2002 under an3

Access to Information request.4

What has happened with regard to5

that request is that there was a complaint made to6

the Information Commissioner that came back to the7

CNSC. We looked at the complaint, and we agreed8

with the complaint that more information could9

have been released. We went through the10

documentation and assessed that a significant11

amount of it could have been released.12

However, under the process of13

Access to Information, we then had to send that14

information to AECL as part of the third party15

review. My understanding is that that the process16

is at that point, and AECL has been discussing17

other issues with the Information Commissioner.18

That is the status of that19

information right now.20

MEMBER BARNES: I can see the21

proprietary nature of a lot of the business that22

AECL is in, certainly in technical aspects. I was23

surprised, when looking at the decommissioning24

aspects here, with specific reference to the site,25

���������

59

that so much of the material was essentially being1

denied public information.2

Again, we could spend a lot of3

time going through the details of this, Madam4

President, but I don't think we need to.5

One, for example, in the document6

on preliminary decommissioning plan RC1933, would7

be on planning envelopes or the technical8

approach. The conceptual approach is that each9

planning envelope would be broken down into10

several work packages, and all of this is blacked11

out.12

Cost estimates, and so on, I fail13

to see why this is proprietary in a business sense14

for a decommissioning phase of this kind of15

facility.16

DR. FEHRENBACH: Paul Fehrenbach17

again.18

I think some of the information19

you refer to of course is information that would20

be used by us in assessing contracts which we will21

be seeking to perform that work. We feel it would22

compromise the cost effectiveness of our23

contracting process if our own internal cost24

estimates were made public ahead of time before we25

���������

60

received proposals and estimates from prospective1

contractors.2

MEMBER BARNES: Also on things3

like the operational history, going back to the4

1950s. Whole sections of this are taken out.5

DR. FEHRENBACH: In this case I6

think we are getting into potential security7

information, and I really don't want to elaborate8

further. It has to do with locations of9

particular materials on site.10

MEMBER BARNES: In the case of the11

public, in the case of the officials from the12

communities that we will hear about later, as you13

know from having read the material nearly all of14

them are in support but they express one concern,15

and that is the environmental quality of the site16

as it is eventually cleaned up and is part of the17

decommissioning plan.18

You must agree that it is very19

hard for communities and the public and other20

interest groups to have a clear understanding of21

the scope and capabilities of the decommissioning22

aspects when so much of the information that they23

have requested is simply not available to them.24

DR. FEHRENBACH: I can't really25

���������

61

agree with that statement, Commissioner. As I1

said earlier, we try our best to be open and make2

available necessary information for evaluation of3

our environmental performance.4

As you will see in the multitude5

of information that has been released, both in the6

supplementary information that was provided to the7

Commission on releases from the site and the8

monitoring programs, there is quite adequate9

information on environmental stewardship for10

members of the public to form their own judgments11

on the quality of our environmental performance.12

MEMBER BARNES: Does staff have13

any further comment? We may revisit this later in14

the meeting.15

MR. HOWDEN: Yes. Barclay Howden16

speaking.17

The Access to Information issue is18

with the Information Commissioner. What I would19

like to say is that when we revisited the20

information after the complaint, in hindsight we21

looked at it and basically took a very22

conservative review of the information originally23

based on post 9/11 considerations.24

However, what we did this time25

���������

62

around is there is a couple of exemptions under1

the Act that can be used. One is commercial2

sensitive and the other is security.3

We can't really judge the4

commercial sensitivity. We focused on the5

security aspects and sat down with project6

officers, decommissioning specialists and security7

specialists and our Access to Information Co-8

ordinator and went through the document primarily9

focusing on security.10

We did come to the conclusion that11

more information could be released. That is where12

we stand today. Again, it is back with the13

Information Commissioner.14

MS MALONEY: It is Cait Maloney,15

if I might just add to that.16

Mr. Van Adel in his presentation17

made reference to the fact that there is a process18

going on in which AECL and Natural Resources19

Canada are entering into discussions on20

remediation of the entire AECL site.21

CNSC will be involved in those22

discussions to the extent that we will be23

providing our expectations on the regulatory24

aspects of that. Obviously one of the areas that25

���������

63

we will be looking at is the amount of information1

that is made available to the public. So we will2

be working on that with the licensee.3

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill,4

would you have any questions at this time?5

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you. I6

would like to go back to some comments made early7

in the presentation with respect to safety8

culture.9

I heard the quote "wilful10

violations are not tolerated".11

How do you distinguish between a12

wilful violation and a non-reportable event?13

Perhaps you elaborate on that.14

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Paul Lafrenière.15

We have procedures in place and codes of conduct.16

We have a process whereby if we have a17

transgression, first the individual is corrected.18

It is brought to his attention through management19

supervision.20

The second step -- and it is a21

graduated process -- would be a letter on file.22

The third step, at that point we23

would probably be involving human resources and24

the union to say that this process is becoming25

���������

64

much more serious. After that the employee can be1

sent home or there can be more permanent action2

taken. So it is a graduated process.3

I can point out that we have4

several examples of that over the past few years.5

MEMBER McDILL: Do you find this6

is at odds with the desire to have employees7

report events of a safety nature?8

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: That is an9

excellent question. Let's be very clear that we10

encourage the reporting. We do not have a process11

that is retaliatory. In other words, we ensure12

that we are learning and we make sure that the13

employees feel that they are learning.14

I think our recent results in the15

employee job satisfaction survey indicate very16

clearly that we are on the right track. So it is17

employee morale, motivation and comfortableness18

with the milieu. I think in that area the results19

speak for themselves.20

That is a management21

responsibility.22

I would point out that this23

process goes to the ultimate level in very rare24

instances. Let's be very clear on that.25

���������

65

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux?1

MEMBER GIROUX: I have a few2

questions which I extract from the written3

document we received, the complementary document,4

and also to some of the presentations you made5

today.6

The first one is a bit technical.7

Discussing the fissile solution storage tank and8

criticality, my question is: How far are you from9

criticality?10

I know that is a major factor.11

How do you measure the distance to criticality?12

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: First of all, the13

FISST tank is safe. Let's be very clear about14

this.15

The criticality hazard has been16

considered, and there are design issues,17

engineered barriers and operational procedures18

around this.19

Just to give you a brief idea, we20

are talking in the Moly production facility we21

have ten barriers or administrative controls and22

inside the FISST tank, around the FISST tank23

itself, we have six barriers or administrative24

controls. This is independent of the design25

���������

66

itself.1

On the issue of criticality, the2

best way to explain it is we are currently3

applying for a limit of 7.6 grams per litre. For4

the uranium, the criticality limit that is placed5

on it, and conservatively so, is 11.6 grams per6

litre. Essentially, the overall process is a7

protection by concentration, or safe by8

concentration method. We control the9

concentration, and we have a process that ensures10

that with sufficient redundance.11

I hope that provides the answer.12

MEMBER GIROUX: I think it does.13

As a supplementary on that, you say you applied14

for 7.6. If I remember correctly, you have been15

applying in the recent past for increased limits.16

What is the present level or17

concentration of uranium?18

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: The current level19

or limit is 7.3, and we are very close to that20

limit today.21

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.22

The other question concerns the23

Ottawa River survey. I have seen Dr. Barbeau's24

report that there has been a survey done in 199925

���������

67

and a new one in 2001. That is the one he reports1

on.2

My question is: How far back does3

your monitoring go? What happened before 1999?4

Did you have monitoring of the same type?5

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: The monitoring6

goes back many, many years, but for the details I7

would like to ask Ray Lambert, our radiation8

protection and environmental specialist to answer.9

Ray.10

MR. LAMBERT: My name is Ray11

Lambert, AECL.12

AECL has been doing environmental13

monitoring for as long as I have been in the14

company, back in 1979. I can't off the top of my15

head think of a period before 1979 that it was not16

doing it. We have been doing environmental17

monitoring of the area and of the effects of Chalk18

River Laboratories for in excess of 20, 30 years.19

I don't have the results with me.20

We have done the independent21

monitoring with Laval University for two years,22

and we plan to make use of them again in the23

future.24

MEMBER GIROUX: Has that25

���������

68

monitoring been on the same parameters as what has1

been done -- what you did before 1999, was it2

looking at the same parameters as what has been3

done since then?4

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Perhaps I could5

clarify. With Dr. Barbeau at the University of6

Laval, this was independent monitoring to provide7

additional assurances that our existing program8

was measuring what it was supposed to be measuring9

and providing the proper results.10

THE CHAIRPERSON: I wonder,11

though, Dr. Giroux, if that really answered the12

question.13

My understanding of the question -14

- and please correct me if I am wrong -- is if15

there was a set of parameters set out at a certain16

time period by AECL and you have continued to17

follow those parameters, that framework of18

monitoring, such that one would have history and19

one would have a sense of comparison data rather20

than necessarily an explanation of Laval.21

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: We do have trends22

going back many, many years, back to the 1960s,23

from the environmental monitoring program. It was24

provided in the supplementary information package.25

���������

69

So let's be very clear on that1

point.2

The information on the3

radionuclides such as tritium, strontium, et4

cetera, are monitored from a number of locations.5

We have the results going back to the 1960s. As6

well, in the environmental monitoring we do7

sediment monitoring, and the results are there to8

confirm these measured results.9

MEMBER GIROUX: I will now address10

your written presentation document on the ALARA11

process, which I found interesting to read. You12

mentioned that you take into account social and13

economic factors, and that is normally part of the14

ALARA process, but you are not very specific on15

how you treat them.16

Could you tell us what factors you17

have identified as being social and economic and18

whether you have actually included them in your19

analysis.20

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: That is a good21

question.22

Numerous ALARA analyses have been23

done. If we look at the recent analysis on the24

Moly production facility, which has been presented25

���������

70

to the CNSC and on which they have expressed1

satisfaction, what we have done in that is2

essentially we are looking not only at the dose3

and the public impact, the impact on the workers,4

as well we are making a comparison with the new5

production facility, the new MAPLE project under6

way.7

What we have done is essentially a8

comparison in terms of environmental impact,9

public impact and worker impact. There are many10

financial considerations that are included. So it11

is health and financial.12

If I may, we have not gone into13

the details on the benefit side of this ALARA14

analysis, and perhaps that is something that needs15

to be done.16

MEMBER GIROUX: Do you mean you17

have not reported on them but you have done them,18

or you have not done the analysis?19

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: The ALARA20

analysis contains all this information which I21

have just mentioned. So they are reported on in22

detail.23

MEMBER GIROUX: That is in the24

detailed version which we don't have.25

���������

71

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: That is correct.1

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman?3

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam4

Chair.5

My first question is to AECL. In6

your document CRL-00580-130-001, on page 51, with7

regard to the ratings on performance assurance8

implementation -- and in asking the question I9

would also recognize the steps AECL has taken and10

the improvements you have effected.11

I would like to ask for more12

clarification on the statement on 6.3.6(a) and13

also (b) and subsequently, where you state that14

the AECL statement "is not true and not based on15

objective evidence".16

I am wondering if you would be17

able to clarify somewhat on that statement.18

And then, Madam Chair, I might ask19

CNSC staff for a reply.20

It is up to AECL to reply.21

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I will answer the22

question.23

I would like to point out that24

AECL has achieved an improved trending in the25

���������

72

performance assurance area on the basis of1

improvements to the management system, as well as2

a detailed plan and commitment to achieve them, as3

well as the progress that has been alluded to by4

staff.5

On the specific issues, there are6

essentially close to, I would say, ten process7

areas. An example would be the modification8

process in a nuclear facility.9

One of the issues raised -- and I10

am just giving you an example -- is that the11

procedure was not properly documented to the12

detail that the CNSC staff expected.13

In that area, we accepted that and14

we said we would proceed to improve that area.15

There were other examples, and16

this was generalized to apply across the site, in17

which case we did have some issues with some18

facilities. Many of the facilities were in19

accordance.20

I think our point here is that we21

accept all the specifics and they are being dealt22

with. The generalization we had some difficulty23

with.24

MEMBER DOSMAN: The statement on25

���������

73

6.3.6(a) that "was not based on objective1

evidence", would you be willing to comment on that2

statement?3

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I would like to4

ask our QA manager Siv Sivarajan to respond,5

please.6

MR. SIVARAJAN: Hello. I am Siv7

Sivarajan, Process Manager, Nuclear Safety and8

Quality Assurance.9

Just to expand on what Paul10

Lafrenière was saying, certain facilities and11

certain processes were audited as part of the CNSC12

audit. While they have objective evidence that13

they have scrutinized and arrived at some findings14

in terms of saying that these are the deficiencies15

they have noted, we do agree that that is true.16

Generalizing it right across the17

site for facilities where it was not audited, we18

believe that is not true. That is the intent that19

was tried to be conveyed in 6.3.6(a).20

MEMBER DOSMAN: Madam Chair, if I21

might, I think I am referring, in addition to the22

substance of the question, to the somewhat strong23

language. I am wondering if I might ask CNSC24

staff for their interpretation and their comments25

���������

74

on this issue.1

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden2

speaking.3

In terms of these findings, the4

audit was very comprehensive. We were there for5

two weeks, looked at about five programs and had6

many staff there. However, the site is very7

complex and large, and we didn't look at8

everything.9

However, when we find findings in10

a few places, we start to roll them together.11

If this is not true across the12

whole site, that is a good thing. However, what13

we expect is that, based on our findings, AECL not14

just address the finding in terms of in a certain15

facility or area; they should go out and confirm16

that it is either an isolated finding or it is17

widespread. That is our expectations of follow-18

up.19

In our discussions with AECL, they20

have indicated they are going to do that. The21

strong language, it doesn't cause us too much22

grief. I think we have an understanding of what23

the next steps are, and I think they are24

appropriate to deal with these issues or determine25

���������

75

that they are not as broad as they may be.1

MEMBER DOSMAN: If I might, Madam2

Chair, are you saying, Mr. Howden, that the3

recommendations made by AECL were indeed based on4

objective evidence then?5

MR. HOWDEN: Do you mean the6

directives issued by CNSC staff?7

MEMBER DOSMAN: Yes.8

MR. HOWDEN: Yes, we do.9

MEMBER DOSMAN: I am sorry to10

prolong this, but then would you disagree with the11

statement in 6.3.6(a) that these comments were not12

based on objective evidence?13

MR. HOWDEN: Yes, we would14

disagree with that.15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Graham.16

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. The17

first question is a follow-up to Dr. Giroux's18

question with regard to the fissile solution19

storage tanks, and as a lay person have you20

clarify something.21

In the report it says that22

uncertainties exist. The next proposed increase23

would permit about 30 more weeks of storage24

capacity, and then it goes on and if you read25

���������

76

through that whole page it talks with regard to1

small leaks have been developed and reviewed2

regularly by CNSC. Although a large leak is very3

unlikely, the current strategy needs to be4

examined to make sure that it can be extended, if5

required.6

I would like to hear from AECL7

worst case scenario, if there was a large leak,8

how that can be contained and how it can be9

monitored. I guess monitored first and then10

contained.11

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: First of all,12

FISST is a double-walled, stainless steel tank in13

a concrete vault, seismically qualified. I think14

we can put that part of the issue to rest.15

There is leak detection and there16

are pumps available to ensurer that if a leak did17

develop, we are able to deal with it; pump it back18

into a tank, as required.19

In that case, we would cement it.20

We would pump it back to the Moly production21

facility and cement it. So we do have22

contingencies around it.23

In terms of the design, it is to24

modern standards. It is a very good safety case.25

���������

77

All the monitoring that is1

required to back up the safety case is available,2

as well as the contingencies.3

MEMBER GRAHAM: Then if I4

understand it, if there was a major leak, it would5

be pumped back into the tank but solidified,6

cemented. Is that what you are saying?7

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: No. What would8

happen is that it would be pumped back to the9

Moly-99 production facility.10

MEMBER GRAHAM: My next question11

is inspection. I could be wrong on this, but my12

understanding is that that tank facility was built13

in 1986. Is that correct?14

Or the Moly unit was built in15

1986?16

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: If I may, I would17

like to ask Paul Tonner. I believe he is here18

today.19

MR. TONNER: The FISST tank is20

1986.21

THE CHAIRPERSON: For the record,22

the tank was built in 1986?23

MR. TONNER: Yes.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: The FISST tank?25

���������

78

MR. TONNER: Yes.1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for the2

record.3

MEMBER GRAHAM: Then my question4

is: If it was built in 1986, what is the5

inspection procedure? How often is it inspected6

with regard to deterioration of metals, and so on7

and so forth?8

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Again I would9

refer to Mr. Paul Tonner.10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you please11

approach the microphone.12

MR. TONNER: Thank you. My name13

is Paul Tonner. I am the Manager of the Moly-9914

production facility.15

The FISST tank in the reports that16

we have has shown no signs of degradation. As17

Paul Lafrenière mentioned, it is a double-walled18

stainless steel tank with leak detection between19

the two stainless steel cylinders, and also leak20

detection in the concrete vault which the tank21

sits in.22

MEMBER GRAHAM: A question then:23

The leaks, the small leaks that have been detected24

are not in the tank. They are around the25

���������

79

couplings and around other areas? Or are there1

starting to be fractures shown in the tank?2

Where are the small leaks that3

have been detected?4

MR. TONNER: The material that was5

submitted indicated that in the unlikely event6

that a small leak occurred, it could be detected.7

There have been no small leaks.8

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.9

I have two other questions that10

don't relate to that. May I have one?11

THE CHAIRPERSON: The next round.12

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: My question is14

to CNSC staff and also then to AECL with regard to15

the request for licence length.16

It is very unusual for the17

Commission to receive varying numbers going back18

and forth on licence length requests. There is19

usually a reason for a licence length request.20

For us to see varying numbers is quite unusual.21

So I think it is important for us22

to know exactly the justification for the licence23

length.24

Perhaps staff could start with25

���������

80

what you are proposing now; why you proposed1

something else before; and what it has to do with2

the procedure I believe the staff follow with3

regard to licence length request.4

If we could start out with that,5

we will go the applicant after.6

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden7

speaking.8

Right now we are recommending 389

months. Previously it was 31 months. So it is a10

change of seven months.11

The main reasons are that we have12

seen progress in the safety areas in terms of13

improving trends, and that is based on actual14

progress being made by AECL on the deficiencies15

that we have noted, as well as putting together16

comprehensive plans to address the remaining17

deficiencies.18

We have seen progress, so I think19

that is one positive thing.20

In looking at the progress and in21

looking at the management system that AECL has in22

place and the explicit commitments they have made23

to upgrade it to meet the N286 standard gives us a24

level of assurance that the site will continue to25

���������

81

be operated safely for a longer period of time.1

One of the things we are looking2

at is the changes that are required to the3

programs are exactly that: they are programmatic4

improvements that have broad implications across5

individual programs but also crossing between6

programs. Therefore, in our view they need to be7

developed systematically. To do that takes time.8

At the same time, we want the9

changes to be made and implemented by AECL and put10

through their management cycle to determine that11

they are indeed effective. We can then come in,12

review the programs and audit the programs.13

As well, we look back at the14

operating results at the facility over the past15

three licensing periods. We didn't mention the16

last two in our submission. Basically, the doses17

remain low and they are dropping. Emissions18

remain low. The failures that might concern you,19

like serious processing failures, are not20

occurring. The safety systems that govern the21

operation of their facilities, especially the NRU22

reactor, are meeting reliability targets.23

Basically the safety envelopes24

that are defined in the facility authorizations25

���������

82

are being respected, and we don't see any erosion1

in those safety margins.2

THE CHAIRPERSON: When we look at3

the overall ratings -- and just acknowledging for4

those of you that may or may not be aware of the5

rating system, it is relatively new at the CNSC.6

Looking at the rating system that7

they have used over the various areas, the fact8

that the applicant did not score at a "B" level in9

some areas, meaning "meets requirements now", with10

due consideration for the plans and the program11

going forward, what role did that bear in your12

recommendations for licence length?13

MR. HOWDEN: What we did was when14

we looked at these facilities that are rated as15

"below requirements", it is because they did not16

meet the required standards.17

However, we also have to18

acknowledge that a lack of full compliance does19

not equate to an immediate or potential breakdown20

of safety. We see that they are still in a range21

where there is a low risk of breakdown in programs22

that could lead to problems.23

We also view that because AECL is24

aiming for a very high standard for their25

���������

83

management system, it means that we will get1

enhanced assurance that they will be able to2

operate the site safely for a long time into the3

future.4

Our view is that we simply cannot5

rely on that assurance alone until the management6

system is up to N286. However, it doesn't mean7

that there are immediate safety problems. What we8

have done is we have continued to maintain an9

enhanced regulatory oversight to continue to10

satisfy ourselves that the site is being operated11

safely.12

THE CHAIRPERSON: My question in13

terms of the ratings is to me particularly14

important because we are talking about site-wide15

programs that affect in fact even licences that we16

are talking about separately. That is why I am17

focusing on site-wide ratings as well.18

How will the Commission be aware19

of this progress?20

I think we have talked in the past21

about interim reporting that may or may not be22

suitable; that you may decide to make a23

recommendation or not, which I may assure the24

audience has nothing to do with binding the25

���������

84

Commission's decision.1

I am aware that there is progress.2

I am aware that there is a change. I am aware3

that there has been recent progress in putting in4

new processes and new procedures.5

Sitting here as the Commission,6

how will the Commission be aware of this, aware of7

progress and maintenance and sustainability of8

progress?9

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden10

speaking.11

In terms of progress, we have12

committed to a mid-term report to the Commission,13

which would occur in 19 months if a 38-month14

licence was issued by the Commission. So you15

would get an update of where things stood at that16

particular time.17

Also, in terms of our compliance18

activities, if there was a case of where there was19

a deterioration in performance where we wanted to20

take enforcement action to the point where there21

might be an order, that has to be referred to the22

Commission. So you would be aware of it there.23

As well, we could propose licence24

conditions that the Commission could impose. So25

���������

85

you would be aware there.1

That is if there is degrading2

performance. If performance continues to improve3

as expected, in terms of the Commission you would4

be informed at 19 months.5

Also, if any significant actions6

come up, we have the option through significant7

development reports to the Commission on a monthly8

basis.9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.10

This question is to the licensee.11

You proposed a longer licence period. You now12

agree with the staff.13

Could you give me, and the rest of14

the Commission Members, a justification for your15

original request and why you now think 38 months16

is suitable.17

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Yes, in two18

parts.19

First, I would like to point out20

there are four things that are critical here.21

One is we have done a root cause22

analysis of the CNSC directives, observations.23

That was input into our action plan which has been24

submitted to the CNSC. We are acting on that. We25

���������

86

have progressed on it.1

The second point is that we have2

our nuclear site management system which has shown3

great progress and great promise, and we are4

committed to improving it.5

The other element, of course, is6

the progress made and our explicit commitments.7

With that, I would like Dr.8

Fehrenbach to comment.9

DR. FEHRENBACH: Thank you. Paul10

Fehrenbach, for the record.11

As noted, we feel that our12

performance has been improving; has been very good13

and is improving. In those areas where the CNSC14

staff have judged there is further improvement15

required, as Paul just noted, we have definite16

actions in place to address that.17

So overall we felt initially that18

our request for a 60-month licence period was19

reasonable.20

Part of the reason for that, of21

course, is to manage our costs, our licensing22

costs, and specifically trying to separate in time23

the licensing activities for particular24

facilities.25

���������

87

However, at the end of the last1

Day 1 hearing before we left, I assured the2

Commission that when we came back on Day 2 we3

would agree with the staff on the length of4

licence.5

I am pleased to say that we have6

agreed that a 38-month licence will go a long way7

to meeting our requirements as well as meeting the8

staff requirements. That is why we agree with a9

38-month licence period.10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We11

will now start with round two and start now with12

Mr. Graham.13

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. I have14

a question with regard to radiation protection15

program as indicated on your graph on page 18 of16

your presentation this morning.17

I gather from that graph that the18

CRL is about two times greater than the average19

for CANDU. And the average for CANDU, is that the20

average for CANDU reactors at other nuclear sites?21

That question is to CNSC staff.22

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden23

speaking. We didn't prepare that information, and24

I am not sure that we are prepared to answer that25

���������

88

question.1

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. I will2

ask AECL then.3

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Yes, thank you.4

Paul Lafrenière.5

This graph is part of our6

benchmarking program. We have done extensive7

benchmarking in many, many areas, particularly in8

the health and safety areas. What you have seen9

is a comparison with the nuclear power plant10

industry as a whole.11

As you may realize, the World12

Association of Nuclear Operators back in the early13

1980s established long-term 20-year goals on dose14

reduction targets. What we have done is similar.15

We have tracked not only their progress but our16

own. Because of the difference in the types of17

facilities and the workforce, et cetera, we can18

monitor or compare ourselves on the rate of19

reduction. We take into account that if a20

facility is shut down, we ensure that we compare21

apples with apples.22

What you see here is the utility23

industry has managed a 5 per cent per year24

reduction over the long term; we have managed a25

���������

89

7.5 per cent reduction per year over the long1

term.2

MEMBER GRAHAM: Two questions.3

Your comparison with theirs only goes to the year4

2000 where yours goes to mid-2002. Has the trend5

continued downward with regard to the other three6

that only go to 2000?7

Is the gap still broader or is the8

gap narrowing?9

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: For those10

particular details I will ask Mr. Ray Lambert to11

respond.12

Ray.13

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. For the14

record, my name is Ray Lambert.15

In response to your question, the16

information for the average collective dose for17

the various power reactors was taken from an ISOE18

annual report that was published in 2000. I have19

not yet found the equivalent report published in20

2001 or 2002, so I can't answer how the facilities21

have performed in those two years.22

MEMBER GRAHAM: Then one other23

question, and I won't belabour it.24

This goes to early 2002 for AECL.25

���������

90

Is the trend continuing down since that or not?1

Or is it remaining static?2

MR. LAMBERT: We have only had a3

few months into 2003 at the moment, so it is too4

early to make a statement as to how the trend is5

proceeding. Initial data looks positive that we6

are continuing to come down, but it is still too7

early in the calendar year.8

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I would add that9

I was looking at the data last night, and the10

trend is coming down. Again, we have to run our11

course over a year to make sure.12

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. I have13

just one other question, and it is perhaps just to14

clarify for a lay person.15

You talk about non-reportable16

events, and you say that you had 142 compared to I17

think it was 54 back in 1998, or something to that18

effect. Are there more events happening? I know19

it is good to have them reported, but are there20

more things happening than what there was in 1998,21

or is it just that the trend -- it is kind of hard22

to understand with the tripling of the amount.23

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you.24

First, the reportable unplanned25

���������

91

events are investigated thoroughly by AECL to1

determine their causable factors and to ensure2

that any remedial actions are taken to prevent3

reoccurrence. This information is shared with all4

managers and staff at the other nuclear facilities5

and the support programs so that the lessons6

learned are applied to all our operations.7

Second, the number of reportable8

events in 2002, what you will notice is that9

essentially the ratio of reportable events to10

total events has decreased dramatically, by a11

factor of four, over the last five years.12

So in the past, if we went back to13

say 1998, the ratio of reportable events to total14

events was about 25 to 30 per cent. It is now15

under 10 per cent, I believe, 7 or 8 per cent.16

What this indicates is the average17

significance of events is decreasing. So what we18

are doing is we are encouraging more reporting.19

As we know, culture follows behaviour. So the20

behaviour is there; culture is coming.21

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. So the22

trend is downward and that is what I was23

questioning.24

Does CNSC want to comment on that?25

���������

92

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden1

speaking.2

In terms of the reportable events,3

they are going down, which is a good sign and we4

have not seen any specific negative trends5

identified; that is, the same thing cropping up.6

Also, AECL uses an enhanced human7

performance evaluation system for investigating8

these events, which is acceptable to us.9

In terms of the non-reportable10

events, we have not looked at them specifically11

because they are non-reportable. However, what we12

have seen is that this is part of their OPEX,13

their operating experience program. What we see14

is that when that type of program is working well,15

it is a key component of safety culture.16

So we see it as a positive sign on17

safety culture, but we cannot give you any18

specific assessment on the non-reportable events19

themselves.20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.21

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam22

Chair.23

My question is for Mr. Van Adel.24

Mr. Van Adel, I am coming back to25

���������

93

page 52 on the document by AECL and again item1

6.3.6(b). There is some improvement in some2

licence facilities. It indicates that some of the3

licence-listed facilities have not yet completed4

their 2001 program reviews.5

I am not asking for comments6

specifically but rather more generally.7

Recognizing that culture is very difficult to8

nudge even a small amount and recognizing the9

complexity of the site, how engaged is your board10

in setting the tone for culture on the site? And11

recognizing that standards are changing, how12

completely does your board engage and champion13

safety culture in your organization?14

MR. VAN ADEL: We have the Science15

and Technology Review Committee of the board,16

which is a committee of the board which focuses17

precisely on safety and environment, as well as18

reviewing the technology aspects of AECL's19

activities, with a view to giving the board at20

large an expert opinion on these areas.21

The board is chaired by an eminent22

person, a scientist in his own right, that23

committee of the board, and populated with people24

who have relevant experience from the science25

���������

94

community.1

We have been very satisfied that2

that committee reviews not only in detail the3

quarterly and semi-annual reports it receives from4

the Safety Review Committee but also actions5

those, encourages management to action them where6

there are deficiencies.7

As well, the Chief Engineer, Basma8

Shalaby, reviews those activities and reports to9

me directly and gives me a briefing from time to10

time, not only on the content of the reports that11

are coming and the activities of the various12

committees but also raises anything of concern13

that she has with respect to her independent view14

and therefore the possibility perhaps of her15

wishing to influence things that she feels that16

may be -- if she is not being listened to, for17

example, which happens very rarely given the18

nature of Basma's personality and her19

responsibilities.20

Yes, the board is very engaged.21

You saw the vision statement which we put out, the22

mandate vision statement and the values which have23

been rolled out into the company. Those have been24

driven into the company not only by myself but25

���������

95

they were approved by the board. We report at1

every board meeting, not just at the committee, on2

our progress towards changing the culture.3

Frankly, I think that we have made4

dramatic advances in AECL in the last two years in5

terms of the culture, the culture of openness,6

attention to safety.7

We started off taking three of the8

values out of that whole chain to say these are9

the most important that we need to focus on10

immediately. They were customer satisfaction,11

quality and safety.12

I believe that employees of the13

company understand that I care about these things,14

that the executive does and that the board does.15

As a consequence of that, there is increased16

attention.17

In fact, in my remarks yesterday18

to all staff, I literally myself, and this time my19

executive team, spent a two-hour session with our20

entire staff. And we just did another one within21

two months previous to that. We talked about22

these values and we in particular emphasized the23

safety aspects.24

So I think it is working very25

���������

96

well, and I think that the board is extremely1

engaged.2

In addition to that, there is an3

advisory committee to the board made up of eminent4

scientists. That committee is in place, and it5

provides independent advice to the Science and6

Technology Committee of the board on matters7

relating to Chalk River's activity, on the8

research R&D programs. Generally, it represents a9

third party opinion from independent people.10

That also is an area that is able11

to make comments on these reports as they come12

forward. So I am very satisfied that the board is13

engaged.14

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.15

THE CHAIRPERSON: With that, I16

would like to take a break. We will be resuming17

this line of questioning after lunch.18

I have 12:45. We will be back19

here in one hour. I would like your co-operation20

to ensure that you are in your seats, because we21

will be starting in exactly one hour.22

Thank you very much.23

--- Upon recessing at 12:45 p.m.24

--- Upon resuming at 1:46 p.m.25

���������

97

MR. LEBLANC: While you are taking1

your seats, just a reminder that there are2

headphones for translation, and they can also be3

used if you have difficulty hearing the4

proceedings. Turn them to the language of your5

choice, and you may be in a position to hear a6

little better.7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and8

gentlemen, we will resume Hearing Day Two on the9

matter of AECL.10

We are still in round two of11

questioning.12

Dr. Giroux.13

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. I have14

a question first for AECL.15

We have heard several references16

by you and by staff for this hearing, and for17

preceding hearings also, about the lack of18

compliance with the CSA Standard N286. It seems19

to me that this standard has been in force for a20

number of years and that AECL appears to be slow21

in complying with the standard.22

My question is: Is there a23

reluctance on your part or a disagreement with24

what the standard says? What is the reason for25

���������

98

the delay in complying with the standard?1

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: The N286 standard2

was designed for the nuclear power plants. It was3

not created originally for other types of nuclear4

facilities. That is just a clarification.5

In my experience working in the6

nuclear power plants, there was a lot of attention7

applied to the N286. It became a priority8

starting in the 1980s and 1990s, and there was9

continuous attention to it.10

I can only speak about AECL and11

the time period that I have been there since 1998.12

From my observations, the main issue was that AECL13

was more based on a job-specific or a person-14

dependent method of ensuring quality. In other15

words, they put heavy emphasis on on-the-job16

training and on the individuals.17

I would say in 1990s it became18

very clear that the 286 standard would be applied19

fully, or as much as practicable -- I will use20

that word -- to the other nuclear facilities; for21

example, on a lab site.22

So there has been an evolution in23

the thinking. Again, with the tradition of CRL24

going back 50 years, it was more a military-based25

���������

99

operation. It was more based on, as I would point1

out, on-the-job training and on individuals.2

The transition to a procedure3

based -- and I think I can qualify the N286 code4

system as a procedure-based approach. This has5

been occurring. I would say in the past ten years6

it has been emphasized.7

I can't go any deeper into detail8

with the past.9

The issue has been -- we have to10

interpret N286 for our facilities, and the CNSC11

has raised a number of specific observations and12

has provided a set of directives. We have13

performed a root cause on these directives.14

The major issue that we found on15

numerous issues was related to procedural16

adherence. The issue of procedural adherence is17

related to first of all having documented18

procedures, good quality procedures, combined with19

the culture part of it, the procedural adherence20

aspect.21

All I can say is there is an22

historical issue here, and there is also a23

technical issue here. We have done the root24

cause, and we have committed to solving that25

���������

100

problem.1

MEMBER GIROUX: In your2

presentation this morning when you showed us the3

pyramid for quality management, the second and4

third levels from the top referred to N286. So5

the implication is that you recognize it as a6

particular standard.7

The question is: When you come8

around for the next licence, if the proposal is9

accepted -- that is going to be after 38 months --10

can we expect to have full compliance with N286?11

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Our objective is12

to have full compliance with the N286 standard.13

The N286 standard is a sweeping14

standard. There is an issue of calibration. In15

other words, how do we apply the articles to16

specific types of facilities? There is going to17

have to be some discussion and dialogue with the18

CNSC on this, but the general principles we are19

committed to meeting.20

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you.21

I have a question for staff now.22

Concerning the report card, I23

would like to come back to that briefly. You24

upgraded security implementation from "C" to "B".25

���������

101

We heard that and we read that in the documents.1

This is quite unusual in our experience here, to2

have a change of rating between Day 1 and Day 2.3

Normally report cards, in the4

reports that we have usually for licensing, are5

essentially a snapshot established at some point6

in time, which indicates a judgment, an assessment7

on the operations and all that.8

The hearing process of course9

takes several months, and the time of writing10

documents, by the time we reach Day 2 I think the11

first document you gave us must be six months old12

very likely.13

The point of my question -- and I14

would like you to discuss that -- is: Is moving15

from "C" to "B" revisiting your decision or your16

evaluation of last fall, or are you trying to take17

into account new elements of information which18

have come up between the time of writing the19

document and the time of making the presentation20

now?21

Linked to that is also a question22

-- and I am not trying to be facetious. But have23

you been pressured by AECL to raise the rating?24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before you25

���������

102

start, Mr. Howden, I would like to caution you1

that if this matter goes into security matters, it2

should not be discussed in public. Please notify3

us and we will do an in camera session.4

MR. HOWDEN: Thank you. Barclay5

Howden speaking.6

With regard to security, our first7

assessment, which was completed late last fall,8

was the "C" rating. Since the time of that9

writing and the time that we submitted the last10

update to you, which was about a week ago, is11

about a four-month period.12

The "C" rating was based on a13

number of specific deficiencies that required very14

specific actions to be done, actions that could be15

accomplished in a short period of time. AECL16

completed -- I don't remember the number, but a17

large percentage of those.18

For the remaining ones, the19

actions that they have proposed and that we have20

accepted are to be completed within the next21

approximately one-month period; so a very short22

time frame for very specific things that were23

identified during a previous audit.24

That is why we have been able to25

���������

103

upgrade from "C" to "B". We were considering our1

initial position and is there actually a delta2

change since that time to now. And the answer is3

yes.4

In terms of how we were able to do5

that, two ways. One is we reviewed what they had6

done in response to the audit. The second was we7

did a focused inspection in the middle of March of8

this year. As we came out of that inspection,9

right away we knew that a large number of items10

had been closed at the meetings there.11

So we were able to make that12

assessment quite specifically.13

In terms of pressure, no, we had14

no pressure from AECL. We were putting the15

pressure on AECL. They were not putting the16

pressure on us. We put the pressure on them to17

improve.18

MEMBER GIROUX: I understand your19

answer, but in terms of future licensing hearings20

and other licensees, can we expect this to be a21

regular procedure or exceptional: that you might22

revise your rating?23

MR. HOWDEN: I think that is24

difficult to answer. However, I would say this is25

���������

104

an exceptional item. Most of the issues that we1

raise in the report card format are programmatic2

issues. Generally programmatic issues take a much3

longer time to correct because of the fact that4

they sweep through a program and then they have5

the cross links with the other programs.6

Programmatic issues generally7

don't move at this pace.8

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. A9

final question, if I may, again for staff.10

There is a recommendation that you11

made to us that for the financial guarantees this12

be delegated to a designated officer.13

When that decision comes,14

especially for the applicant we have here, it is15

going to be a major analysis, I think. Would it16

very much be lost in terms of efficiency or17

otherwise if the Commission reserved the decision18

for itself for this first round?19

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden20

speaking. The answer is no.21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill, do22

you have a question for round two?23

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you. My24

questions, if I may, relate to Document 03-H2.C,25

���������

105

the Molybdenum-99 container.1

On page 6 you refer to the lack of2

an alternate reservoir in the event of a serious3

problem with the tank.4

I understand the tank is double-5

wall stainless steel in a seismic vault. What is6

the medium between the two layers of steel?7

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I am going to ask8

Mr. Paul Tonner to respond to that question.9

MR. TONNER: Paul Tonner, Manager10

of the Moly-99 processing facility.11

The medium is air between the two12

tanks.13

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you. How14

often do you test the pump?15

MR. TONNER: I'm sorry, I don't16

have the answer to that question.17

MEMBER McDILL: Is there a regular18

inspection procedure associated with the pump?19

MR. TONNER: There is ongoing20

instrumentation that would detect anything in the21

gap, and we have never detected anything in the22

gap.23

MEMBER McDILL: Have you ever24

tested the pump, in the event that there is25

���������

106

something in the gap?1

MR. TONNER: I will have to refer2

to documents before I could answer that question.3

MEMBER McDILL: All right. I will4

continue then.5

If there is a serious detected6

leak, how much can you pump back and contain?7

What percentage of the tank can you pump back and8

contain?9

MR. TONNER: The material that is10

pumped back into the cell can be cemented in the11

cell at a rate of -- I would be guessing. I will12

have to again check the documents.13

We can cement at a rate of14

probably eight litres or more in a period of a15

day.16

MEMBER McDILL: Eight litres per17

day. Is that correct?18

MR. TONNER: Yes. But I do need19

to check those numbers.20

MEMBER McDILL: The tank is 24,00021

litres. Is that correct?22

MR. TONNER: That is correct.23

MEMBER McDILL: So you have a 23-24

year-old stainless steel tank, and there is some25

���������

107

suggestion that there are some corrosion1

prediction studies going on. What is the nature2

of the corrosion prediction studies and what kind3

of monitoring do you have in place, apart from the4

gap, on the stainless steel?5

MR. TONNER: The corrosion6

prediction studies show that there is minimal or7

no iron content in the liquid in the tank,8

indicating that corrosion is not occurring.9

I'm sorry, could you repeat the10

second question?11

MEMBER McDILL: The monitoring12

that you are doing, are you doing numerical13

corrosion studies as well or are you doing14

experimental corrosion studies just seeking iron?15

MR. TONNER: There may have been16

numerical. I would have to check.17

The analysis was done within a18

couple of years, and there is no iron content in19

the tank, which would indicate corrosion of the20

tank.21

MEMBER McDILL: Are you detecting22

substantial chromium oxide?23

MR. TONNER: I will have to check24

the numbers to tell you. But at present, no, I do25

���������

108

not believe so.1

MEMBER McDILL: Thank you.2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.3

MEMBER BARNES: I wanted to pose a4

number of questions regarding the environmental5

monitoring and sampling around the CRL plant.6

Much of this comes out of Chapter 3 of our Binder7

2, and Appendix C, which includes the Laval8

University Report prepared by Dr. Barbeau.9

Could I first ask AECL: In the10

sampling strategy, particularly that adopted by11

the Laval group, who defined the strategy of12

sampling? Is this AECL or is it the contractor?13

How is that defined?14

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Université Laval15

was totally responsible for defining their program16

and their strategy. There was no involvement on17

AECL's part.18

MEMBER BARNES: That group did or19

did not do the 1999 study.20

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: They performed21

the 1999 study and a subsequent study I believe in22

2001.23

The whole idea behind the24

independent monitoring is that they decide where25

���������

109

and what they monitor for.1

MEMBER BARNES: I would like then2

to ask the question -- I will pose the question to3

AECL, but I would appreciate comment from CNSC4

staff as well.5

Obviously when one does6

environmental monitoring one wishes to have a7

strategy sufficient to prove that the results that8

come out are meaningful. You are sampling a9

number of components within the environment, and10

you are trying to see whether the pollutants from11

the site, whether it be airborne or waterborne,12

mainly in the Ottawa River, are concentrated13

locally or dispersed over a wide area. For that14

it requires a number of sampling locations.15

We don't have I think in our16

documents the report from 1999, but we do have the17

one that was done by Laval, completed in 2001.18

I will just note that, for19

example, the milk sample was a single sample from20

Pembroke. The fish were sampled with three21

individual fish within the river, widely22

separated. Vegetables seem to be reasonable; that23

it was from three farms again down in Pembroke but24

a variety of samples.25

���������

110

I note that the air monitoring1

samples that are best shown, I think, in the CRL2

Figure 3.2 on environmental sampling locations --3

and I am not sure if they are your sample4

locations or those for the Laval study -- again5

has very limited number of sample locations around6

the limits of the CRL. In fact, there are none on7

the entire east side, which one would perhaps want8

to monitor, assuming that most wind directions are9

coming from the west.10

The river sediments, which I think11

are again interesting, the ones reported by the12

Laval group, which are on page 14 of that report,13

have a number of issues to me, which again are not14

clear in the brevity of the report.15

It says in the second line:16

"As in 1999, only coarse-17

grained sediments were found18

along the shores of the19

river."20

And that is basically where the21

samples were taken.22

If you compare that with the more23

detailed report on river sediments that is24

contained in Chapter 3, reporting data in 1991,25

���������

111

they clearly indicate that if one was looking for1

a hot spot -- they refer to it as a target area --2

most of the contaminants come out of the process3

sewer pipe located within the river, not along the4

shore. One would not expect to find, I think,5

contaminant like this in coarse-grained sediments.6

If you were looking for coarse-grained sediments,7

you probably wouldn't want to sample along the8

beaches.9

There may be practical reasons for10

the ease of acquiring sediments, to wander along11

the beach as opposed to the cost of renting boats12

and so on.13

The third line says:14

"The seven grab samples15

consist of material taken as16

deep as 80 cm in order to17

include any suspended18

material..."19

It doesn't tell me how that grab20

sample was taken, whether it was through a piston21

core or a box core, or just simply digging down22

into the sediment.23

If one looks again at the 199124

report -- again this is referring to more fine25

���������

112

silty material. One would know that the age of1

the sediments -- it is a very slow sedimentation2

in the vicinity of the outfall -- that 803

centimetres would take you down into quite old4

sediment. But again, if this is shoreline5

sediment, it would be an entirely different means6

of sedimentation.7

I raise these as specific examples8

of sampling of the environment and trying to9

convince the public, I guess, that the CRL site is10

not significantly contaminating the environment.11

I agree that looking at the tables12

that are reported in the Laval study there does13

not appear to be any major contaminant. The point14

I am getting at is that if you are trying to show15

this, it very much depends where you are basing16

your sampling strategy.17

If you have a widely dispersed18

sampling strategy -- in this case, if you sample19

one week in the year and you sample, for example,20

three fish, this surely is insufficient to21

demonstrate the level of potential contamination.22

I would like your response and23

then turn to CNSC staff.24

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you. I25

���������

113

would like to provide a response in several parts1

here. For the first part I would like Ray Lambert2

to provide a bit of background to some of the3

questions and clear up a few points regarding the4

tables that you mentioned. Then I would call upon5

Dr. Barbeau to explain the University of Laval6

sampling strategy.7

Ray.8

MR. LAMBERT: Ray Lambert, AECL.9

You asked some very good questions.10

First off, the environmental11

monitoring program is based on a more in-depth12

strategy than what is presented here. I would13

have to go into the annual reports to get into a14

little bit more depth as to what is covered.15

There are indeed more sampling locations on the16

site, but without the annual report present I am17

not able to bring them forward.18

That is the first point.19

The second point is the Laval20

study was not intended to be all-encompassing. It21

was intended to be more of a random sampling to do22

comparisons of some of the locations or areas23

within the area that we monitor as a means of24

verifying our more aggressive program.25

���������

114

Without being able to pull out the1

annual reports, which I don't have with me at the2

time, I can't tell you which particular areas we3

sample daily, monthly, or on a continuous basis.4

They are done on a more frequent basis than just5

once a year.6

MEMBER BARNES: Could I just7

interrupt.8

For example, the Figure 3.2 in9

Chapter 3 is produced by CRL. This is10

Environmental Technologies Branch, CRL, dated11

April 2001. It doesn't have a scale on it -- this12

is this large map -- but it does have the13

locations of the principal means of monitoring.14

If, for example, you look at the15

tritium air, the square box, unless my eyes16

deceive me you will see that there are only two17

locations of that on the site, one at the very18

southern tip and one at the very northwest tip of19

the area. If you look at the one for fish, they20

are nowhere near the CRL site.21

I presume this is taken from your22

annual report.23

MR. LAMBERT: That is correct.24

This is one of the figures taken from our annual25

���������

115

report that is showing the monitoring locations1

along the Ottawa River outside our site.2

Again, without the annual report3

present I can't point to exactly where within the4

site we do the monitoring for tritium.5

All I can say is that the6

environmental monitoring group has a model they7

use, a strategic approach, where they look at the8

-- they look at the model used, and keep in mind9

that the monitoring program was originally based10

on human dose. So they looked at the model in use11

to derive the release limits, and they develop a12

strategic monitoring program at the moment to be13

able to compare what we know we are releasing to14

what we see in the environment and do a15

comparison.16

Again, without the annual reports17

present I don't feel I can answer specifics on it.18

DR. FEHRENBACH: If I may add to19

that, Commissioner, this figure in this section of20

the supplementary document was provided in21

response to Commission interest in off-site22

monitoring. So this goes into some detail on our23

off-site monitoring activities.24

In fact, I draw your attention to25

���������

116

the title of the figure: "CRL Environmental1

Monitoring Locations Outside CRL Boundary".2

As Mr. Lambert mentioned, within3

our annual reports which are submitted to the4

CNSC, and which I believe have been made available5

to you as part of the Day 1 package of6

information, the information with respect to7

monitoring within the site boundaries also include8

it.9

There are certainly, as you10

suggest, monitoring sites within the yellow11

boundaries of that box.12

THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe there13

was a second part where you were going to call on14

Laval.15

Before you do that, I wonder, Dr.16

Barnes, if the staff should comment on this; if17

they have had a chance to evaluate this.18

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden19

speaking.20

Dr. Patsy Thompson will comment.21

DR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon.22

For the record, my name is Patsy Thompson. I am23

Director of the Environmental Protection and Audit24

Division of the CNSC.25

���������

117

CNSC staff over the last several1

years have done technical reviews of the design of2

the monitoring program for AECL at Chalk River, as3

well as conducted an audit of how the program is4

being managed, in 1997.5

Having said that, the monitoring6

program was designed essentially to confirm that7

emissions of radionuclides were not resulting in8

doses to members of the public that would be9

unreasonable.10

The design and monitoring program11

essentially looks at the various sources of12

radionuclides on the Chalk River site and, through13

modelling exercises looking at environmental14

pathways, have identified exposure to critical15

groups, members of the public off-site,16

essentially in Pembroke and a couple of other17

areas along the Ottawa River.18

The monitoring program looks at19

air and drinking water and milk and some vegetable20

samples. The sediment samples are essentially21

beach sediment, to reflect potential exposure of22

people walking along the beach just outside of the23

Chalk River site.24

The program is not extensive. It25

���������

118

wasn't designed to look at environmental1

contamination in general. It was essentially2

designed to confirm what the emission monitoring3

shows us, which is that doses to members of the4

public through the modelling and the source5

measurements are low.6

CNSC staff requested that AECL7

modify the design of their monitoring program to8

capture essentially the change in our regulatory9

mandate with the coming into force of the Nuclear10

Safety and Control Act and Regulations.11

In order to do that, we have to12

have a better understanding of other sources of13

radionuclides on the site, as well as hazardous14

chemicals being released from the site, as well as15

on site.16

The ecological effects review that17

AECL is conducting will serve as a baseline of18

information to look at modifications on the19

monitoring program, to essentially capture the20

design changes to the program that have to be done21

to reflect modern environmental protection22

concerns of not just controlling doses to members23

of the public but also to demonstrating pollution24

prevention; and that members of the public are25

���������

119

being protected from hazardous chemicals but also1

that non-human biota are being protected from both2

hazardous chemicals and radioactive substances.3

We expect that the next step, once4

the environmental effects review has been5

finalized, that the risks identified from6

releases, both on-site and off-site, will serve as7

the basis for modification of the program, and8

that that program will be implemented and we will9

be conducting technical reviews of the design as10

well as audits of how the program is implemented.11

MEMBER BARNES: Thanks. I think12

that clarified some things. On the other hand, we13

are meeting here under the new Act, which does14

specify that an applicant, in this case AECL, is15

responsible for potential contamination of the16

non-human biota. That Act has been in force now17

for some while.18

If we are seeing results, if the19

data being brought to us is in a sense using an20

old strategy designed to address just the21

potential environmental effects on the public, I22

think it is in a sense only part of the story that23

should be being brought forward today.24

I noticed in the material that we25

���������

120

do have, as you just mentioned, there has been an1

ecological effects review that has been completed2

by AECL and given to staff, at least by March3

31st, maybe a week or so ago.4

Can you say whether that has been5

received and whether you have had a chance to look6

at it and whether it raises any major issues or7

concerns that you think the information from it8

should be brought to us perhaps at the later9

meeting?10

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden11

speaking.12

The last two chapters of the13

ecological effects review was submitted on time,14

as expected. We expect that there is going to be15

an iteration on that as we review it and comment16

on it and AECL revises it.17

In terms of comments on it so far,18

Dr. Thompson can correct me if I am wrong but we19

have not had a chance to look at it in any depth.20

MEMBER BARNES: One final comment,21

just because it is interesting to compare one22

licensee from another on occasion. Perhaps at the23

last meeting we were looking at Bruce, and there24

was certainly concern about the thermal effects25

���������

121

and possible contaminant at Bruce and the effects1

on the fish. The fish are attracted to the warm2

thermal water that comes out of that.3

In this case we have a plant that4

is generating it, and 80 per cent of the potential5

contaminants come out of that process through a6

pipe into the river. That 1991 study documented7

that sort of the target hot spot, which is quite8

low in terms of contamination, but if you were9

looking for any kind of hot spot it was in the10

general vicinity and a little bit downstream of11

that.12

Could you tell me whether the13

monitoring that is going on at the present time --14

or maybe I should address this to AECL -- is15

actually attempting to sample fish that might be16

somewhat resident, as much as fish ever are,17

around the general location of that outfall in the18

river.19

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I would like to20

give the question to Mr. Lambert, please.21

MR. LAMBERT: Ray Lambert, AECL.22

To your question about whether we23

sample fish in the area of the outfall, the answer24

is yes. Whether we currently do a correlation to25

���������

122

the thermal effect specifically, no.1

The ecological effects review that2

Dr. Thompson mentioned does address the question3

of the thermal effects. As the work was done by a4

consultant, we ourselves are still reviewing the5

findings of their report.6

They have identified a thermal7

effect discharge from the coolant of NRU. They8

have made some initial findings and found that the9

effects of the water thermal plume on aquatic life10

are expected to be minor. However, as Dr.11

Thompson mentioned, the document is still being12

reviewed technically, and there may be iterations13

of the report.14

That is the initial finding by the15

consultant.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Dr.17

Fehrenbach.18

DR. FEHRENBACH: Paul Fehrenbach,19

for the record.20

May I provide some supplemental21

information to that.22

Dr. Barnes, you have correctly23

suggested several times that if you were going to24

look for concentrations of contaminants it would25

���������

123

be in the outfall area of the process sewer. In1

fact, we have done extensive sampling in the area2

of the river around the process sewer.3

One of our environmental4

scientists, Dr. David Lee, is in the process of5

publishing a paper on that. We refer to it in6

Section 3.3 of the supplemental information that7

was provided to you.8

We did not only a broadbase survey9

of the river bottom all around the area10

surrounding the outfall to the process sewer, but11

we actually did coring in the hottest spot we12

could find. We submitted those samples for13

toxicity testing, and the results of that toxicity14

testing showed that there was no measurable15

effect.16

MEMBER BARNES: I was looking for17

some information that one could compare with the18

Laval study. If I look at the references at the19

end of Chapter 3, as 3.6, the citations for Dr.20

Lee are dated 1991, 1991 and 1992. So it is more21

than a decade old.22

If there is something in press23

that's fine, but the information we have does not24

give that information.25

���������

124

I think the report on 3.3, which1

is pages 13 to 15, and so on, as far as I can see,2

doesn't that come from the 1991?3

That is the latest thing, is it?4

DR. FEHRENBACH: Yes. We have5

attempted to summarize the paper that is in6

process in Section 3.3.7

THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe there8

was an outstanding intervention from Laval.9

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Yes. I would10

like to call on Dr. Claude Barbeau, Université11

Laval, to come forward and provide some12

explanation on the sampling strategy.13

DR. BARBEAU: Claude Barbeau,14

Université Laval.15

Our group at Laval University has16

been doing some survey, what I call more of a17

surveillance radiological environmental process18

which, for example, for the last ten years we have19

been doing around Gentilly II; we have been doing20

a survey.21

This means that we don't do22

monitoring. We just pick up samples, the type of23

samples we want, when we want, how we want them,24

and we do the analysis. After that we do our25

���������

125

report describing the samples, the results and try1

to put it in perspective with other results in2

similar situations, either in Canada or in the3

United States or in Europe.4

In fact, we don't do any5

conclusions. We just try to do a type of audit of6

the environment.7

It is not a monitoring process.8

Therefore, we cannot take a very large number of9

samples. We try to get some samples that are10

representative of integration of radionuclides.11

Dr. Barnes asked about the12

sediments. In a river like the Ottawa River, to13

find fine sediments where radionuclides can be14

absorbed and deposited on the bottom is quite15

difficult. We try to look only for fine16

sediments, because in coarse-grained sediments we17

are not susceptible to finding radionuclides.18

We do our sampling at the end of19

August where the river is at its lowest. We look20

for downstream sediments and we compare then with21

upstream sediments. These are the reasons why we22

don't have that many samples. We are restricted23

in numbers and it is difficult to find fine24

sediments.25

���������

126

So they are really representative1

of the river around the AECL site.2

As for air, we do a sampling3

during only a 24-hour time, because we don't4

sample monthly periods. Sometimes, for example in5

Gentilly, we find very low values and sometimes we6

find very high values.7

If you look at our survey in 2000,8

you will find that the air content in Deep River9

was high in tritium. This was a very foggy day.10

Actually, we had the possibility of having a wind11

in the direction of Deep River, and we got a high12

tritium value.13

So we cannot decide on which site14

is the weather or the winds, but we try to sample15

during our stay in the region, which is about four16

or five days, we try to go where the wind17

direction is and to find some sample for air.18

So the sample for air just gave us19

tritium values above the detection limits.20

As for water, we take water in the21

Ottawa River and upstream also from AECL.22

Vegetables are probably the best23

samples that can integrate what has been emitted24

in the atmosphere. As you can see, we have some25

���������

127

vegetables and the radionuclides there that were1

found mainly was tritium. To do a type of survey2

that could be of certain use, we went south or3

east, down to Pembroke, and we went upstream. You4

have the results there.5

As far as Chalk River and Deep6

River, they are similar to what we find mostly7

nearby Gentilly II in terms of tritium content in8

vegetables.9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.10

MEMBER BARNES: Perhaps I could11

make some comments. I don't know the details of12

the contract, the size of the contract, and what13

is expected of the Laval group by AECL. I will14

just give the following impressions that I have15

here.16

The report is given to us as part17

of the justification of AECL that there is not a18

problem. The report is entitled "Radiological19

Environmental Survey Outside the Chalk River20

Laboratories Site". There was no, in a sense,21

terms of reference, no clear statement of what the22

survey is to do, except if I take the first23

paragraph it says:24

"A mandate was received in25

���������

128

2000, from Atomic Energy of1

Canada Limited (AECL), to2

execute a radiological3

environmental survey outside4

the Chalk River Laboratories5

(CRL) site."6

That could mean various things,7

but what you told us and what AECL told us is that8

it is random sampling. But it goes on to say in9

that first paragraph:10

"For comparison purposes the11

survey covers the same area12

and the same radionuclides as13

in the 1999 report."14

So at least there is some little15

bit of time series developing here. Again, that16

may not be of much value if one is not sampling, I17

would say, in a strategic manner.18

The last sentence in that first19

paragraph says:20

"The samples and analyses21

chosen had to reflect a22

potential impact of the23

activities carried at AECL, on24

the environment outside the25

���������

129

site."1

In the second paragraph it says:2

"The chosen samples are3

representative of the4

environment around CRL5

site..."6

I don't know how you could say7

that three fish caught in the river are8

essentially representative.9

If I just come back to the issue10

of the sediments, which you said coarse sediments11

are not going to give you any data, in Section 3.612

dealing with radioactivity in river sediments --13

and that is what it is trying to characterize:14

whether there is any problem with river sediments15

-- the second sentence says:16

"As in 1999, only coarse-17

grained sediments were found18

along the shores of the19

river."20

Which means that you found them in21

1999. You admitted there was no point in sampling22

them. They were sampled again in 2001, and one23

has the impression that it is not a problem.24

I understand that you probably are25

���������

130

just taking a few samples here. I am just trying1

to point out that I am not convinced here that the2

scale of sampling that had been asked to do, or3

that you volunteered to do on behalf of AECL, is4

sufficiently detailed evidence to convince me, and5

perhaps the public, that this is a sufficient6

amount of sampling to prove the point that you are7

trying to show: that there is essentially very8

little impact of the activities carried on at AECL9

on the environment outside the site.10

This is the only point I am trying11

to make, but I think Dr. Thompson may have a12

point.13

DR. BARBEAU: You are correct. We14

are not trying to prove anything. We were just15

asked to do a survey.16

As I said at the beginning, we do17

that for Gentilly. We have done that also for18

Defence in Ottawa. We just take samples and we do19

measurements, and that's it. We are not trying to20

prove any point in a sense of what you said, to21

the type of sample. We could find only coarse-22

grained sediments, but the location we stayed on23

to get these sediments was as close as possible to24

the river and could contain very fine sediment.25

���������

131

That was the most we could get.1

MEMBER BARNES: I take it that you2

may not be wishing to prove a point, but there is3

a purpose for this survey being undertaken. I4

think part of the purpose for bringing it forward5

today is to show to us and to the public that6

there is not significant impact by the activities7

of AECL on the surrounding environment. There is8

a point in there.9

THE CHAIRPERSON: AECL and then10

staff. Then I am going to call a close to this11

particular question.12

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you.13

As Dr. Barbeau pointed out, this14

was an environmental audit. The purpose of the15

audit was to validate independently our16

measurement systems. We do extensive sampling, as17

pointed out in the material, the supplementary18

information package. The University of Laval was19

asked to independently validate this data. This20

shows their own sampling strategy.21

The results have indicated to us22

that yes, our measurement systems have been23

validated by the Laval results. That was the24

purpose.25

���������

132

We are not purporting to say that1

the Laval study demonstrates that there is no2

issue at all with the sampling.3

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC staff and4

then back to Dr. Barnes.5

DR. THOMPSON: For the record6

again, my name is Patsy Thompson.7

I wanted to clarify that8

essentially the regulatory program that AECL has9

in place to meet requirements, to demonstrate that10

doses to members of the public are ALARA, as low11

as reasonably achievable.12

The design that we have accepted13

as meeting our requirements was for fish sampled14

in the areas that would be representative of where15

members of the public or members of the critical16

group could obtain fish from recreational fishing.17

Essentially the samples are taken18

about 28 kilometres upstream of the Chalk River19

site as a reference, and other samples are taken20

from 5, 9 and 42 kilometres downstream. That sort21

of corresponds to the location of where the22

critical members of the public have been23

identified.24

The number of fish samples are not25

���������

133

high, but they have been deemed sufficient. There1

is a trend essentially where concentrations over2

several years have been close to natural3

background concentrations.4

We have doses to members of the5

public from consuming fish from those samples that6

are approximately 3 to 4 microsieverts per year,7

which is quite a bit lower than the 1,0008

microsievert or 1 millisievert dose to members of9

the public.10

So we have deemed that in relation11

to the risk that the facility poses, the number of12

samples taken were sufficient to demonstrate the13

performance of the Chalk River site in terms of14

protecting members of the public.15

The expectation is that with the16

baseline that is being gathered through the17

ecological effects review, the monitoring design18

will be a lot more rigorous and based on not just19

confirming doses to members of the public but also20

looking at patterns of contamination and to21

validate the information that AECL has provided in22

the ecological effects review in terms of sources23

of substances being released from the site.24

Just to clarify, the information25

���������

134

is valid in terms of confirming that doses or the1

radionuclides are well controlled and that doses2

to members of the public from fish consumption are3

well below the public dose limit.4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill, I5

would like to return to you just for the6

clarification about the information issues.7

MEMBER McDILL: Perhaps with8

respect to the question on the pump and the9

chromium oxide, maybe AECL could report that to10

staff.11

Would that be satisfactory?12

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Certainly.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess my next14

question is with regard to the decommissioning15

plan and the financial guarantees.16

I believe it is correct in saying17

that the Commission expected these to be ready for18

this licensing hearing, and it is not. As you19

have answered Dr. Giroux's question, you are20

asking for the delegation.21

I am not so interested in22

exploring the delegation as I am in exploring23

exactly where the preliminary decommissioning plan24

is and the status of the information on the25

���������

135

financial guarantees.1

My purpose is to have you, from2

the staff's point of view, assure the Commission3

that this is moving along at a pace that is4

satisfactory and that the information will be5

available and will be of the quality that we6

expect in these areas.7

MS MALONEY: Thank you, Madam8

President. Cait Maloney here.9

I will start with the10

decommissioning plans.11

We have received preliminary12

decommissioning plans for all of the parts of the13

Chalk River site. We have also given notice to14

AECL that we want to discuss an overall plan with15

them. That is an essential thing to have. That16

is one of the things that we will be discussing in17

the context of an overall plan for the site, not18

just for decommissioning; obviously remediation19

and future activities.20

That is part of some ongoing21

discussions that we will report on at mid-term and22

sequentially after that.23

With respect to the financial24

assurance, we are aware that AECL is working with25

���������

136

the federal government to establish an appropriate1

financial assurance there. We have worked with2

AECL to ensure that they understand the3

requirements of our policy. We believe that the4

way they are proceeding will be consistent with5

those requirements and should be concluded by the6

end of this calendar year.7

We are monitoring what is going8

on, but we do not as yet have the draft in front9

of us to look at.10

THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess my11

question then is to AECL: as to whether you can12

assure the Commission that you clearly understand13

the requirements being placed on you in these two14

areas, the preliminary decommissioning plan and15

the financial guarantees, and that you see no16

problem in moving towards the quality and time17

frame that has been discussed by the staff.18

DR. FEHRENBACH: Paul Fehrenbach.19

By way of background and20

clarification, I would like to indicate first of21

all that what we are talking about here is a22

rather unique situation at Chalk River, because we23

anticipate the site will be operational for the24

next hundred years.25

���������

137

So when we are preparing a1

decommissioning plan, what we are talking about is2

a plan for decommissioning obsolete facilities as3

they become obsolete, while we are adding new4

facilities and operating facilities which are not5

yet obsolete.6

So the total estimates for what7

will be required to address this over the next8

hundred years, still even with the latest models9

for decommissioning cost estimating, still have10

some significant degree of uncertainty associated11

with them because some of the activities we are12

anticipating are well into the future.13

As well, we are dealing with some14

things which started well in the past, 50 years15

ago in some cases. There is a fair amount of16

physical characterization which must be done17

before we can come up with a full-blown cost18

estimate of what remediation, if any, will be19

required before the situation can be put into20

permanent disposal or otherwise decommission.21

With that as background, I would22

like to turn the question over to Mr. Van Adel.23

MR. VAN ADEL: I basically agree24

with the comments made by Cait Maloney on behalf25

���������

138

of the CNSC. We understand the issues, and we are1

engaged in a discussion with the shareholder about2

the implications. We do understand the time3

frames.4

As Paul indicated, I think it is a5

complex issue but one that we are all seized with6

and are working towards a resolution.7

In other respects, in terms of8

what you might consider to be the ongoing day-to-9

day activities of AECL and how it might respond to10

situations that require exceptional amounts of11

cash or response by way of standby guarantee, I12

will point out to you that AECL is an agency of13

the crown and as such engages the full faith and14

credit of Her Majesty in all its activities.15

Our contracts, our other16

obligations, are backed by the Government of17

Canada. Whenever we enter into a substantial18

contract of any kind, we often are asked to obtain19

a statement from the Department of Justice20

verifying that very aspect of our operation. We21

obtain that readily because by statute, by law, we22

do engage the crown in our activities.23

With respect to our day-to-day24

operations, we maintain adequate cash balances to25

���������

139

cover operations and contingencies. Our current1

cash balance is in excess of $164 million. We2

have contingencies over and above that for other3

matters but could be drawn on should we require4

cash.5

We have a "rust-out" program, as6

you know, which relates at least to the7

decommissioning and clean-up of facilities, which8

have cash commitments from the government through9

to the end of 2005. A negotiation is under way as10

part of this exercise with the government to look11

at the possible revision of those costs on a go-12

forward basis, which cover more than just13

decommissioning of the Chalk River site but the14

full range.15

There is a full recognition on the16

part of the shareholder that that discussion needs17

to take place and indeed we need funding18

commitments beyond the period in which the current19

fiscal framework covers.20

In respect of the ongoing clean-up21

activities with respect to waste and the surety of22

funding from the shareholder for those,23

irrespective of the fact that if we called on them24

for cash they would be compelled to provide it, we25

���������

140

have ongoing sources of revenue and income.1

The heavy water sales, as you are2

aware, and the income from that is dedicated to3

fund the "rust-out" activity, and there are cash4

flows ongoing in the order of about $30 million a5

year for that.6

The total liability at this point7

for decommissioning and waste management, some8

$2.6 billion over the hundred-year time frame, is9

on our books at $386 million now as the net10

present value liability amount, and that is11

recognized formally by the government as an12

obligation that while it is charged to AECL's13

books and we carry the liability on our books, in14

fact the liability is borne by the government.15

As part of this discussion and how16

we proceed from this point on, all of these issues17

need to be looked at. In the meantime, we believe18

that we are in excellent shape, both in terms of19

our financial viability, our ability to raise cash20

in the event that we need it to cover emergencies21

or difficult situations, or to reallocate funds in22

the event that there is a need to do so while this23

discussion is taking place.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I25

���������

141

appreciate your comments.1

The Commission recognizes the2

complexity of the site that you have and the fact3

that you are talking about legacy issues as well4

as looking at new projects.5

Because of the Commission's6

responsibility for safeguards, we also have an7

added interest in making sure that we understand8

the nature of the site and making sure that we are9

also able to honour our international obligations.10

You are well aware of that as well.11

I believe it would be appropriate12

on behalf of the Commission to register at the13

hearing, for the ears of the Government of Canada,14

the concerns of the Commission to make sure that15

AECL receives the funding necessary in order to be16

able to adequately address, in the manner which I17

think the public would expect, the issues of18

decommissioning and to make sure that you do have19

the funds necessary to address a site that has20

been in place for many, many years and has served21

various uses in the Government of Canada's policy22

envelope.23

So I think it is appropriate for24

that to be registered.25

���������

142

Are there further questions?1

Mr. Graham.2

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you. I have3

two questions.4

One, which I didn't get answered5

this morning, is with regard to the fissile6

solution storage tanks.7

You talk about capacity has been8

extended a couple of times. The recent one is a9

short-term solution.10

What is the long-term solution as11

far as expansion? I didn't get that answered.12

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: The solution is13

to transfer to the new MAPLE facilities. This14

will resolve the problem in the immediate term in15

terms of the ongoing production of the liquid16

waste that is stored in the FISST tanks.17

The other part of that is the18

ongoing project at this time, the "rust-out"19

project, which is the stored liquid waste, which20

is funded and well under way, which will21

disposition the waste and put it into a dry22

storage facility.23

MEMBER GRAHAM: My second question24

was with regard to -- I think at a prior hearing25

���������

143

we had heard about the underground sewage system,1

whether it be storm or sanitary. A lot of them2

had been improved or upgraded at the site.3

Has that been completed? I think4

we heard at one time that some of the pipes had5

not been connected or had been disconnected. Have6

all of the contaminated soils and so on been7

cleaned up, and are the sanitary and storm sewage8

systems completed at this time?9

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I believe you10

were referring to the active drain line system.11

That system is now in active commissioning. So it12

is in use.13

On the second question, how we14

have proceeded -- for example, if there was a pipe15

break, we have cleaned up in the area of the break16

and we have dispositioned that and put any17

contaminated soil into storage.18

MEMBER GRAHAM: So there are no19

more contaminated soils on the site in relation to20

leaks or poor workmanship of the sewer system.21

Is that what you are saying?22

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: What I am saying23

is on the old active drain line system, where we24

had a problem or a break, they were cleaned up.25

���������

144

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.1

Madam Chair, one more question?2

Thank you.3

We have heard a lot today about4

quality assurance. We have heard more or less the5

major things that have been done or contemplated6

since Day 1 of the hearings.7

I guess for satisfaction as a8

Commissioner, on Day 1 CNSC was very critical of9

AECL with regard to their failure to conduct or10

complete reviews effective on quality assurance11

programs for the year 2001 and they went on that12

after being presented with the weaknesses, AECL13

senior management committed to conduct overall14

reviews, and so on.15

We have heard what you have done16

today and what you plan to do, with the overheads,17

and so on. My only question is: Why the about-18

change so quickly?19

If we had not had this application20

before us and there had not been a Day 1 or a Day21

2, would things have changed as quickly as they22

have between Day 1 and Day 2?23

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: I would like to24

say that our results today that we have25

���������

145

demonstrated have shown that there has been a1

continuous improvement going on for many years2

now.3

In this particular area the CNSC4

has provided feedback and directives on some of5

our weaknesses. That is an opportunity for6

continuous improvement, and we are going to profit7

from it.8

With respect to the second part of9

the question, I am not able to answer that type of10

question. I can only point out that our record of11

improvement stands, and it will continue to12

demonstrate.13

MEMBER GRAHAM: The only other14

comment I would have is that a mid-term review I15

believe is necessary, hopefully that we could16

demonstrate to see even continued progress. That17

was one of the weaknesses that AECL had.18

There have been improvements, and19

there have been upgrades and so on. But yet it20

has to be ongoing. It just can't be at the time21

of application for a licence. It has to be a day-22

to-day-to-day operation, not just when you are23

coming before the Commission or coming looking for24

extensions or licence approvals.25

���������

146

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you. Our1

management system has been implemented extensively2

starting in 1998, and we have demonstrated3

progress. That progress is coming to fruition,4

and I think the results show that.5

I would like maybe our CEO to6

comment.7

MR. VAN ADEL: I would like to8

point out two things.9

I think that the whole regulatory10

environment, whether it be environmental, quality11

or whatever standard is applied to us, whether it12

be from the CNSC or whether it be from our13

customers, the yardsticks are moving continuously.14

So one can never say that one has15

reached an appropriate level of quality assurance16

or environmental standard or on any of these other17

issues. You mentioned yourself several changes in18

the regulatory environment that have taken place19

recently.20

We are constantly working in an21

environment in which the yardsticks are22

continuously moving. I think that not only do we23

accept that, but we embrace that.24

The real job for us is to ensure25

���������

147

that not only the processes but the culture is1

there in our company. We embrace the constantly2

moving yardsticks, and we are in a position to3

respond to that.4

We have made some major changes in5

our corporation in the last two years and in6

particular in the last year to respond to a number7

of these issues. I can see that one of the things8

that has made it easier to do -- because many9

people point out that a cultural change of the10

orders of magnitude that we have been going11

through often take between three to five years.12

Based on my experience, that is often the case. I13

have been involved in a number of such activities,14

both in the private sector and in the public15

sector.16

One of the things that has caused17

the turnaround in AECL which often leads to the18

comment "gee, did you just do this recently19

because we leaned on you" -- the fact is that we20

made progress so rapidly because we have in AECL21

across the board what I used to call pockets of22

excellence; that is, we have world-class or state23

of the art capability, whether it be in quality,24

project management, environmental standards.25

���������

148

The challenge for us is to drive1

those pockets of excellence or those high2

standards across everything we do. That is a3

challenge for an organization as diverse as ours,4

where we have commercial activities, national labs5

and other things. We are trying to drive the6

lessons learned from one group to another.7

I think the changes we have made8

in our structure, the changes we have made in the9

people and so on in the last while have really10

facilitated that.11

My response, in listening to you,12

is I have been on the job on that issue for more13

than two years, and the changes you are seeing14

today, which sometimes appear to take place in15

periods as short as three to four months or six16

months, are a result of that drive to drive that17

standard across the company.18

Dr. Aly's job on the quality side19

was to come in and take what we were doing by way20

of state of the art, say, on the China project,21

where we are doing an excellent job on quality,22

and drive that across the firm. So he is now23

empowered to do that.24

I think that is the real answer to25

���������

149

that question.1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very2

much.3

We are now going to move to the4

section of interventions.5

I would like to acknowledge that6

we have been informed that Mr. Van Adel is going7

to be leaving -- no? You will be able to stay for8

a while?9

I want to acknowledge that he did10

inform us of this, and we are aware of those11

restraints.12

MR. VAN ADEL: I will just mention13

that we were informed that things may go a little14

bit later, and I was able to make changes in my15

schedule.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.17

Now we are going to move to18

interventions. This is where the people from the19

community particularly have a chance to talk to20

the Commission about their views.21

I would like to remind intervenors22

that all the Commission Members have received your23

written interventions and have had an opportunity24

to read them. They will be used in totality in25

���������

150

our discussion, our records of decision and our1

decision-making.2

With that in mind, I would like to3

note that we have allocated approximately ten4

minutes for each of the oral presentations. I5

appreciate your help to maintain that schedule so6

that we get to hear from the number of people who7

would like to talk to us today.8

Some intervenors have filed the9

same submission for Chalk River Laboratories,10

MAPLE and for the New Processing Facility.11

As mentioned earlier, to avoid12

repetition I will invite those intervenors to make13

their presentations at this hearing, and then they14

will be asked, as we move forward to the MAPLE and15

New Processing Facility hearings, if they want to16

have that presentation taken forward into those17

other matters or not.18

19

03-H2.320

Oral presentation by the Regional County21

Municipality of Pontiac22

THE CHAIRPERSON: With that23

preamble, I would like to move to our first oral24

presentation from the Regional County Municipality25

���������

151

of Pontiac.1

This is outlined in CMD Document2

03-H2.3.3

Je remarque que c'est une4

présentation bilingue. Alors c'est très bon pour5

nous aussi.6

We have Mr. Spence with us7

representing the Pontiac.8

Mr. Spence, you have the floor.9

MAYOR SPENCE: Good afternoon. My10

name is Denzil Spence. I am the Mayor of the11

Municipality of Alumette Island. With me today is12

Mayor Paul Ryan of Waltham.13

We are here today on behalf of the14

Regional County Municipality of Pontiac. To the15

Commission I would like to briefly describe the16

county to you.17

The MRC Pontiac that we refer to18

is the Regional Municipal County of Pontiac. It19

consists of 18 municipalities, and it represents a20

geographic area of approximately 8,000 square21

miles. We have a population base of approximately22

15,000 people.23

We are here today on behalf of MRC24

Pontiac. I have a prepared statement, so I am25

���������

152

going to read the statement from the Regional1

County.2

Madam Chair, the Regional3

Municipal County of Pontiac, MRC Pontiac, wishes4

to inform you, the Commission, that they fully5

support the request for renewal of permits for6

Chalk River Laboratories.7

Following is a list of8

interactions, including assemblies, that AECL9

participated in with MRC Pontiac over the past few10

years.11

One, Paul Fehrenbach, Paul12

Lafrenière and Donna Roach of AECL have provided,13

and continue to provide, annual updates to MRC14

Pontiac.15

Two, AECL held a "Meet and Greet"16

in Fort Coulonge following the September 11, 200117

tragedy.18

Three, AECL brought its19

information display to the annual Shawville Fair20

in the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Shawville is a21

municipality within our region.22

Following up on interactions with23

MRC Pontiac around the public consultation program24

for the Modular Above Ground Storage, MAGS25

���������

153

project, Warden Mike McCrank and myself accepted1

AECL's invitation to attend the opening of the2

MAGS facility in May of 2002.3

AECL held an information session4

in Fort Coulonge related to its proposal to5

decommission the NRX fuel bays at CRL.6

Donna Roach, Manager, Community7

Relations, AECL, facilitated discussions relating8

to the development of a nuclear emergency plan for9

the Upper Pontiac in 2002.10

A number of MRC Pontiac mayors11

participated in emergency preparedness exercises12

as observers last fiscal year.13

AECL continues to sponsor air-time14

for non-profit organizations within the MRC15

territory on CHIP-FM station, which is located in16

Fort Coulonge, Québec.17

The many communities throughout18

MRC Pontiac are included in the mailing19

distribution of the AECL bilingual quarterly20

community newsletter.21

To this end, we the respected22

Mayors of MRC Pontiac would like to encourage AECL23

to continue with the excellent interaction and24

relationship that presently exists. And be it25

���������

154

known that we fully support the licensing of AECL1

Chalk River Laboratories.2

Hoping you will take special3

consideration of our request, Madam Chair, this4

concludes my presentation.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.6

Are there any questions or7

comments from the Commission Members with regard8

to this presentation?9

I actually have a question, Mr.10

Spence.11

Did the Pontiac participate in the12

workshops that were held on emergency preparedness13

lately? There was one, I think, around the14

Gentilly area.15

MAYOR SPENCE: Yes, we did.16

Actually, I participated in the one that was held17

in Toronto, and I really enjoyed it.18

To add further to this19

presentation, this is my first time at a hearing20

like this and I am really impressed with the21

questions and the thoroughness of the Commission.22

I think I can go back to my Regional Municipality23

and say yes, this is for real. We have a24

Commission and they are looking out for us. I25

���������

155

thank you.1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we hope we2

are.3

Thank you very much for coming4

today to both of you. We do appreciate that.5

6

03-H2.47

Oral presentation by the Canadian Nuclear Workers'8

Council9

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will move to10

the next presentation, which is an oral11

presentation by the Canadian Nuclear Workers'12

Council, as outlined in CMD Document 03-H2.4.13

We have with us today the14

President of the Council, Mr. Shier. The floor is15

yours, sir.16

MR. SHIER: Good afternoon, Madam17

President and Members of the Commission. As18

indicated, my name is Dave Shier. I am the19

President of the Canadian Nuclear Workers'20

Council.21

Our presentation today is endorsed22

and supported by 14 of the 15 unions at the Chalk23

River site.24

I know the one absent union will25

���������

156

raise a question, and I will answer that now. I1

will indicate that the union that is not in2

support of it is the Chalk River Technicians and3

Technologists Union.4

Their reasoning is that at this5

particular time they are in collective bargaining.6

When they are in bargaining, their philosophy is7

that they focus all their efforts in that area and8

they don't participate in any other issues.9

With me today, to my right, is Mr.10

Jim Arnott from the Power Workers Union on site.11

To his right is Ms Leslie Gibbons from the Office12

and Professional Employees International Union.13

Also with us, farther back, are14

representatives from the other unions:15

specifically Mr. Ken Philipose from the Chalk16

River Professional Employees Group; Mr. Hugh17

Clarke and Dennis Jameson from the Allied Trades18

Council.19

The Allied Trades Council is an20

umbrella organization that represents eight unions21

at Chalk River.22

We also have Pat Hagarty from the23

Chemical Energy Paperworkers Union.24

All of these people are available25

���������

157

to you if you have any questions for them on1

specific issues after our presentation.2

Our presentation covers the three3

licence applications that are in front of you4

today, and we will not be making a presentation on5

the other applications later today.6

The contents of our presentation7

will be brief as you do have our written8

submission. We would like to talk a little bit9

about labour relations, conventional health and10

safety, radiological health and safety, community11

perspective, and then we will offer our12

conclusions and recommendations.13

In regard to labour relations, as14

we indicated there are 15 labour unions on site.15

At first this may appear cumbersome to have this16

number of unions on site. However, if you look on17

the positive side of that, we suggest that does18

give a real good opportunity for the workers, the19

shop floor workers, the ratio being very low20

between the shop floor workers and union21

representatives, to be able to bring up issues of22

concern of the workers.23

Even though all these unions maybe24

have different philosophies, they do have a common25

���������

158

goal as far as health and safety goes. They all1

put health and safety as a high priority.2

The state of labour relations I3

suggest is very good. There is a lot of4

negotiations going on, grievances and meetings,5

and so forth. Actually, some of our people today6

had to leave at lunch time to sort out some7

grievances. So we look at that as good activity,8

a healthy environment, that there are issues that9

are being discussed.10

In the area of the Joint Health11

and Safety Committee, there is a mandated Joint12

Health and Safety Committee on site, a very large13

committee, 23 members. Each of the unions has a14

representative on that joint committee, again a15

very low ratio of workers to representatives on16

the committee. So this again ensures that worker17

problems are raised at the committee.18

The Joint Health and Safety19

Committee does work under the mandate of the20

Labour Act, and our information is that everything21

is up to date: inspections, regular meetings, and22

so on and so forth.23

One area of the health and safety24

performance has indicated that they even though25

���������

159

there are accidents, the performance is very good1

and that the joint health and safety committee2

does strive for continuing improvements in the3

area of health and safety.4

One area regarding workers' health5

and safety rights is the issue of workers having6

the right to refuse unsafe work. Even though7

these work refusals do occur, they are not8

recorded or logged. Sometimes they are looked on9

as being a negative. We suggest that the fact10

that these are occurring is a positive; that it11

shows that the system is working; that the workers12

are questioning issues. We have several examples13

of where work refusals have happened.14

As I indicated, the majority of15

them are sorted out right at the shop floor level16

between the worker and the supervisor. But it17

does bring that question forward that the workers18

do question health and safety issues.19

In the area of dose reduction, you20

did hear from the applicant on that. We would21

like to make a correction to our written22

submission. We indicated that we were going back23

over a decade. We went over a little more than24

that, and I guess from our perspective the error25

���������

160

we made and the correction we are making is1

actually showing a better improvement than our2

submission indicated.3

We actually went from 1991 to4

2002.5

We would like to correct that, our6

figure in the second paragraph of the second page7

of our written submission, where we indicate that8

the average exposure was 1.66. In effect, it was9

1.85 in 1992, and that makes an improvement of up10

to 40 per cent over that period of time.11

In this business, I think any time12

dose reduction is increased is a real positive.13

This has occurred for many reasons: new equipment,14

more training, the ALARA principle. But most of15

all it has been taken care of by the workers.16

These are the people that are more vigilant with17

the new equipment and training and able to reduce18

their exposures.19

On the community perspective, the20

workers at the site do live in the community and21

raise their families in the community. They are22

part of the community. In that role, they also23

answer a lot of questions about the site. Their24

neighbours, the people they are involved with, any25

���������

161

time they have concerns they ask these people. So1

they are basically ambassadors for the actual2

facility, to be able to let people know what is3

going on and answer questions.4

The labour unions are also5

affiliated with the Renfrew and District Labour6

Council. The labour councils are a group of7

unions in the area with like minded ideas, a lot8

of activists. Also, the labour council is9

supportive of the site for the members that belong10

to their organization. Also, any issues that come11

up, they have been addressed by union members from12

the Chalk River site.13

The Nuclear Worker Council, we14

have also had some involvement in the community15

here. We have done some presentations to the16

District Labour Council, and a year or two back17

some of our members did put up a display booth in18

the local mall to engage the public in some19

dialogue regarding the site.20

In conclusion, we would suggest21

that the workers on site, as they work on site and22

they live in the community, that the public can be23

assured if there are any health and safety issues24

on the site, they would definitely be raised by25

���������

162

the site unions.1

We encourage the CNSC to renew the2

operating licences for the three facilities at3

Chalk River.4

Thank you for your time. We would5

be open to any questions to myself or members of6

the unions on site.7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.8

Are there any questions or9

comments?10

Dr. Barnes.11

MEMBER BARNES: I was interested12

in why the work refusals would not be logged, not13

necessarily the individual concern but the kind of14

work they were refusing to do. I would have15

thought that might have been instructive to have16

that captured.17

MR. SHIER: That is a good point.18

There is no requirement under the legislation to19

log work refusals. As I indicated, lots of them20

are resolved right at the interface between the21

worker and the supervisor.22

As unions, we have suggested they23

should be logged and used as a lesson learned type24

of situation. Unfortunately, in my opinion there25

���������

163

has been a bit of philosophy that if you have work1

refusals, there is something wrong. We feel it is2

not; that it is something you should learn from.3

We have been trying to encourage4

employers to log them just for that particular5

reason -- not just this employer, but other6

employers we deal with.7

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think one of8

your colleagues behind wants to speak.9

MR. CLARKE: For the record, Hugh10

Clarke.11

We do log our work refusals. What12

happens is any time there is a work refusal it13

does go in front of the Health and Safety14

Committee.15

I myself was involved in an actual16

work refusal, and as soon as the call was made we17

were instructed automatically to cease what we18

were doing. At that time, we had our safety19

people, Bruce Laing and Neil Quisma, they came and20

inspected the site and saw what was going on21

exactly, and we shut the power completely down on22

what we were doing.23

It was raised at the site Health24

and Safety Committee level. Paul Lafrenière was25

���������

164

involved in it, and it didn't take long to get the1

wheels in motion and it was solved through that2

process.3

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.4

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam5

Chair.6

Mr. Shier, do the various7

agreements between the unions and the employer8

include health and safety conditions?9

MR. SHIER: I will ask some of the10

union leaders here to say what they have in their11

specific agreements. As I indicate, there are12

many agreements; maybe some that do and some that13

don't. So I will pass that on to some of the14

other people to answer.15

MR. CLARKE: Again, Hugh Clarke.16

I am the President of the Allied17

Council. We encompass eight unions in our18

collective agreement.19

There is nothing specific in our20

collective agreement that states anything about21

health and safety, but we are legislated through22

law. Each of the unions do have members that sit23

on the Health and Safety Committee, which is24

comprised of management and the unions.25

���������

165

As a co-chair, I sit on it because1

of the amount of unions that we do have on site.2

I can only speak for the council.3

There is nothing actually in our collective4

agreement that states anything about health and5

safety. We do have a little clause that says we6

want to work as safe as possible, but there is no7

actual article in there that suggests that.8

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.9

MR. SHIER: If I could, there is10

one of our other members here who I assume has11

something in their agreement.12

MR. PHILIPOSE: For the record, my13

name is Ken Philipose. I am Chair of CRPEG; that14

is Chalk River Professional Employees union.15

We do not have anything in our16

collective agreement as far as health and safety17

is concerned, but the safety culture that we have18

at the company very well takes care of it.19

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux.21

MEMBER GIROUX: I would like to22

refer to quality assurance, which we have23

discussed quite a bit this morning.24

Quality assurance happens in the25

���������

166

executive offices of AECL and maybe in the union1

executive offices also. It also happens on the2

floor of the facilities and involves all of the3

workers.4

My question here is: Do you get5

feedback from the employees, your members, that6

they feel strained or pressured because of the7

overall objectives of quality assurance?8

Do they react as if they are9

affected negatively in their performance?10

MR. CLARKE: Again, Hugh Clarke.11

With respect to quality assurance,12

anything that any of our members do -- and13

specifically I can talk about any of our stuff14

that we do in the reactor with the loops. If we15

have any piping that is done there, there is a16

route sheet that is brought up through the QA17

process. Everything that is done is QA to18

specific recommendations and specifications to19

ensure that the actual equipment we are putting20

in, the piping we are putting in, as is said on21

the route sheet.22

Any of the welds that are done are23

actually x-rayed through the process on site, and24

that is our way of making sure that the quality of25

���������

167

our work is indeed reflected in the paperwork from1

the quality assurance people.2

MEMBER GIROUX: Very likely this3

is resulting in more demanding specifications for4

the workers. Do they have negative reactions to5

this, or do they understand it? Do they share6

their thoughts with you?7

MR. CLARKE: I have never had any8

of our members come back with anything negative.9

If anything, it proves that we are la crème de la10

crème, I guess you could say, when it comes to the11

nuclear work that we have to do on site.12

There are some things that we do13

that are so different from working in14

construction. I came from a construction15

atmosphere. I have been at AECL for 14 years now,16

and I have never in my life seen pride and17

workmanship as we do at AECL.18

So I have never seen any negative19

impact for quality assurance. If anything,20

quality assurance is nothing but a good thing in21

our eyes.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very23

much.24

25

���������

168

03-H2.51

Oral presentation by Deep River Science Academy2

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like to3

move then to the next intervention, which is an4

oral presentation by Deep River Science Academy,5

as outlined in CMD Document 03-H2.5.6

I believe Mr. French is with us7

today. Welcome.8

MR. FRENCH: Madam Chair,9

Commissioners. Good day, everyone. Bonjour, tout10

le monde.11

I am the CEO and Secretary of the12

board of the Deep River Science Academy, providing13

leadership over the Deep River Campus here in14

Ontario and the Manitoba Campus in Whiteshell.15

I have served in several16

capacities over the past nine years: as principal,17

as a member of the board, and now as the CEO. I18

have been a frequent visitor to the CRL site as19

part of our operations.20

The Deep River Science Academy,21

and henceforth DRSA, supports the renewal of22

AECL's licences to operate at the Chalk River23

Laboratories.24

The DRSA initiative is based on25

���������

169

community partnerships with professional1

laboratories and is endorsed by the financial2

support of local, provincial and federal3

government agencies, as well as corporations,4

foundations and private individuals.5

The two current campuses have been6

established in the science-rich communities of7

Deep River, Ontario and Pinawa, Manitoba, where8

several professional laboratories offer research9

opportunities for DRSA students. The partner10

laboratories voluntarily provide research11

opportunities and the use of their resources and12

scientists for the duration of the program because13

they all share DRSA's commitment to encourage our14

youth to pursue careers in science and15

engineering.16

DRSA has partnered with AECL at17

the Chalk River site for the past 16 years. Our18

business-education partnership has permitted over19

600 high school students and some 300 university20

students from across Canada to test drive careers21

in science and engineering. This success story22

would not have been possible without the vision23

and commitment of AECL management and staff.24

AECL has demonstrated responsible25

���������

170

corporate citizenship throughout our partnership.1

As we prepare for our 17th summer2

program, I know we can count on the senior3

management, department chairmen, scientists,4

engineers, technicians and all support staff to5

ensure that our students have an excellent, safe6

learning experience at AECL, as they have done for7

the past 16 years.8

All DRSA staff and students -- our9

university students are here on site for 16 weeks10

and our high school students for six weeks -- have11

always reported that AECL has operated their12

facilities in a safe and responsible manner. All13

DRSA workers and supervisors are required to14

complete a full-day safety seminar and WHMIS15

training each year.16

The DRSA 2002 annual report was17

provided to the Commission and our latest18

newsletter, sample Exhibit B, and our leaflet on19

the 2002 research projects. All of these20

documents are available -- I have extra copies21

should the Commission require these extra two22

documents -- to show how integral AECL has been23

and the commitment they have made to our24

operation.25

���������

171

They illustrate the significant1

corporate and volunteer commitment to our2

partnership. I encourage you to read the many3

testimonials from students. Many AECL employees4

at all levels have volunteered over the years to5

ensure the success of our program.6

All participants in the DRSA7

summer program have returned to their communities8

with stories of the significance of AECL's9

operations and the positive contributions of AECL10

to the nuclear industry.11

In conclusion, AECL has12

demonstrated responsible corporate citizenship13

throughout our business-education partnership. On14

behalf of the volunteers and staff of DRSA, I15

would lend our full support for the renewal of16

licences to enable AECL to continue to operate at17

the Chalk River Laboratories.18

Our motto for the DRSA students,19

namely, "real laboratory research, learn about20

your future" is only possible because AECL has21

taken all aspects of its operation seriously.22

Thank you for giving us this23

opportunity to support the application for24

renewal.25

���������

172

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very1

much, Mr. French.2

The floor is now open for any3

questions or comments from the Commission Members4

with regard to this submission.5

Dr. Giroux.6

MEMBER GIROUX: I found this7

program quite interesting, but I have a question.8

Do you track what happens to your students, your9

participants, after they have been through school10

and as they start in their career?11

If you do, I would be interested12

to know what sort of proportion go back to work13

for AECL and what sort of proportion, if you know,14

joined the anti-nuclear movement.15

MR. FRENCH: Yes, Dr. Giroux, we16

do track our students, but it is rather difficult17

to do so. Funding is always a problem in our18

organization, and we have to use money from other19

foundations, and so on, to do our research.20

However, we do have assistance from the Ontario21

government to actually do the tracking, and we are22

pursuing that now.23

We have also developed on our Web24

site an alumni section. The funding from the25

���������

173

Ontario government has allowed us to phone the1

homes. We have all the applications of university2

and high school students going back 16 years, and3

we are going to phone the homes of their parents.4

We are going to track those down that we have not5

contacted and encourage them all to register on6

the site.7

We do have some information after8

our tenth year of operation -- and we are9

presently trying to do this again -- about where10

people went and what they are doing. Most of the11

graduates at that point, 85 per cent, were12

convinced that they should pursue careers in13

science and engineering as a result of this14

experience. It was a very positive one.15

One hundred per cent of our16

students leave Deep River with a positive17

impression of the nuclear industry. If they get18

there on site and have this hands-on experience,19

they realize that all the work that is being done20

is in the best interests of all Canadians and is a21

positive contribution to our Canadian society.22

We have yet to have anyone go away23

from here telling stories about this industry that24

are negative.25

���������

174

We had one university student who1

didn't come because his mother felt that he should2

not be working that closely to a reactor.3

THE CHAIRPERSON: Further4

questions?5

Thank you very much.6

7

8

03-H2.69

Oral presentation by Canadian Nuclear Association10

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like11

now to move to the next submission, which is an12

oral presentation by the Canadian Nuclear13

Association, as outlined in CMD Document 03-H2.6.14

We have with us today the Director15

of Regulatory and Environmental Affairs for the16

CNA, Mr. Al Shpyth.17

Mr. Shpyth, the floor is yours.18

MR. SHPYTH: Thank you for the19

opportunity to speak. For the record, my name is20

Al Shpyth, and I am the Canadian Nuclear21

Association's Director of Regulatory and22

Environmental Affairs.23

In this capacity, our association24

lends support to our member companies, and we are25

���������

175

pleased to appear today in support of AECL's1

applications for the Chalk River facility and the2

associated facilities that the Commission will be3

hearing from today as well, the MAPLE reactor and4

the New Processing Facility.5

Recognizing the Chair's6

instructions, I will simplify our submission,7

which was going to speak to all three, and touch8

on the reasons why the CNA is supporting the9

applications that are being considered today,10

beginning with Chalk River.11

The Chalk River Laboratories have12

a long and very distinguished history of13

supporting, through research and testing, Canada's14

advanced nuclear industry, and significant work15

has been done at CRL with regard to reactor16

physics, chemistry, fuels, materials, engineered17

systems in support of the development of the CANDU18

reactor technology, as well as nuclear medicines19

and radioisotopes.20

With respect to the interests of21

the Commission, the CNA notes that AECL's22

application is supported by a number of site-wide23

programs. As we have heard today, these programs24

manifest themselves in many ways but including an25

���������

176

excellent safety record in the region of one1

million lost-time free hours.2

These programs, which cover3

environmental protection, quality assurance,4

emergency planning -- the range is well known to5

members of the Commission -- ensure that6

reasonable measures are in place to support7

emergency preparedness, environmental protection,8

radiation protection, nuclear security, safeguards9

and non-proliferation requirements as set out by10

the Commission and its staff. We believe these to11

be substantive.12

I also heard that AECL is13

committed to continual improvement. As with any14

overall commitment to manage programs, AECL's15

commitment to continual improvement has allowed16

them and resulted in them taking on and completing17

a number of projects to improve said operations,18

one of which has been noted today, the active19

drain replacement project, which promises not only20

a new state of the art approach to tracing and21

detecting leaks from drains, which will minimize22

the potential for uncontrolled releases to the23

environment, but will also allow them to take24

corrective and preventive actions to minimize the25

���������

177

likelihood of reoccurrence and further releases.1

Improvements in waste management2

practices and other improvements that have been3

identified by AECL will further reduce the already4

low exposures and emissions associated with5

operations at Chalk River.6

Given the scope of these7

activities and the many facilities at CRL, AECL8

undertakes a comprehensive community relations9

program to ensure members of adjacent communities10

are well informed and kept up to date with11

developments and performance.12

As we have heard today, such13

efforts are recognized and valued by the14

communities.15

Radioactive waste management16

issues often arise as a public concern in our17

industry, and information supplied by AECL18

provides evidence that overall radioactive waste19

management has been undertaken in an effective and20

responsible manner.21

We have heard doses to workers are22

down over the course of the current licence23

period, as are lost-time accidents, airborne24

emissions, liquid emissions.25

���������

178

We are also aware from submissions1

that the applications before the Commission2

concerning the MAPLE reactors and the associated3

New Processing Facility will effectively advance4

the technology to be used for medical radioisotope5

production; and not only in terms of production6

and security of supply, which are very important,7

but also with respect to health, safety and8

environment in forms again of lower dose, lower9

releases and lower potential consequences of10

accidents.11

These are all very positive12

developments that we see at the site.13

If I may touch briefly on those14

other associated facilities, the MAPLEs and the15

New Processing Facility, certainly the MAPLE16

reactors which are going to be constructed and17

operated by AECL at the Chalk River site are very18

important, not only to Canada but also to the19

future supply of nuclear medicine, and these20

reactors and the site will see a number of firsts:21

the first dedicated medical isotope production22

reactors in the world and the first new reactors23

in Canada since the completion of Darlington in24

1993.25

���������

179

As we heard, these new processes,1

the new facilities, the MAPLE and the New2

Processing Facility, will help Canada play a vital3

role in global supply of medical isotopes. But4

importantly, I think from a public perspective,5

these new facilities will represent very modern6

facilities, meeting all applicable regulatory7

requirements.8

Also, we believe, given the nature9

and the management systems in place, there will be10

very low risk associated with their operation, and11

it should receive support.12

Finally, the New Processing13

Facility, which is intimately tied with the new14

MAPLE reactors, is going to provide an improvement15

over current processing at Chalk River, in that it16

will bring forward advanced waste management17

techniques with the processing of the isotopes,18

offering the opportunity to further reduce19

potential environmental impacts associated with20

reactor produced medical isotopes.21

We believe the New Processing22

Facility is a major aspect of operations with23

respect to MAPLE and the site overall, bringing24

forward again key improvements and helping to25

���������

180

provide and continuing to provide the positive1

features of the site: safe and reliable production2

and safe and reliable series of nuclear activities3

in support of medical isotope production with a4

high degree of environmental protection.5

To conclude, our association is6

endorsing AECL's applications to renew the site7

operating licences for Chalk River and the MAPLE8

and New Processing Facility.9

Chalk River certainly is a10

cornerstone of Canada's power and research reactor11

industry. It makes positive contributions in a12

very significant way for both utilities,13

businesses, patients and students.14

We believe AECL works hard to15

ensure that Chalk River is a safe and secure place16

in which to conduct nuclear business, and its17

effort is being rewarded with good performance.18

We think the submissions that have19

been made demonstrate that AECL is operating the20

facilities at Chalk River safely and responsibly.21

We think AECL has demonstrated a strong commitment22

to health, safety, safeguards, security,23

environmental protection.24

We believe the renewal of these25

���������

181

site facilities licences presents low risk to the1

public, to the workers. There is a good record of2

releases being below regulatory limits; a system3

that is working, safety systems that are meeting4

requirements, and the overall performance of AECL5

is meeting requirements.6

We think this has all again been7

reflected in the high degree of support that Chalk8

River is enjoying from its neighbouring9

communities.10

Thank you again for the11

opportunity to speak. I would be pleased to12

answer any questions.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very14

much for your presentation.15

Are there any questions or16

comments from Commission Members?17

Dr. Giroux.18

MEMBER GIROUX: I think we realize19

quite well that you are representing the nuclear20

industry, and AECL and MDS Nordion are members of21

the organization.22

In considering that, does the23

Association itself have any concerns concerning24

the report card which has been presented by staff,25

���������

182

which includes four areas out of fourteen which1

are below requirements?2

Does that concern the Association?3

MR. SHPYTH: As a whole, the4

industry association is interested in and is5

concerned with overall industry performance. As6

an industry association as a whole, we are7

supportive of efforts our members take to improve8

the performance, be it the reactor setting, in9

their capacity factors, in program evaluations.10

It is something we know and have come to believe11

has been demonstrated elsewhere; that solid12

performance with respect to environment, health13

and safety is very much tied to solid performance14

in other areas that the industry is interested in:15

economics. And both can make a significant16

contribution to the level of public support.17

We are pleased to see that the18

systems that AECL have in place are showing19

improvement in a number of those areas that were20

identified as concerns earlier and are supportive21

of our members' efforts to bring about those22

improvements in their programs.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.24

MEMBER DOSMAN: If I might, Mr.25

���������

183

Shpyth, would I be correct if I surmised from your1

reply to Dr. Giroux that safety, at least until2

this time, has not been a major component of your3

Association's activities?4

MR. SHPYTH: If that is what I5

implied, I will apologize. It certainly was not6

the intent.7

The industry association is8

interested in not only its members' interests; it9

recognizes that for the nuclear industry to be10

successful, it has to also be able to respond11

positively to the public's interests.12

With respect to environment,13

health and safety, we see those are areas where14

the industry and the public and the regulator15

actually all share a common interest. We all want16

to see well-run facilities, safe for the workers,17

safe for the public, safe for the environment.18

So if I implied that it has only19

been a recent concern, then I was in error in20

giving you that impression.21

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very23

much.24

We are going to take a ten-minute25

���������

184

break. Then we will be back and resume our1

hearing.2

--- Upon recessing at 3:40 p.m.3

--- Upon resuming at 3:45 p.m.4

5

03-H2.186

Oral presentation by National Research Council7

Canada8

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move9

to the next submission, which is CMD 03-H2-18. I10

believe Dr. Root is with us today as Director of11

the Council.12

Dr. Root, please proceed.13

DR. ROOT: Thank you very much for14

the opportunity to make this presentation. As I15

am limited to 10 minutes and, as your letter16

points out, I will use my allotted time to17

emphasize key points of the letter that you have18

already received.19

I would like to focus on the20

importance of the unique facilities at Chalk River21

Laboratories for science, technology, education22

and society in Canada and worldwide, and I would23

like to amplify and explain the community that we24

are talking about.25

���������

185

This hearing is about1

communication and good management of the licensee2

with regards to the community. In my case, the3

community is an international community of4

scientists who use Chalk River Laboratories as a5

resource for their research.6

I believe there are slides.7

My name is John Root. I am the8

Director of the NRC's Neutron Program for9

Materials Research, which is operated at Chalk10

River all the time. A small staff of scientists11

and technicians who operate a suite of instruments12

at the NRU reactor as an international user13

facility.14

Next slide.15

In 1999 Canadian Bert Brockhouse16

won a Nobel prize in physics for the pioneering17

work he completed in Canada. He developed this18

technique called neutron scattering, which is a19

powerful and versatile method for looking at20

materials at the level of molecules and nano-21

structures.22

This is a very powerful probe of23

materials and the knowledge that you get with24

neutrons can be spun out into every aspect of life25

���������

186

and society. He was quoted as saying:1

"If the neutron did not exist2

it would need to be invented."3

In order to use neutrons to probe4

materials you need a neutron source and it needs5

to be a large-scale facility.6

Could I see the next slide,7

please.8

In Canada, our only suitable9

source of neutrons is the NRU reactor at Chalk10

River, which was built in 1957 as a multi-purpose11

neutron source. One of the things that we do is12

take neutrons out of the reactor through beams,13

direct them on materials to learn about their14

structures at the molecular and nano-level.15

This is still one of the top five16

neutron sources in the world for this kind of17

scientific research.18

Next slide.19

So we are running a neutron beam20

laboratory. It is a national facility. Around21

the NRU reactor on the main floor there are five22

neutron spectrometers. These are the instruments23

that use neutron beams from the reactor to probe24

materials.25

���������

187

The operation is managed by the1

National Research Council. We have users from2

university, industry and government laboratories.3

Across Canada we are dealing with over 204

universities and around the world people from5

every continent.6

Next slide, please.7

So there it is as a picture. It8

is not very easy to see. But it is truly a9

national program.10

There are over 350 people who are11

members of the Canadian Institute for Neutron12

Scattering, which is the advocacy group that13

represents the needs of neutron scatterers in14

Canada to decision-makers and funding agencies.15

Over 250 of those members are from16

Canada and they include professors, scientists17

from industry, students and interested persons18

from the public.19

Next slide, please.20

The research on materials has both21

academic and industrial applications.22

Just to give you an idea of how23

many human beings come to the laboratory each24

year, last year there were 91 different people25

���������

188

making 110 visits to the lab to get hands-on1

experience with the neutron beam instruments.2

Fifty-one of these were Canadians, 33 of them were3

students.4

They were in projects involving5

over 200 researchers, not all of whom visit, many6

of whom are connected from their home institution.7

The photographs give you an idea8

that the materials fall into many different9

disciplines, structural chemistry, materials10

engineering, biophysics, mineralogy, and so on.11

Next slide, please.12

So you can guess that there is a13

very important aspect of our operation to do with14

education, developing highly qualified personnel15

for Canada's innovation system. We are bringing16

these people to use an important nuclear17

technology to learn the scientific method, to work18

in a production laboratory and then to go out into19

society and make an impact.20

One of the roles that we see that21

is important at Chalk River is the development of22

highly qualified personnel, even for the nuclear23

industry. In our part of Chalk River we run24

summer schools, workshops, we have hands-on25

���������

189

experiments, projects at our graduate student1

theses and positions for post-doctoral2

researchers.3

Next slide, please.4

Although a large portion of our5

work has results that go into the public domain,6

publications and peer review journals, a certain7

fraction of what we do, about 15 per cent, is of8

direct impact on industry. By this we mean not9

the nuclear industry but all of industry.10

There are some photographs here to11

show examples. In the automotive industry we use12

neutrons to probe inside an intact engine block,13

which is a prototype. The question is asked of14

the car manufacturer: What are the stresses15

inside the block? Only neutrons can get that16

information out non-destructively. That has a17

bearing on new products, improved gas mileage,18

improved reliability of an industrial product.19

At the bottom left there is a man20

holding a black tank. That is a compressed21

natural gas cylinder. It is actually thin-walled22

aluminum, very light, suitable to carry around in23

a car. To give it the strength to hold the24

compressed gas is a carbon fibre epoxy. It is an25

���������

190

innovative product developed by a Canadian1

company.2

The question that neutrons are3

providing the answer for has to do with4

suitability or fitness for service of this5

pressure vessel, which is evaluated through6

computer modelling, but we need neutrons to test7

whether the computer models are true or not.8

There are other examples from other industries.9

These are talking about hard10

materials and the issues we deal with are public11

safety, economics, opening new markets and12

addressing regulatory concerns.13

Next slide, please.14

The laboratory is constantly15

innovating and we are moving into new areas. The16

growth areas right now in Canada's program are in17

the medical and life sciences, foods, polymers and18

information technology.19

These are the materials of the20

21st century where the length scale of structures21

is measured in nanometres rather than angstroms.22

So you are looking at things like membranes and23

proteins in living systems, you are looking at24

electronic devices that have layers that are25

���������

191

nanometres thick like plastic, light emitting1

diodes for computer displays, you are looking at2

foods.3

So we are dealing in general with4

soft materials now, issues of health and lifestyle5

and, again, economics, opening new markets and6

regulations.7

Next slide, please.8

One example to give you an idea of9

an impact neutrons can make on health. This is a10

new material which is a lipid. Basically it is a11

biological molecule that can be prepared in a way12

that creates little hollow spheres into which you13

can place a pharmaceutical. These spheres can14

then be injected into the body, they can be made15

site-specific, to be attracted to a tumour for16

example, and deliver the pharmaceutical over a17

suitable half-life in a most efficient way.18

Where neutrons play a role here is19

in learning about the size, shape and stability of20

the vesicles under various conditions so that the21

material and the product can be developed as22

quickly as possible.23

The final slide.24

To highlight comments related to25

���������

192

the licence, I think our experience working with1

the licensee at Chalk River has been very2

positive. The regulatory environment is3

challenging. The way that we interact with the4

licensee, through a contract with them, is to be5

effectively a branch of Atomic Energy of Canada6

Limited, so we are obliged to follow all of the7

same safety regulations, training protocols,8

procedures for working with radiological materials9

and radiation-emitting devices. We follow the10

same rules as the licensee and fit seamlessly in11

with their management of the safety issues.12

We find the communications with13

the licensee to be continuous, frank and14

practical. We feel that we get high quality15

support from the licensee and that they are, in16

effect, providing the support to an important17

national and international community.18

It is my sincere opinion that19

safety is a top priority for the licensee, just as20

it is for the National Research Council of Canada.21

It is very important to us that when we bring22

users on-site that they are not subjected to any23

undue risk from a radiation point of view.24

Thanks.25

���������

193

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for1

your presentation.2

Are there any questions or3

comments for this presentation?4

Dr. Dosman.5

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam6

Chair.7

Dr. Root, I am impressed at what8

your laboratory does. However, in regard to your9

letter, your comments on security, I was wondering10

whether these comments had been approved by the11

President of NRC or the Board of NRC?12

DR. ROOT: This letter was13

reviewed by Corporate. Secretary General was the14

person who reviewed it and approved it.15

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux.17

MEMBER GIROUX: That was my first18

question, so that is answered.19

The other question is: Your20

visiting scientists and students, are they21

considered as nuclear workers in terms of the22

dose?23

DR. ROOT: Yes. As I said, we are24

subjected to the same procedures as the other25

���������

194

employees of AECL. So the first step is to1

receive Group 4 training when they arrive on site,2

which is given to all contractors, and it is to3

inform them about the general safety issues of the4

site, the alarms, what to do in the case of an5

emergency, and at that time they are informed that6

they are designated to be nuclear energy workers.7

MEMBER GIROUX: I'm sorry, that is8

not exactly my question.9

DR. ROOT: Okay.10

MEMBER GIROUX: My question was11

concerning the allowable dose that they may12

receive in a year. If they are designated as13

nuclear workers the dose is, what, 5014

millisieverts in one year and 100 in five years.15

Otherwise it is the dose of the public.16

DR. ROOT: They are deemed to be17

nuclear energy workers at the lowest dose.18

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman.19

MEMBER DOSMAN: I was just20

wondering, Dr. Root, if you were aware that the21

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the22

facilities that we regulate are on heightened23

security status at the present time?24

DR. ROOT: I am certainly aware of25

���������

195

that. We have to deal with it every day. Our1

visitors go through the same security checks. We2

have enhanced security clearance to allow them to3

have access to the controlled Area 1. To get the4

ability to have unescorted access in controlled5

Area 2 they have to have site access clearance.6

Not all of our users are able to7

get that clearance and the way we accommodate them8

is to provide continuous escort by our staff.9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.10

We have said this in a few letters11

lately so I will just repeat what is in the12

letters: The Commission makes no apologies for13

having a high standard of security. We feel that14

this is suitable. The ratings which AECL has15

received are commensurate with their application16

of the requirements that we put forward.17

It is, I think, the current18

reality and probably, I would predict, the future19

reality of facilities in Canada.20

So thank you very much for your21

presentation and thank you very much for coming22

here today.23

DR. ROOT: I certainly didn't mean24

to suggest any other than you have just said.25

���������

196

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.1

DR. ROOT: I am just wanting you2

to recognize that it is a challenge and within3

that environment we are able to work with the4

licensee in a practical way.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.6

7

8

03-H2.19 / 03-H2.19.A9

Oral presentation by Citizens for Renewable Energy10

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are now going11

to move to our next submission, which is an oral12

presentation from the Citizens for Renewable13

Energy, as outlined in CMD documents 03-H2.19 and14

03-H2.19.A.15

Mr. Ziggy Kleinau is going to be16

joining us, but he is joining us by teleconference17

today.18

I am just going to wait for him.19

I think he is on-line.20

Mr. Kleinau, are you with us?21

MR. KLEINAU: Yes, I'm here.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome today.23

Unfortunately you are not with us here in Chalk24

River, but we would like to hear your presentation25

���������

197

and the floor is now yours, sir.1

MR. KLEINAU: Thank you very much.2

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the3

Commission.4

Thank you very much for the5

opportunity to present a submission on the Chalk6

River Laboratories operating licence renewal on7

behalf of Citizens for Renewable Energy, a non-8

profit organization incorporated in Ontario seven9

years ago. A considerable number of our members10

reside in the downstream region of the Ottawa11

River.12

I am at a bit of a disadvantage by13

not being able to listen to the proponents and the14

CNSC staff presentations, so please keep that in15

context with our presentation.16

With your permission, I would like17

to go first to our supplementary submission, the18

H2.19.A. We would like to express our concerns in19

regard to the MOX fuels that have been shipped20

from the USA and Russia by air transport two years21

ago.22

We really are very upset that this23

plutonium -- actually is the plutonium from24

decommissioned nuclear warheads -- is being tested25

���������

198

there and treated. We are looking especially at1

the Russian MOX fuel has almost one-third more of2

the A-bomb plutonium 239 than MOX fuel from3

reprocessing for civilian reactor use.4

The A-bomb trigger has the unique5

propensity to go super critical. That needs to be6

especially pointed out in context with any7

accident scenario.8

We have looked at the emergency9

planning, first the CNSC staff. There are only a10

couple of small lines in the CNSC CMD. They are11

looking at on-site events only. I can't believe12

that nobody would ever figure that there couldn't13

be any off-site problems with events, emissions,14

especially with a lot of plutonium on-site.15

AECL has a few chapters on their16

emergency planning, but they are saying that full-17

scale simulated off-site tests are only done every18

five years. We are very upset about something19

like that. Over five years a lot of planning20

could go by the wayside and how effective would it21

be to have these tests only every five years?22

We really need to be assured that23

there are emergency planning tests on off-site24

events done more than a year, every year.25

���������

199

We also have a concern with the1

failure of AECL to submit the complete2

decommissioning plan, including full financial3

guarantees as required under any new or renewed4

licence. Apparently the CNSC let's them get away5

with having it in place only at the end of this6

year. I can't see how a licence can be given to a7

proponent under those circumstances.8

We also object to the9

discriminatory withholding of information from the10

public stakeholders, shareholders, necessary to11

judge safe and precautionary operation of the12

facilities.13

I have been trying to read the14

submission on the preliminary decommissioning15

plants and it certainly gives me a case of black16

out because of all the black ink in there.17

We have reviewed the CMD 03-H2 and18

are appalled at the way CNSC staff evaluates that19

operation of this huge nuclear research and test20

establishment operated by Atomic Energy of Canada21

Limited since 1952. Reading in the introduction,22

the last sentence on page 6 says it all:23

"Therefore, staff's conclusion24

is that the proposed further25

���������

200

operation of CRL is acceptably1

safe, even though the program2

portion of two safety areas3

and the implementation portion4

of 3..."5

Yes:6

"...3 safety areas are7

assessed as `below8

requirements'." (As read)9

Where is the logic? Do we not10

have to have at least a "meets requirements" "B"11

rating to let this highly dangerous research plant12

continue to operate?13

No improvement is expected,14

according to staff, in quality assurance and15

training programs. AECL has not bothered to16

address issues in its top tier Quality Assurance17

Manual setting out its general requirements and18

practices that CNSC staff found unsatisfactory.19

20

Processes are not clearly defined21

for, among others, environmental protection,22

procedure control and implementation and the23

disabling of certain safety equipment.24

The CMD goes on and on with more25

���������

201

than seven deficiencies that showed up in a 20011

audit which AECL has failed to address.2

We should stop right there,3

because obviously safety is not one of AECL's4

concerns.5

ALARA rules are not a priority to6

AECL, as argon-41 emissions assessment has not7

been completed to staff's satisfaction. Radiation8

protection is a significant part of the nuclear9

safety culture, however AECL failed to meet even10

some of its own requirements in addition to some11

CNSC regulatory requirements. That is found on12

page 22.13

Since fire protection is such an14

important safety issue, the proposed operating15

licence conditions 10.1 to 10.5 should have16

immediate implementation dates inserted. We don't17

see them in the draft licence.18

Since several of the safety system19

upgrades of the aged National Research Universal20

reactor, the NRU, are still outstanding, this unit21

should be taken out of service and not permitted22

to operate until fully safety tested and then23

definitely shut down at the previously agreed24

date.25

���������

202

Decommissioning plans and1

financial guarantees are not in place. We need a2

rigorous approach by the Commission to assure the3

public of upholding its mandate.4

We also find that there is quite a5

lack in the radiation monitoring, because the6

staff points out they have no figures, no7

estimates on what kind of Cobalt-60 and C-14 is8

going with the plume into the Ottawa River. That9

is something of great concern to us and our10

members.11

So we strongly recommend the12

Commission only issue a provisionary licence of13

six months, to force AECL to speedily correct all14

those serious safety shortcomings.15

Thank you very much for taking our16

deep concerns and our recommendations under17

serious consideration.18

I would like to stay on the line19

in case there are questions.20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please, Mr.21

Kleinau. Please stay on the line.22

MR. KLEINAU: Thank you.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are right,24

earlier in the day there was a fairly extensive25

���������

203

discussion of some of these issues. I would like1

to just start by asking CNSC staff if they could2

just give Mr. Kleinau an update with regards to3

the ratings that were discussed earlier and then I4

will open the floor for questions from the other5

Commission Members. There were a number of other6

issues that weren't discussed today or weren't7

specifically addressed.8

Mr. Howden.9

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden10

speaking.11

Since Day 1 there has been changes12

to the ratings and those were included in our13

supplemental CMD that was issued on April 2nd.14

The changes are:15

for performance assurance the16

trend is now being shown as improving;17

for radiation protection the trend18

is being shown as improving; and19

for security implementation has20

been upgraded to "meets expectation" and the21

improving trend continues.22

MR. KLEINAU: Hello.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: You are still24

with us, sir.25

���������

204

MR. KLEINAU: Okay. Yes?1

THE CHAIRPERSON: We did explore2

this morning the reasons behind the changed3

rating.4

I will turn it over to my5

colleagues first for any questions for Mr.6

Kleinau.7

I guess I have a question for8

staff that comes out of your submission, sir, and9

that is with regards to fire protection.10

Are there any comments that staff11

would like to make with regards to Mr. Kleinau's12

presentation?13

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden14

speaking.15

The five new fire conditions that16

are in the proposed new licence would come into17

effect the day the licence is issued, if it is18

issued, by the Commission.19

THE CHAIRPERSON: The second20

question would be with regards to MOX.21

Are there any comments that AECL22

would like to make about MOX?23

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Yes. I think the24

first comment is, this was a program conducted at25

���������

205

the request of the Government of Canada.1

The other point I would like to2

make is that we are talking about quantities of3

MOX about the size of two "AA" batteries. So I4

think some of the allusions were not quite the5

actual situation.6

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there7

further questions for Mr. Kleinau?8

That seems to be all the9

questions, sir. Thank you very much for10

participating. I realize by teleconference it is11

not quite the same as being in person, but thank12

you very much.13

MR. KLEINAU: It was pretty hard14

to get up there with about two feet of snow on the15

ground at this place here.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It's hard17

to believe it's April.18

Thank you very much, sir.19

MR. KLEINAU: Thank you.20

21

03-H2.2022

Exposé oral par le Club Richelieu-Longpré23

LA PRÉSIDENTE: Nous allons24

maintenant passer au prochain mémoire, une25

���������

206

présentation du Club Richelieu-Longpré, tel1

qu'indiqué dans le CMD 03-H2.20.2

Je crois que le président, M.3

Bernard Sénéchal, est avec nous pour présenter le4

mémoire.5

Monsieur Sénéchal.6

M. LANGLAIS: Merci, madame la7

présidente et membres de la Commission pour me8

laisser la chance de vous parler aujourd'hui.9

Notre président, Bernard Sénéchal,10

ne pouvait pas venir et m'a demandé de le11

remplacer.12

Mon nom est Charles Langlais et je13

suis membre et ancien président du Club Richelieu-14

Longpré qui vient tout juste de célébrer 20 ans de15

d'existence dans la région de Pembroke.16

Notre club est exclusivement17

francophone. Son but est de promouvoir la18

francophonie par le biais d'activités sociales,19

culturelles et humanitaires, plus particulièrement20

orientées vers la jeunesse.21

Je vous dirai tout de suite qu'une22

bonne proportion de nos membres, qu'ils soient23

encore dans le milieu du travail ou à la retraite,24

proviennent des Laboratoires de Chalk River.25

���������

207

Notre club est donc très fier de venir soutenir1

l'Énergie atomique du Canada dans ses efforts de2

renouvellement de permis devant la Commission.3

Durant nos 20 années d'existence4

nous avons vraiment bénéficié de notre association5

avec l'Énergie atomique du Canada, autant pour6

notre club directement que pour les membres de la7

communauté.8

On doit dire que chez EACL ils9

pensent vraiment aux conséquences de leur10

opération sur les alentours. C'est un peu normal,11

me direz vous, car ces gens là vivent tous comme12

nous dans les villages et les villes entourant les13

laboratoires. Ils respirent le même air que nous;14

ils boivent la même eau et ils profitent de la15

merveilleuse nature qui nous entoure et que nous16

voulons préserver.17

Nous recevons régulièrement des18

nouvelles de nos voisins scientifiques afin de19

nous tenir au courant sur ce qui se passe à Chalk20

River. Par exemple, j'ai reçu à la maison le21

numéro 8 des � Nouvelles des Laboratoires de Chalk22

River � pour la période automne 2002/hiver 2003 où23

l'on offre un page entière, une mise à jour sur24

divers aspects du rendement aux Laboratoires de25

���������

208

Chalk River. Tous les paramètres montrés nous1

prouvent que l'Énergie atomique du Canada2

satisfait les normes réglementaires. On peut3

vraiment se sentir en toute sécurité.4

J'y ai même lu, Mme Keen, que vous5

êtes venue dans notre région en Octobre 2002. Je6

suis très heureux que vous soyez venue rencontrer7

les maires et autres intervenants de la région.8

Ce que je retiens le plus de votre discours c'est9

que la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire10

travaille pour la population canadienne et non11

pour les titulaires de permis.12

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec13

cette position, mais il ne faut pas oublier que14

l'Énergie atomique du Canada travaille aussi pour15

la population canadienne car lorsqu'on regarde ce16

que cette société de la Couronne a fait depuis 5017

ans on se doit de constater que tous les Canadiens18

profitent beaucoup de leur succès et de leur19

superbe technologie.20

En effet, ce sont les réacteurs21

CANDU qui fournissent aux Ontariens une grande22

partie de l'électricité dont ils ont besoin. Les23

réacteurs CANDU sont aussi présents dans d'autres24

provinces Canadiennes.25

���������

209

Aussi, ce sont les radio-isotopes1

médicaux qui sont produits ici à Chalk River qui2

aident à diagnostiquer et à sauver des milliers de3

patients à chaque année, et ce non seulement au4

Canada mais aussi dans plusieurs pays du monde.5

Que dire aussi des prestigieux6

hommages rendus à de célèbres chercheurs qui ont7

travaillé à Chalk River? En plus de ces grands8

personnages les Laboratoires de Chalk River ont9

aidé à former de nombreux professionnels qui10

oeuvrent dans la communauté canadienne et11

outremer.12

L'Énergie atomique du Canada13

participe à fond dans les causes humanitaires14

telles que Centraide à laquelle chaque année les15

employés de ce grand voisin contribuent très16

généreusement.17

Que dire des retombées financières18

très importantes car les quelque 2 000 employés19

des Laboratoires de Chalk River contribuent aux20

taxes locales, achètent dans les commerces de la21

région et aident énormément à faire tourner22

l'économie de la région.23

Je veux vous parler de quelques24

causes humanitaires auxquelles je vois les gens de25

���������

210

l'Énergie atomique du Canada participer. Vous1

connaissez sans doute le � Relais pour la vie �,2

une activité très spéciale qui a pour but de3

ramasser des fonds pour la recherche contre le4

cancer. Il faut vraiment vouloir aider son5

prochain pour passer une nuit entière à marcher ou6

courir avec des gens de partout dans la région,7

parfois des étrangers, afin de compléter le plus8

de tours de pistes possibles. C'est vraiment9

spécial et très touchant de côtoyer des survivants10

du cancer qui viennent nous dire � Que c'est beau11

la Vie! �.12

Eh bien, chaque année le Club13

Longpré participe à cette importante campagne de14

la Société canadienne du cancer et ce qui est15

vraiment particulier c'est qu'on le fait côte à16

côte avec nos amis de l'Énergie atomique du17

Canada. Je vous le dis : ces gens là ont le coeur18

à la bonne place!19

Je veux aussi parler de l'aide à20

l'emploi. L'Énergie atomique du Canada est un21

employeur de choix et favorise grandement les22

jeunes de notre communauté. La semaine dernière,23

soit les 4 et 5 avril, il y avait une foire à24

���������

211

l'emploi à Petawawa et l'Énergie atomique du1

Canada était là pour montrer aux jeunes du2

primaire et secondaire les possibilités pour ceux3

qui veulent apprendre un métier.4

Saviez-vous que l'Énergie atomique5

du Canada s'est affiliée avec une école de Cobden6

afin de montrer aux jeunes comment les techniques7

spécialisées et les métiers fonctionnent en8

pratique? Cet échange de connaissances fait en9

sorte que les jeunes sont beaucoup mieux équipés10

quand ils ont terminé l'école.11

En ce qui concerne notre club,12

nous avons une grande confiance dans les13

gestionnaires de l'Énergie atomique du Canada, et14

je crois qu'ils l'ont démontré constamment surtout15

à la population du comté de Renfrew et à nos16

voisins du Québec.17

Nous tenons donc à dire que nous18

sommes tout à fait en faveur d'un prolongement de19

permis le plus long possible du permis de20

l'Énergie atomique du Canada à Chalk River.21

Madame Keen et membres de la22

Commission, je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre23

attention. Je suis disponible pour répondre à vos24

questions.25

���������

212

LA PRÉSIDENTE: Merci beaucoup,1

monsieur.2

Est-ce qu'il y a des questions ou3

des commentaires?4

Monsieur Giroux.5

MEMBRE GIROUX: Avec votre6

permission, madame la présidente.7

Une première question de curiosité8

personnelle, monsieur Langlais, si vous permettez.9

Pouvez-vous me dire combien il y a de membres dans10

votre club?11

M. LANGLAIS: C'est variable.12

Présentement nous sommes 22 membres, plus ou moins13

un, si je ne me trompe pas. Nous avons eu jusqu'à14

25 membres, des fois une vingtaine seulement, mais15

ça varie aux alentours de ça.16

MEMBRE GIROUX: Merci.17

L'autre question plus de18

substance, j'ai lu que vous êtes une association19

exclusivement francophone. Au sujet des20

communications d'EACL avec la communauté, avec21

l'ensemble de la population, avez-vous22

l'impression que l'information est présentée, et23

publiée également, aussi rapidement en français24

qu'en anglais, et en particulier êtes-vous25

���������

213

sensibles aux questions des mesures d'urgence dans1

lesquelles on peut avoir à sortir de l'information2

très rapidement pour avertir la population?3

Avez-vous déjà eu l'occasion de4

participer, par exemple, à des exercices5

d'entraînement pour les mesures d'urgence et de6

vérifier si l'information vient aussi rapidement7

pour le français que pour l'anglais?8

M. LANGLAIS: L'information à9

laquelle j'ai référé plus tôt, que j'ai reçue pour10

l'automne et l'hiver, était dans les deux langues.11

Alors ça c'est fait régulièrement.12

Pour la sécurité, c'est le même13

genre d'information qui est en général publiée14

dans les deux langues. Je n'ai malheureusement15

pas participé personnellement à un exercice.16

Alors je ne sais pas.17

LA PRÉSIDENTE: D'autres18

questions?19

Merci beaucoup, monsieur.20

21

03-H2.2122

Oral presentation by Sierra Club of Canada23

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are now going24

to move to the next submission, which is an oral25

���������

214

presentation from Sierra Club of Canada which is1

outlined in CMD document 03-H2.21.2

Mr. David Martin is with us today3

to present the submission. He is a policy advisor4

with Sierra Club of Canada.5

Welcome, Mr. Martin.6

MR. D. MARTIN: Thank you, Madam7

President and Members of the Commission.8

I would like to say off the bat9

that the Sierra Club does not accept or feel that10

the rules of procedure of the CNSC are fair to11

public interest intervenors. I won't go into12

details because one of the problems is I only have13

10 minutes, but I would be happy to answer any14

questions on that.15

Chalk River is Canada's nuclear16

sacrifice area and it must be cleaned up. So far17

AECL and CNSC have fumbled the job. With a 100-18

year operational period to come and an additional19

300-year period of institutional control, the20

problem is clearly being left to our descendants.21

That is unacceptable.22

The Sierra Club isn't the only23

group concerned about Chalk River. Let me quote24

another public interest organization on the25

���������

215

disorganization and financial uncertainty that1

surround AECL's clean-up effort. This is a quote:2

"There is no consensus between3

... [AECL] and the government4

on how best to manage these5

activities..."6

Referring to radioactive waste7

management and decommissioning:8

"...or on which federal9

department or agency will be10

financially responsible for11

them beyond the five-year12

period..."13

That is of the current corporate14

plan.15

"While Atomic Energy of Canada16

Limited's commercial17

activities will assist in18

funding these activities, it19

is by no means certain that20

its contribution will provide21

all the funding required."22

That was the Office of the Auditor23

General in its December 2002 report.24

That statement, I would note,25

���������

216

directly contradicts Mr. Van Adel's assertion1

today that AECL is "in excellent shape" for2

decommissioning and waste management.3

I would like to thank Dr. Barnes4

for his earlier questions on the matter of5

disclosure. When Mr. Van Adel comes before you6

and says that AECL is "engaged in open and honest7

communication" and that AECL has a "information8

sharing culture" and that AECL is open and9

transparent, I have kind of a surreal sensation10

that I am saying the emperor has no clothes.11

The background here is that Sierra12

Club of Canada originally made an access to13

information request to the CNSC in February 200214

for AECL's decommissioning documents. We had15

partial releases in May and August of last year,16

but AECL withheld most of the material on the17

basis of security and commercial confidentiality.18

We subsequently appealed that to19

the Information Commissioner on the basis of20

public interest, and I can report to you that just21

this week the Information Commissioner has sent22

off a letter to AECL, with the support of the23

CNSC, and they now have 30 days to respond to that24

and I'm told then the only alternative is for the25

���������

217

Information Commissioner or Sierra Club to take1

them to court to obtain this information.2

I have no problem, let me say,3

with material being legitimately withheld for4

security and commercial reasons, but emissions5

data and names of buildings and decommissioning6

plans should not be kept secret. AECL is simply7

trying to keep the public in the dark about the8

environmental problems at Chalk River. That is9

not right and the CNSC needs to bring pressure to10

bear.11

AECL is withholding most of the12

ecological effects review, contrary to what Mr.13

Lafrenière said earlier when he said that emission14

data was released. He was referring to long-term15

emissions data. It wasn't in that package. We16

received simply a partial bit of the text. The17

appendices weren't included.18

Similarly, many other documents,19

including the preliminary decommissioning plans20

and the detailed decommissioning plans, are being21

withheld.22

Through you, Madam President, to23

Mr. Van Adel, I would like to ask: Is he prepared24

to release this information or are we going to be25

���������

218

in the position of having one Crown agency, the1

Information Commissioner, take another to court in2

order to obtain information, and waste taxpayer's3

money to obtain material that should be on the4

public record now.5

On the matter of the licence6

period, AECL originally asked for a 53-month, that7

is four-year five-month licence. CNSC staff then8

nominally supported a 31-month licence period.9

I would just like to observe that10

since the original licence expired back on October11

31st and they then got a seven-month extension,12

that was really a 38-month licence proposal, not13

31.14

CNSC staff in their Day 2 now15

nominally recommend the 38-month licence. In16

reality this is a 45-month, three-year nine-month17

licence, because of last year's seven-month18

extension.19

I believe that the CNSC already20

sent the wrong message to AECL by extending its21

licence for seven months, to May 31st, without a22

public hearing. It sent another wrong message23

with a proposed extended licence period. Now the24

situation has been aggravated even more.25

���������

219

CNSC staff argue that this is1

because:2

"The licensee shows a3

consistent and good history of4

operating experience and5

compliance in carrying out the6

licensed activity." (As read)7

I.e., consistent with the new8

staff approach to recommending licence periods.9

I believe that AECL has shown just10

the opposite of the consistent good history. The11

upgrade of the performance assessment from "C" to12

"B" for security implementation took place,13

however four of the 14 safety area categories in14

the seven safety areas are rated "C" still, i.e.,15

"below requirements". The balance are "B", that16

is "meets requirements". None of them, no one17

seems to have noted, are "A". Presumably that18

would mean "above requirements".19

That is definitely not the kind of20

performance that we would expect from an21

organization that Mr. Van Adel has referred to as22

"obsessed" -- "obsessed" no less -- "obsessed by23

quality, excellence and safety".24

AECL's lack of good operating25

���������

220

experience can also be seen in consistent delays1

in the decommissioning planning. Why has the2

Auditor General had to raise the red flag that he3

has?4

CNSC staff see only problem with5

their generous concession to AECL and that, of6

course, is the NRU reactor scheduled to be shut7

down at the end of 2005, which was the originally8

proposed licence expiry date. Now it will shift9

to July 31, 2006. So staff have inserted a10

licence condition that the NRU will remain shut11

down "unless otherwise authorized by the12

Commission". That was 13.1.13

Because AECL has already said it14

wants the NRU to continue operating past December15

31, 2005, the CRL extension has the effect of16

taking the NRU life extension out of the17

jurisdiction of a direct Commission decision --18

although I would be happy to be corrected on that,19

but it seems that is what is going on -- and I20

believe that is in appropriate. No direct21

Commission decision means no direct public input.22

CNSC staff are, in effect,23

rewarding bad behaviour by giving AECL an even24

longer licence period.25

���������

221

The opposite should be happening.1

Keeping decisions in the public domain is even2

more relevant to the decommissioning process.3

Staff have allowed AECL yet another extension to4

the deadline for arriving at a financial guarantee5

for decommissioning until the end of the year.6

It is for that reason that the7

Sierra Club of Canada strongly urges you to8

implement a one-year licence. This decision9

should not be delegated to staff, it should be a10

decision of the full Commission. I am referring11

to the decommissioning financial guarantee.12

AECL is not managing its13

radioactive waste and decommissioning14

responsibilities properly. This will affect not15

only the Chalk River site but the downstream16

communities for hundreds of years to come and this17

should be subject to public scrutiny and not18

settled, as usual, in the back rooms in Chalk19

River and in Ottawa.20

I have a question for the21

Commission: If you do not give Chalk River a one-22

year licence, what happens when AECL, predictably,23

again misses its deadline for producing a24

financial guarantee? What happens when AECL again25

���������

222

falls, predictably, behind on its decommissioning1

plans? What leverage will you have?2

On the question of full Panel3

assessment -- I'm sorry, I'm not following my4

time.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: You're fine.6

MR. D. MARTIN: Am I doing okay?7

On the question of a full panel8

assessment, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County9

and Sierra Club of Canada have called for a full10

panel environmental assessment on the overall11

decommissioning plan for Chalk River.12

CNSC staff and the Minister have13

supported AECL in a narrow interpretation of the14

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act that a15

decommissioning plan does not constitute a project16

under the Act. So about 30-some-odd separate17

decommissioning plans for separate facilities at18

Chalk River have been undertaken with no publicly19

reviewed overall plan integrating them. We can't20

even, as you know, obtain copies of these isolated21

plans.22

This piecemeal, fractured approach23

will have several undesirable impacts. It will24

result in redundant and wasteful analysis; there25

���������

223

will be a failure to take into account synergic1

environmental and public health effects;2

potentially wasteful and ineffective remediation3

efforts will take place; a failure to determine4

the most desirable prioritization for5

decommissioning efforts may not take place; and,6

last but not least, public participation will be7

discouraged.8

I would argue this is in violation9

of section 4 of the Canadian Environmental10

Assessment Act. I won't read that out, but it is11

in my submission. You should also check out12

section 15(2).13

There is a reason, I would argue14

also, why the site licence holder authority has15

been consolidated for all of Chalk River licence16

facilities as Mr. Lafrenière noted. It makes17

obvious sense to me, as it did to him, to18

coordinate management of a complex facility like19

Chalk River Laboratories. There is a reason why20

CNSC staff assesses AECL performance at Chalk21

River not on the basis of individual facilities22

but on the overall site. That is why we have23

those seven safety areas.24

CNSC staff see the logic of this.25

���������

224

They act on it. AECL acts on this and sees the1

logic of it. I strongly urge you to re-evaluate2

the CNSC position. It is a very, very important3

matter.4

Then finally on environmental5

monitoring. Obviously in many respects off-site6

radioactive contamination from Chalk River is the7

most important environmental issue for CRL8

operations.9

The new CRL licence should include10

a licence condition requiring AECL to monitor11

radioactive airborne and waterborne releases,12

including contamination of both groundwater and13

surface water, and to make an annual public report14

on the findings.15

We intend to request emissions16

data from recent years and we ask you and AECL to17

release this information. I would also like to18

obtain, of course, the environmental effects19

review in full. There will be no environmental20

protection ultimately and no public accountability21

without true transparency and disclosure.22

Thank you.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr.24

Martin. You have raised a number of questions and25

���������

225

I will get my Commission Members to address some1

of those that they wish to do.2

I think I would like to start out3

first of all just for clarification. On the NRU,4

my understanding and my reading of this CMD -- and5

I just want to make sure I have it clarified with6

the staff -- is that there is an intention to put7

in a licence condition with regards to that.8

I would like the staff to address9

that, please.10

MS MALONEY: It is Cait Maloney11

here.12

You are correct, Madam President,13

staff has proposed a licence condition on that.14

In the condition we have specified that operation15

past 2005 would be at the discretion of the16

Commission. There is no provision for delegation17

of that and staff are not seeking that that18

decision would be made by anyone other than the19

Commission itself.20

MR. D. MARTIN: Can I assume that?21

THE CHAIRPERSON: You can assume22

that the Commission will take on --23

MR. D. MARTIN: It is a hearing24

level decision. Is that right?25

���������

226

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it will.1

Yes.2

MR. D. MARTIN: Thank you for that3

clarification.4

THE CHAIRPERSON: The second5

question that I need to address, you asked me to6

ask Mr. Van Adel a specific question with regards7

to information disclosure. I would like to do8

that.9

Mr. Van Adel, would you like that10

repeated or are you comfortable with the question?11

MR. VAN ADEL: I believe it was in12

reference to a specific instance that is under13

consideration and we will conduct ourselves in14

accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.15

The gentleman from the Sierra16

Club, Mr. Martin, is quite familiar with the17

process. We have gone through a number of18

instances, I think, with the Sierra Club, one in19

particular where recently there was a ruling in20

our favour in terms of not disclosing certain21

information that was requested.22

The intention on our part is to23

conform, not only with the Act, but also to be as24

open as we can be. The areas where we withhold25

���������

227

information are areas that are legitimately1

recognized under the Freedom of Information Act in2

relation to either our commercial activities or3

security matters. The rest of the material should4

be and is available.5

At any point in time there may be6

disagreements about that, but it certainly does7

not reflect our view or intention to be secretive.8

I do appreciate the fact that9

public consultation, and so on, is absolutely10

essential, but I also point out that we are a11

highly regulated and overseen corporation,12

organization. Not only are we regulated by the13

CNSC, but we are overseen by Parliament, we do14

file annual reports, we have four set of auditors15

and we are subject to a great deal of public16

scrutiny.17

The Auditor General was quoted,18

for example, in their recent report which came out19

as a result of the five-year comprehensive audit,20

which I actually asked the Auditor General to21

accelerate so as to give me a view of areas in the22

company where we might improve. Because that23

cyclical five-year process of the comprehensive24

audit by the Auditor General is an extremely25

���������

228

intrusive and probing look.1

What was not quoted was the high2

marks that the Auditor General gave the company3

for its performance across the board, including a4

statement in the report that said that the Auditor5

General was satisfied that we were conducting6

ourselves and managing the operations at Chalk7

River at a high level.8

The reference to the Auditor9

General's desire that there be clarification or10

clarity brought to the issue of the long-term11

funding and obligations with respect to the12

decommissioning, and so on, is a matter that we13

have already discussed and action is being taken.14

The Auditor General did not feel,15

however, that even that consideration warranted16

sufficient attention to table the report in17

Parliament, which only happens in circumstances18

where the Auditor General feels that there are19

deficiencies that are sufficiently grave that they20

should be brought to the attention of Parliament.21

Rather, the report was tabled with management and22

a copy sent to the Minister for action and23

Minister Dhaliwal is responding to that particular24

comment. So just to point that out.25

���������

229

But no, I'm not prepared to1

address the specific request for information, but2

I will and do take such requests very seriously3

and we will try to work something out to the4

satisfaction of both parties.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.6

The floor is now open for7

questions from the Commission Members. Dr.8

Barnes.9

MEMBER BARNES: I'm not quite sure10

what the last sentence means. I would just make11

an observation, just as an individual and a12

Commissioner, that we are well aware of the13

concerns of the public with the nuclear industry14

and nuclear power in general.15

One of the concerns is the16

disposal of radioactive waste, particularly high17

level waste, and obviously with the18

decommissioning of major facilities. We are19

clearly as a nation entering the next few decades20

where the decommissioning phase of the industry21

will become quite significant.22

Again, as a Crown corporation23

pledged to excellence across the board, I would24

hope that AECL would set, in a sense, very high25

���������

230

standards for the decommissioning process so that1

other major nuclear utilities would, in a sense,2

follow the lead there.3

I think because the public is4

particularly interested in this, in engaging in5

dialogue with the public so that they can6

participate in this transparent process, the7

public surely, as well as Commissioners, have to8

have a fair amount of information at our disposal9

and one would hope that only the most stringent10

material would be kept out of it.11

I gave some examples this morning12

that at least I was surprised at how much material13

was being excluded from the public information.14

You heard the comments from CNSC staff, although I15

guess you would have had their view anyway before16

today.17

Do I still hear you after today's18

hearings that at this stage you are not willing to19

consider changing the limitation that you have put20

on these restrictions?21

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Yes, perhaps two22

clarifications.23

One, the emissions information is24

provided annually to the public and it is25

���������

231

available in the reading rooms on the total1

monitoring programs of the CRL site, on-site and2

off-site. That is one clarification. That has3

been available for 20 years I believe.4

The second point is the -- excuse5

me, I have lost my train of thought here.6

Mr. Van Adel.7

MR. VAN ADEL: With respect to8

your particular point, are we not prepared to9

change, what I am suggesting is that the only10

information we would withhold is information that11

we are required to withhold by virtue of our12

compliance with the Freedom of Information Act in13

respect of either commercially sensitive or14

matters which relate to security. It would not be15

in our interest to disclose those, or yours or the16

public. Those are vetted through the CNSC.17

With respect to information that18

the Sierra Club in particular may be requesting,19

there is due process that vets that information20

ultimately and a ruling is made as to whether or21

not it should be released. There is the Privacy22

Commission as well as ultimately recourse to the23

courts in the event that there is a dispute.24

If we were to go to court over a25

���������

232

matter, it would only be in circumstances in which1

we felt that there was a grave concern as to why2

the information not be released.3

So I think we are complying with4

not only the spirit but the intent of full5

disclosure.6

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill.7

MEMBER McDILL: So it is your8

opinion, then, that building names would come9

under one of the two categories, to address Mr.10

Martin's question. A question of emissions data11

was just addressed and building names would come12

under one of the two categories?13

DR. FEHRENBACH: Yes. As a matter14

of fact in general that is true. In fact, we15

usually avoid naming buildings, we refer to them16

only by number. That is for security purposes.17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Further18

questions?19

Dr. Giroux.20

MEMBER GIROUX: I would like to21

have a clarification from Mr. Martin.22

In reading your presentation and23

hearing also the oral presentation on the full24

panel involvement of assessment, I'm not sure of25

���������

233

the conclusion you reach.1

You start out by saying that in2

your view the Minister has taken a very narrow3

interpretation of the Act and has decided that no4

panel assessment was required. Then you go on and5

argue essentially for a full panel assessment, but6

without recommending it completely.7

My question is: Are you asking us8

to set up a full panel assessment even though the9

Minister has decided that it is not required?10

MR. D. MARTIN: Yes. There are11

two issues. One is whether an overall -- I12

hesitate to use the word "comprehensive" because13

it would confuse the matter thoroughly, but the14

one issue is: Should an overall environmental15

assessment be conducted, at whatever level,16

whether it is panel or comprehensive, or screening17

for that matter, but an overall review of the18

entire site, subsuming all the facilities at Chalk19

River.20

A second issue is whether indeed21

that assessment should be a full panel review.22

Does that help? Is that the23

source of the confusion maybe?24

MEMBER GIROUX: Not really,25

���������

234

because there has been a decision by the Minister1

and your text could be interpreted as recommending2

to us to bypass the Minister's decision and to act3

on our judgment in a matter in which the Minister4

has authority.5

MR. D. MARTIN: Well, I guess I am6

assuming that the Minister was acting under7

advice. I am asking that the Commission8

reconsider its position.9

MEMBER GIROUX: Which is the10

Minister's position.11

MR. D. MARTIN: Correct.12

MEMBER GIROUX: It is quite13

fundamental because, in my view, if we start at14

one point going beyond what is the framework of15

our legal authority to act because you are not16

satisfied with the Ministerial or other decision,17

or even with the law, where do we stop? I don't18

see any outlet on that.19

MR. D. MARTIN: Let me consider20

that further and I will communicate on that21

matter. Thanks for the question though.22

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think this is23

a very important question and I would like staff's24

view. Then I would like to comment maybe a little25

���������

235

bit about the relationship of our Act and CEAA.1

That might be helpful.2

I will start with the staff3

comments.4

MS MALONEY: Thank you. It's Cait5

Maloney here.6

Perhaps I could clarify. The7

quotation from the Minister that is there actually8

was not in as a result of sort of a formal9

determination. This was a letter from a member of10

the public to the Minister about this.11

The fact that these individual12

plans have not been deemed to be projects is13

because these are preliminary decommissioning14

plans. They are simply documents that we require15

to ensure that planning is going on to do with16

decommissioning. It is not a commitment that AECL17

or any other company is going to be actually18

carrying out work at a specific time. That is why19

they are not subject to the environmental20

assessment process at this time.21

Obviously, if -- I should probably22

say when -- an overall plan is in place and we are23

considering that, that may well be something that24

is worthy of full consideration. That is to be25

���������

236

determined in the future.1

The other point, of course, is, as2

major decommissioning plans are committed to and3

are going ahead, those are subject to4

environmental assessment, but not these plans.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you6

could just also clarify the issue which I think7

is: Certainly the Minister of the Environment,8

Mr. Anderson in this case, is responsible for9

CEAA, et cetera, but the role of CNSC as a federal10

authority, specifically in general with regards to11

AECL and what role we will play in this. I think12

it might be helpful.13

MS MALONEY: I'm sorry, the role14

we would play in?15

THE CHAIRPERSON: As a federal16

authority.17

MS MALONEY: As the regulatory18

authority or the responsible authority we would be19

the organization, when faced with the decision to20

be made by the Commission, responsible for21

determining, first of all, if there were a22

project; then if the project were subject to the23

Environmental Assessment Act, what route should be24

taken, which is prescribed within the25

���������

237

Environmental Assessment Act.1

Staff would also make2

recommendations to the Commission, or to the3

designated officer, if there is one, on the4

desirability of a full panel, which would be5

guided by certain criteria that are laid out in6

the Environmental Assessment Act.7

THE CHAIRPERSON: So I guess it8

does clarify, Mr. Martin, that you are right,9

there is a definite role for the CNSC in this10

area.11

Do you want to comment?12

MR. D. MARTIN: If I could, just a13

question.14

I understand that these are15

preliminary decommissioning plans. Does it make a16

difference that these are progressing to the level17

that is called "detailed decommissioning plans" at18

some point? Some of them are there already. At19

that point is it feasible that an overall EA could20

be conducted? Is that what you are saying21

possible?22

THE CHAIRPERSON: That is a23

question to the staff and then Mr. Fehrenbach24

after that.25

���������

238

MS MALONEY: Cait Maloney again.1

As I indicated earlier, as plans2

move from being preliminary to detailed, that3

obviously is when one is moving towards actually4

doing the work. At that stage environmental5

assessment is undertaken and assessments are done6

and depending on the size of the project it would7

depend whether it came to the Commission or stayed8

down with staff.9

If I could just repeat, if we do10

get the overall plan that we are seeking and that11

moves to having major phases of detailed12

decommissioning plans and commitments to do work,13

those should be coming up as full environmental14

assessment. I will make no comment as to whether15

it would be a panel because that depends on the16

criteria, on the judgment at the time.17

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr.18

Martin, the staff are supporting the idea that a19

full plan is necessary. Whether that results will20

be evaluated at any particular time, whether it21

results in what category of a CEAA assessment is22

required at that time.23

Mr. Fehrenbach.24

DR. FEHRENBACH: Thank you, Madam25

���������

239

Chair.1

I just wanted to refer to a2

comment I made earlier on the uniqueness of the3

situation in that we are not talking about4

stopping operations at Chalk River next year and5

then beginning decommissioning as we were at6

Whiteshell. So the preliminary decommissioning7

plans that we have prepared have to be considered8

as living documents, because every time we prepare9

or install a new facility that will therefore10

require a change to the decommissioning plan.11

So Ms Maloney's comments are very12

relevant. The decommissioning plan itself cannot13

be considered a project in its entirety, but14

within the plan there will be, from time to time,15

specific decommissioning projects.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would just17

like to clarify before I move on to other18

questions. I think that one of the things,19

certainly CEAA is part of the responsibility20

portfolio, if I can put it that way, of the CNSC21

and we take it seriously. In fact, it takes a22

great deal of our time, the issues of planning.23

But I think CEAA requires that we24

have this planning document. I think that it25

���������

240

sometimes is forgotten that it is a planning1

document.2

The Nuclear Safety and Control Act3

gives the Commission and the Commission staff a4

pretty serious set of responsibilities overall5

with the environment, and I think that is what we6

take as sort of the day-to-day work as well is the7

monitoring of the environment.8

So I think that although it is9

important to talk about CEAA, I think a lot of the10

discussions when we talk about licensing are our11

responsibilities and what we carry out in terms of12

safety for the environment. We have talked about13

moving from human to non-human biota as well and I14

think the breadth of this responsibility is15

sometimes forgotten, not by you, sir, but just in16

general, the focus that is sometimes placed on17

CEAA. That is just a comment.18

Further questions, Mr. Graham.19

MEMBER GRAHAM: I will, then, have20

a question. I didn't want to belabour the issues.21

Page 6 of 6 regarding the22

environmental monitoring. Some quite strong words23

are used there in that first paragraph about leaks24

going into the Ottawa River and streams and25

���������

241

groundwater that flow into the Ottawa River are1

contaminated. We have gone through that I think2

already today and I think Dr. Thompson commented3

on this, but is it what is said here, that it is a4

major threat to drinking water to millions of5

people?6

I always get concerned when you7

read these things, but I would like to have the8

science that is in that. It is page 6 of 6.9

CNSC staff comment?10

DR. THOMPSON: For the record, my11

name is Patsy Thompson.12

The assessment that staff carries13

out on a day-to-day basis, and through either14

technical assessments or audits, and other15

compliance activities when they are required,16

focus on not just monitoring radionuclides and17

hazardous chemicals once they are released to the18

environment, but there are also powers under our19

Act to actually control or prevent the emission of20

material to the environment.21

That being said, we have assessed22

over quite a number of years the quality of23

drinking water downstream from Chalk River and24

there is no indication from the data that is25

���������

242

available for drinking water plants downstream1

from Chalk River that the drinking water has been2

negatively or adversely affected by releases from3

Chalk River.4

The information from the City of5

Ottawa, from Pembroke and from Petawawa, indicates6

that essentially concentrations of radionuclides7

that are monitored in raw water before treatment8

are essentially around background values, or what9

are called background values that essentially10

reflect natural occurring levels as well as what11

is left of weapons fallout. So there is no12

indication that releases of material from the site13

through the waste management areas of the process14

sewers have adversely affected drinking water.15

MEMBER GRAHAM: The other question16

I would have is: The testing is ongoing and is17

not just a -- these are ongoing tests with the18

drinking water, are they not?19

DR. THOMPSON: Yes, they are.20

They are being conducted in the case of the City21

of Ottawa, for example, by the City of Ottawa on a22

very regular basis.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux.24

MEMBER GIROUX: Coming back to25

���������

243

this question of detailed decommissioning plans,1

my interpretation of what I have heard from staff2

and from AECL is that AECL is there for decades of3

operations and so there will not be a detailed4

decommissioning plan for the whole facility within5

decades, if not more.6

So there will not be an7

opportunity to have a full panel assessment on a8

detailed decommissioning plan for the whole9

facility, but there might be panel assessment for10

specific facilities which may be decommissioned11

within decades. There is no clear plans for the12

coming years, if I understand correctly?13

MR. VAN ADEL: That is correct.14

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: If I may, just to15

clear up a point on the disclosure of information,16

we recognize that there is an issue with the17

quantity of information that has been withheld and18

we have further indicated to the CNSC that we19

would like to meet with them to discuss how we20

could rearrange our documents to ensure a21

publication of more information. This is not an22

easy matter and we are going to need some time to23

work this out with the CNSC.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Just with25

���������

244

regards to Dr. Giroux's question, CNSC staff, do1

you have a comment?2

MS MALONEY: It's Cait Maloney3

here.4

I would rather not speculate about5

what could or could not go to a panel or come to6

the Commission in terms of public consideration of7

decommissioning plans at this time.8

I think it is appropriate that we9

consider the initiative that Mr. Van Adel10

discussed in his initial presentation, that is the11

work that will be done with Natural Resources12

Canada to look at the whole site, this report to13

Cabinet within two years. That may well be14

something that will influence future plans in this15

area significantly.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.17

MEMBER BARNES: I'm sorry, I know18

it is getting late.19

My perception is rather different20

I think, at least from how Dr. Giroux phrased it.21

Surely a requirement under the Act22

for new licences such as the one that AECL is23

being considered for now, or for major nuclear24

utilities, is that they are required to submit a25

���������

245

decommissioning plan with the appropriate1

financial information. Is that right?2

The level of detail obviously is a3

question of semantics maybe, but at least in order4

to allow our staff to give an analysis of that5

financial information it has to be at a so-called6

fairly detailed level for any particular area on7

the plan. When it comes down to actual8

decommissioning, then obviously things will go up9

to a much more greater level of detail. Isn't10

that how the new Act requires new licensees to11

behave?12

MS MALONEY: It's Cait Maloney.13

The preliminary plans are required14

to be in enough detail for us to do costing on15

that as a basis for the financial assurance, yes,16

you are correct, but they are not a commitment to17

perform the work immediately.18

MR. VAN ADEL: If I can maybe just19

add?20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Van Adel.21

MR. VAN ADEL: Yes, thank you.22

Perhaps it is my misperception,23

but there is a decommissioning plan for waste24

disposal and for the decommissioning of the site,25

���������

246

various aspects of the site. It is a rolling plan1

that is submitted and it is updated from time to2

time depending on the developments. But it is on3

the basis that we are operating a site which we4

expect to occupy as a going concern for at least5

the next hundred years.6

The plan itself is a hundred-year7

plan for decommissioning and disposal. That plan8

had a certain budget estimate associated with it9

that was submitted to the government, the10

shareholder, along with the plan.11

As a result of that, there is a12

number on our balance sheet which identifies the13

net present value of the estimated hundred-year14

cost of the plan. That number is currently $38615

million.16

We are revising that number. In17

fact, it may go down a few million this year as a18

result of the rate of expenditure against that19

plan and the interest rate calculations that are20

imputed to get the net present value.21

But the total value of that plan,22

that net present value on a hundred-year basis is23

close to $3 billion. That is a plan that calls24

for the decommissioning of assets under AECL's25

���������

247

control, but given that it is a hundred-year plan1

it is firm in terms of what we are going to2

specifically do and accomplish by way of projects3

going forward to the balance of our five-year4

plan.5

Beyond that we can have notional6

plans as to what we are going to do in year 10 or7

11, but then if we build MAPLE reactors on the8

site or move things around or make changes in the9

plan or decommission one building versus another10

because there is a greater fire hazard or11

something, then that plan has to be updated and12

constantly resubmitted.13

Now, we are in the process of14

updating that plan today and we will be submitting15

a revised plan which has a hundred-year outlook16

and has a firm three to five-year forecast17

associated with our work plan for the next18

planning period. That will be approved and the19

number will be adjusted on the balance sheet20

upwards or downward based on commitments from the21

federal government, the shareholder, to fund that22

on a go-forward basis.23

The Auditor General's comments24

were simply to say: We encourage the government25

���������

248

to address the issues of the long-term funding by1

way of the plans that AECL submits and if the2

amount goes up it should be recognized.3

Now, the recognition on our4

balance sheet was a discussion that took place a5

few years ago with the shareholder whereby the6

liability, recognition of the liability which7

rests with the federal government, was a number8

that was not known. It wasn't quantified. AECL's9

financial statements were qualified each year by10

the Auditor General and the auditors because we11

did not have an imputed value of the long-term12

cost of decommissioning.13

Now, we do have that and our books14

are no longer qualified and they are signed off by15

our auditors, including the Auditor General,16

annually on the basis that that amount that is17

represented there is an adequate representation of18

what the 100-year plan is on a net present value19

basis. We revisit that from time to time. The20

Board of Directors examines it, we examine it in21

management and it goes forward to the government22

from time-to-time as part of our five-year plan.23

In this five-year plan submission,24

we have identified the possibility that in the out25

���������

249

years there may be more money required than is1

currently identified in the plan and that has been2

submitted as part of our corporate plan to3

Treasury Board and the government, in signing off4

on the plan, is recognizing that there is an5

unfunded amount that is an amount that may be in6

excess of what is currently recognized on our7

books that they have to address in the future, and8

they will address that as part of a revised9

hundred-year plan that we submit to them. That is10

the process we are talking about here.11

In addition to that, the12

Government of Canada has requested NRCan do a two-13

year study -- and it may not take two years, but14

they have given them up to two years to come back15

with an examination of whether or not the current16

disposition of liabilities as between AECL and the17

Government of Canada, as they are formally18

recognized, is the appropriate approach and19

whether or not there ought to be another20

institutional response or even another way of21

recognizing the liabilities, that is perhaps shift22

them back to the federal government and have them23

recognized and funded in a different manner than24

they are today. But when that study is done the25

���������

250

recommendations will go back through the Minister1

to the Cabinet for consideration.2

So I think that the action is3

being taken here to address this against a4

hundred-year plan. I don't see any particular5

problem in the next few years, even within the6

timeframe of this licence, that would impact on7

this question.8

I mentioned a number of mitigating9

factors, including the formal recognition by the10

Government of Canada, that they have obligations11

contained within our five-year plan that they must12

fund. And the funding for that is adequate, it13

comes from a number of sources.14

So I really believe that we are15

being responsible, as is the Commission, in going16

forward with the licence on the basis that this17

issue is not only adequately provided for today18

within the timeframe associated with the licence,19

but it is currently provided for adequately by not20

only recognition by the government but by the21

amounts represented on our books which the22

government signs off on and says: Yes, we23

recognize we have a net present value obligation24

of $386 million for decommissioning based on a25

���������

251

plan that we have today. We also recognize there1

may be additional amounts required.2

So I think we are in pretty good3

shape on this issue and that is the basis upon4

which in my opening remarks and later on I said5

that I felt this was an issue which was being6

adequately addressed.7

Thank you.8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very9

much, Mr. Martin.10

11

12

03-H2.2213

Oral presentation by The Corporation of the Town14

of Deep River15

THE CHAIRPERSON: We are now going16

to move to our next submission, which is an oral17

presentation from the Corporation of the Town of18

Deep River, as outlined in CMD document 03-H2.22.19

Mr. John Murphy, the Mayor, is20

going to present this submission.21

I would just like to note that it22

was during a visit with Mr. Murphy last year that23

he was the one who actually invited us up for Day24

2 of the hearing. We are not in Deep River, but I25

���������

252

would just to acknowledge his invitation started1

the process by which we are here today.2

Mr. Murphy.3

MAYOR MURPHY: Thank you, Madam4

President and Members of the Canadian Nuclear5

Safety Commission. Good afternoon and welcome to6

the Upper Ottawa Valley. Although I am a little7

late in the day to offer the welcome, welcome8

nonetheless.9

It is most appropriate that you10

have scheduled this day of the hearings on the11

applications from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited12

for renewal of the several licences for the Chalk13

River Laboratories here in the Chalk River.14

As the President has noted,15

although the Town of Deep River issued the16

invitation, the reality in smaller communities is17

often there are only one or two appropriate sites18

for a fairly large gathering and this particular19

building is one of probably the better ones that20

might have been chosen. So we have no problem21

with the fact you are actually meeting in Chalk22

River.23

It is a pleasure for me to have24

this opportunity to make this oral presentation on25

���������

253

behalf of the Town of Deep River to you to augment1

the Town's written submission on these2

applications before you today.3

We in Deep River and in the4

surrounding area regard this as the home of the5

Canadian Nuclear industry with the establishment6

of Canada's research program here in 1944.7

Nationally we feel very proud of8

the excellent work that has been done and9

continues to be done by our friends, neighbours10

and family members at the CRL. Therefore, we11

strongly support the renewal of the CRL nuclear12

research and test establishment operating licence13

which you are presently considering.14

Those of us who have lived in this15

area for some time are well aware of the16

continuous improvements that have been made at CRL17

over the years in terms of worker safety,18

reductions in average radiation exposures, greater19

emphasis on employee training, the quality20

assurance program and a continuing focus on the21

protection of the environment. Of course we heard22

comments on some of those specific things earlier23

from other intervenors.24

As well, there has been a steady25

���������

254

progress in public consultation efforts by AECL1

over the years through several types of forums.2

Again, some of those have been mentioned and are3

mentioned in the written submission.4

Unfortunately, as a result of 9/115

and the ensuring much greater emphasis site6

security, access to the CRL site for visitors7

generally, and for briefings for local officials,8

et cetera, have obviously had to be curtailed.9

That is unfortunate. However, we are confident10

that alternatives will be put in place to allow11

these important public information and12

consultation processes to continue in the future13

as they are very necessary and important to public14

awareness and comfort level and an opportunity for15

input on AECL's activities and various projects.16

I should also note that there is17

excellent cooperation between AECL and the18

surrounding area on the Chalk River Regional19

Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Plan. This plan is20

well developed and regularly exercised, both at21

local, regional and provincial level scale22

exercises, and has been fairly highly complimented23

in the provincial level test that was carried out24

last year in the Chalk River region.25

���������

255

With regard to the MAPLE isotope1

production reactors and the related New Processing2

facility, we feel confident that the several3

issues of concern previously identified have been4

properly identified and either adequately5

addressed or are well under way to resolution.6

The CNSC and its staff have been diligent in this7

regard and AECL has addressed those problems8

responsibly.9

We believe it is timely,10

therefore, to renew the appropriate licence for11

these facilities so the secure supply of12

critically needed medical radio isotopes can be13

assured for the future.14

I might also note that those of us15

in Renfrew County who may have future need of16

medical diagnostic and treatment procedures using17

radio isotopes produced at CRL look forward to18

soon having access to these procedures much closer19

to home. When renovations and expansions20

currently under way at the Pembroke General21

Hospital are completed, that hospital will have a22

nuclear medicine department, to my knowledge for23

the first time.24

Finally, I would again note the25

���������

256

one concern that I addressed in the written1

submission with regard to the CRL site, and that2

is that there be adequate funds made available on3

an ongoing basis so that improvements in the long4

term management of radioactive wastes in the older5

waste management areas of the CRL site can6

proceed. These so-called legacy wastes we believe7

are equally the responsibility of AECL and its8

shareholder, the Government of Canada. We ask9

that the CNSC give serious consideration to this10

issue through ongoing discussions with AECL and11

the government.12

I have been listening to the13

discussion on this, including Mr. Van Adel's14

comments earlier, and it is quite reassuring to15

hear that a process that I wasn't really aware of16

is in place and there is provision on the books to17

address this. We certainly would like to see that18

proceed in the older waste management areas on a19

regular and ongoing basis.20

Again, thank you for the21

opportunity to address you today and I would be22

happy to answer any questions that the Members of23

the Commission might have.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very25

���������

257

much.1

Are there any questions? Dr.2

Dosman.3

MEMBER DOSMAN: Thank you, Madam4

Chair. Just a short comment/question, Mr. Murphy.5

Perhaps it is just an accident of wording.6

On page 2 of your letter, the7

second paragraph, I take it that the first line in8

that paragraph does not mean that AECL is not9

fully responsible for all of the activities at the10

site?11

MAYOR MURPHY: You mean with12

regard to my comment on the historic or legacy13

waste?14

MEMBER DOSMAN: No. Your sentence15

states that:16

"One area of concern ...17

although we acknowledge it is18

not totally within the control19

of AECL."20

You go on to discuss the issue of21

the accumulated waste.22

My question is: I take it that23

this wording does not mean that you think that24

AECL is not fully responsible for all of its25

���������

258

actions at the site?1

MAYOR MURPHY: No, that was not my2

meaning or intent.3

What I was alluding to is that4

over the years the federal government has provided5

money to AECL through parliamentary appropriation6

that has been critical to the operation of some7

programs at the reactor.8

Although AECL is moving toward a9

more business-organized approach with revenues10

from other sources available to offset that11

dependence on government funding, at least for the12

legacy waste issues I was trying to make the point13

that we believe that the federal government has to14

recognize that ongoing responsibility for material15

that was generated and stored in the early years16

of the programs and not leave it solely to AECL to17

fund from other sources of revenue totally in the18

future.19

Not that AECL is not responsible20

for it, but that the source of the money to21

address it needs to be considered as a joint22

responsibility.23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dosman, if I24

could, I think Mr. Murphy is saying that the issue25

���������

259

under the control is the funding availability, not1

anything to do with the waste or waste management.2

MAYOR MURPHY: That is correct.3

MEMBER DOSMAN: Perhaps it is a4

small point, but I guess I was making the point5

that I take it that you do not believe that AECL6

is not fully responsible for any actions on the7

site.8

MAYOR MURPHY: I agree that AECL9

is totally responsible for actions on the site and10

both managing and carrying out improvements11

certainly. Where the money comes to handle that,12

to my mind is slightly different than accepting13

responsibility totally as they would in terms of14

being responsible for looking after it and15

improving it.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay? Is that17

fine18

MEMBER DOSMAN: Yes, Madam Chair.19

I think we are mincing words.20

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we are.21

MEMBER DOSMAN: I just would like22

to table my view that AECL is indeed responsible23

fully for all actions on the site.24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Van Adel, I25

���������

260

think you concur. Is that correct?1

MR. VAN ADEL: Yes, I do indeed.2

If I could just make the comment3

that I think the lament or the idea here is that4

AECL has to operate within certain constraints.5

We have, at any point in time, to manage ourselves6

within reasonable resources, as does any other7

organization. We have to make the case for the8

things that we do and put a responsible business9

plan forward for the management of waste and we10

are doing so.11

But the government understands, as12

do we, that we have to meet the requirements and13

exceed them if we can and that we not endanger the14

health and safety of the public and that we not15

cut corners. And we do not.16

In the area of waste management,17

while we do have fiscal constraints, we always are18

governed by making sure that we are doing what is19

required. Then over and above that there are20

things we would like to do. We would like to21

accelerate some of the programs.22

We have some interesting new23

technologies that we are putting before the CNSC24

for waste mediation which we think are excellent25

���������

261

and even have the potential for commercial1

exploitation and we would like to apply them to2

the site. It will take funding to do that. We3

have to put a business plan forward and make the4

case.5

Those are the things we would like6

to do if we had unlimited funds but, in my mind at7

least, there is never a trade-off in the end8

between things that are necessary to be done and9

funding.10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very11

much, Mr. Murphy.12

We are going to take a 10-minute13

break. I have 5:20. In your seats by 5:30,14

please.15

--- Upon recessing at 5:25 p.m.16

--- Upon resuming at 5:35 p.m.17

18

03-H2.2619

Oral presentation from Concerned Citizens of20

Renfrew County and Area21

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like to22

now move to the next submission, which is an oral23

presentation from the Concerned Citizens of24

Renfrew County and Area, as outlined in CMD25

���������

262

document 03-H2.26.1

We have Mr. Hendrickson with us2

today. Thank you very much for coming. The floor3

is yours, sir.4

MR. HENDRICKSON: Thank you, Madam5

President, Members of the Commission, ladies and6

gentlemen, for this opportunity to put some of our7

views on the table here.8

So who are we? We are the9

neighbours here, people who live mostly10

downstream, downwind of CRL. Our group has been11

making interventions at a number of past licensing12

hearings on Chalk River Labs, mostly stressing13

environment, safety and health issues.14

More recently we have started15

looking at some of the economic issues that you16

have talked about such as financial guarantees for17

decommissioning. Because we are also taxpayers of18

course and we are interested in how these assets19

are being managed.20

We are interested when Mr. Van21

Adel says that it is going to be $3 billion, give22

or take, for the next hundred years to finance the23

decommissioning here. My daughters I hope will be24

taxpayers. Hopefully they will have children who25

���������

263

will in this area as well. When we hear these1

kinds of figures and we understand that the2

shareholder or the federal government is expected3

to make a very significant contribution to these4

kinds of costs, we feel that we do have a right to5

have input on how those kinds of amounts of money6

are spent. We think we need some decision point7

along the line where we can look in a more8

comprehensive way at the liabilities on the site9

and how much it is going to cost and what needs to10

be done first, and so forth.11

From our perspective as members of12

the public there are some key issues here. I13

think all of these have been touched upon today,14

things like the Access to Information Act.15

This notion of a report card16

approach. This is a fairly new innovation and it17

has been noted that when I got a report card when18

I was a kid, that was it. I didn't go back to the19

teacher and have it changed and then take it home20

to my parents and say "Look, she changed it. She21

gave me better grades".22

On the other hand, maybe there is23

something to be said for having licensing hearings24

fairly often if this kind of pressure does25

���������

264

actually trigger some action on important things1

like security. If a "C" grade moving up to a "B"2

was the result of having a licensing hearing, I3

think that is a really strong argument for having4

licensing hearings more often than less often. So5

that strikes me as an argument for more frequent6

licensing periods.7

We talked about funding of8

decommissioning. I would like to get a little bit9

into what the Commissioners do versus what the10

staff does, particularly on the issue of financial11

guarantees, because I really think that this is12

something that should be the subject of a hearing.13

There was quite a good discussion on the Canadian14

Environmental Assessment Act and I want to make a15

few points on that.16

A bit tongue-in-cheek, we have a17

Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Part of the18

reason for having that Act was so that the19

regulatory agency no longer had the dual20

responsibility for promoting and regulating21

nuclear power, which is clearly a good thing and22

that is what the International Atomic Energy23

Agency wants regulatory agencies to do, have that24

clear regulatory function and not a promotion25

���������

265

function.1

But we are still, I think, in a2

bit of a transmission mode in terms of3

particularly the Commission staff doing things4

like mainstreaming environmental concerns, really5

taking on the environmental mandate in a proactive6

way.7

I guess I do have some concerns8

about how particularly section 24(5) of the9

Nuclear Safety Control Act which deals with10

financial guarantees is being applied to this11

Crown corporation that we are looking at today12

versus other corporations. For example, you are13

going to look at the financial guarantee for Bruce14

tomorrow and have a separate hearing on that. We15

really haven't had that sort of opportunity to16

have a hearing on financial guarantees for Chalk17

River Labs.18

I wanted in my submission to19

acknowledge some of the progress that has been20

made over recent years. Certainly the monitored21

above-ground storage facility is a real step22

forward. We are very pleased to see that, that23

sort of facility being put in place to handle some24

of the lower level waste. Certainly the liquid25

���������

266

waste treatment facility has reduced releases of1

radionuclides like cesium-137 into the Ottawa2

River. These are good things.3

But there are, as we have been4

discussing, legacy issues like the contaminant5

plumes. I guess there has been the question: Are6

there really significant threats to drinking water7

from these contaminant plumes?8

I would point out that in CMD 03-9

H2.1C, pages 10 to 12 describe some of the rather10

extraordinary measures that are in place to deal11

with some of these contaminant plumes. In fact,12

there are three special treatment facilities, the13

Spring B treatment facility; the chemical pit14

treatment facility; and the wall and curtain15

facility, all of which are in place to intercept16

plumes.17

Those are going to have to be18

maintained over the long term. That means that19

there are long-term operating costs. Those20

facilities wouldn't be in place if there weren't21

some significant concerns about strontium and22

cesium getting into the river in an uncontrolled23

fashion if those weren't in place.24

We have some concerns about the25

���������

267

way some of the high-level waste in waste1

management area "B" are managed.2

The tile holes. There have been3

water intrusion in some of those tile holes and4

there is not really a discussion on that in the5

CMDs that I have found, though I could have missed6

it.7

Certainly the ongoing issue of the8

high-level liquid, some of the reprocessing wastes9

and other wastes in the waste tank farm. It is10

not something that really gets talked about very11

much. There has been rather a reluctance to12

address that, though I think we will be looking at13

cementation of those kinds of wastes down the14

road.15

And of course the fissile solution16

storage tank, there has been a lot of discussion17

about that. That is going to soon become a legacy18

issue when we move over to the new processing19

facility which you are going to talk about later20

today.21

Before I go to the next slide, I22

want to say that not all the problems really are23

legacy problems either. We haven't talked very24

much about the argon-41 plume from the reactor25

���������

268

stack, but in my submission in the third paragraph1

I was actually congratulating AECL on having2

reduced argon-41 emissions by 35 per cent from the3

year 2000 to the year 2001.4

Now, regrettably, between the year5

2001 to 2002 those emissions went right back up6

and basically they are back up at the equivalent7

of 150 microsieverts per year. That level is well8

in excess of the ALARA level of 50 microsieverts9

per year. People living around AECL, the10

significant source of public dose really is that11

reactor stack and those argon-41 emissions. If12

you happen to be in an argon-41 plume, you are13

getting a sizeable short-term dose of radiation.14

It is disappointing that we15

haven't seen more progress on that issue. I don't16

know what the reasons are that that seems to be so17

difficult to address.18

We have again talked a lot about19

the need for making environmental monitoring20

results more accessible and more open.21

Of particular interest to us was22

in the previous two-year licence, which I believe23

was from October 2000 to 2002, there was a24

specific licence condition to establish a25

���������

269

groundwater monitoring program for the waste1

management areas and plumes and then that just2

sort of disappeared. We heard that AECL had3

submitted the groundwater monitoring program, but4

now we don't know: Is it being implemented? Was5

CNSC staff totally satisfied with all aspects of6

it? There is no point in doing a monitoring plan7

if you aren't implementing that monitoring plan.8

So it has been disappointing to us9

that that was an important licence condition and10

now we don't really see where the follow-up to11

that has been.12

Of course, when you look at these13

groundwater plumes you know they have particularly14

the major fission products of strontium and cesium15

and they are decaying in place, but also with time16

they are migrating further too. So there is a17

trade-off between these things, more and more18

areas getting into water bodies, getting into19

groundwater, migrating into the river and the time20

of decay of these fission products.21

So this is an area where there22

needs to be some analysis and discussion of this23

kind of trade-off.24

Then on the issue of25

���������

270

decommissioning. I think it is important to note1

that the preliminary decommissioning plans that2

had been tabled and are being sort of reviewed by3

CNSC staff, those are really aimed at the physical4

structures on-site and the waste management areas5

and associated plumes really are going through a6

different process even though there are obvious --7

very obvious links between decommissioning8

activities that might involve removing9

contaminated substances from physical structures10

and then moving them to waste management areas.11

I will get into a bit the NRX fuel12

bays for example. The sludge from those fuel bays13

has already been moved out and taken to the waste14

management area "B", but that is still only in15

storage. So what is the longer term fate of some16

of these significant contaminants? You need an17

integrated approach to looking at the physical18

structures and the waste management areas.19

In terms of environmental20

monitoring or ecological monitoring, clearly you21

can't just look at the emissions. You have to22

look at the components of the environment.23

Thank you, Dr. Barnes, for24

actually getting into some of this in some25

���������

271

considerable detail.1

We need some performance2

indicators. We think that, for example in3

drinking water, some of these substances are going4

down, maybe tritium is going up. We would really5

like to see what the trends are through time.6

The same with the beaches and the7

river sediments and the benthic organisms. We8

can't just rely on sort of one-off reports on9

"These are the levels". We need some sense of how10

things are changing through time, to know things11

are getting better or things are getting worse.12

One issue that we brought up a13

couple of times before that I think is worth is14

noting, mussels have been used as a sort of15

sentinel species in the downstream of many16

facilities, both facilities that release nuclear17

substances and chemical contaminants. They are an18

excellent way of assessing changes in19

environmental contamination through time. They20

are there, they are filtering the water.21

Mussels in particular also22

accumulate strontium-90 in their shell. So this23

is something that really could be very much24

incorporated into an ongoing, longer-term25

���������

272

environmental monitoring program.1

Fish and wildlife. We can't just2

look off-site at what fish are doing, because fish3

on the site, fish in Maskinonge Lake, waterfowl,4

fly in and out of Chalk River. Moose and deer,5

they don't know where the boundary of the plant is6

and when they wander off-site -- people in the7

valley hunt and fish. We are proud of it. We do8

a lot of it. There are concerns about how9

contaminated some of these fish and game species10

that are valued ecosystem components may be.11

So it is not enough to wait until12

something is off-site. We should have ongoing13

monitoring of fish and wildlife on the Chalk River14

property, not just off the Chalk River property.15

That I think is certainly in the public interest.16

THE CHAIRPERSON: I just want to17

mention that we have already given you over 1018

minutes.19

MR. HENDRICKSON: I have three20

more slides.21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Please give your22

three slides, but just to let you know.23

MR. HENDRICKSON: Okay. Thank24

you. I will be fairly quick.25

���������

273

I think there are some issues1

around the Regulatory Gap Analysis. We need some2

follow up on that. Clearly there are a lot of3

gaps and it is not clear to me in the licensing4

document how those gaps are going to be addressed,5

what the process is for that.6

The Environmental Effects Review,7

we have already heard that the key appendices that8

have some of the actual data are not -- due to the9

sensitive nature of the attachments they have been10

removed from those documents. We simply don't11

understand why that kind of environmental12

monitoring data is considered to be sensitive13

information.14

We think indeed to be proactive15

those kinds of environmental monitoring results16

should be made available over the Internet. Make17

them public. That is a good way of measuring18

performance.19

In terms of accountability, it20

should be the staff -- not the staff, excuse me.21

The Commission is accountable for things like the22

financial guarantees, the acceptability of the23

decommissioning plans. Certainly we have talked24

about the fate of the NRU and there is agreement25

���������

274

to have that subject to hearing.1

Public participation. We keep2

bringing this up because we don't think we have3

enough opportunities. Under Access to Information4

Act, the staff I don't think have faced up to5

their obligations under section 26.6

The Auditor General has actually7

noted that regulatory agencies should look at the8

balance between the provisions for security and9

commercial proprietary interests versus the10

provisions in section 26 which allow that kind of11

information to be released if the public interest12

in health, safety and the environment outweighs13

those commercial and security interests.14

So I think we need to see a bit15

more review of active participation of the staff16

so that things are worked out ahead of time and we17

don't have these prolonged processes that go to18

the Information Commissioner.19

The Canadian Environmental20

Assessment Act, we have talked about that.21

The NRX fuel bay screening, for22

example, has been ongoing since April 2001. It23

hasn't come to a conclusion yet. It is the second24

longest screening before the CNSC. That was so25

���������

275

narrow that the proponent looked at the facility,1

at the fuel bay, but didn't look at the plume that2

was coming from it. When one of the contributing3

departments, Environment Canada, looked at that4

screening they said: That just doesn't make5

sense. Why wouldn't you look at the plume that6

has come from this facility? So obviously there7

are some concerns there.8

Longer licences. I have mentioned9

that puts less pressure on the licensee and10

excludes the public.11

These ad hoc extensions like from12

July of last year to May, again: Do you want13

this, I guess? What is the rationale for14

excluding public interventions at the first15

hearing? We try to be helpful and we are not sure16

that you are valuing our input on these matters17

with some of the current processes.18

Just some final points which have19

been partly addressed here.20

We think that the Commission21

itself should have hearings on things like the22

financial guarantees. We think that there should23

be coordination of these decommissioning24

activities and they should be subject -- we should25

���������

276

have a point at which the Canadian Environmental1

Assessment Act does kick in so we can have that2

integrated look at the entire facility.3

I thank you very much for letting4

me go on a bit beyond the limit.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very6

much for your presentation.7

I will now open the floor to8

questions, starting with Mr. Graham.9

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.10

A question I have to the11

intervenor: How often do you meet with the12

officials of AECL with concerns and questions like13

you have? You talk about openness and public14

hearings and open houses, and so on. How often15

does your group meet with AECL to get information?16

MR. HENDRICKSON: We try to17

participate in any public open houses that may be18

available, but we haven't had special meetings19

ever with AECL that I can recall.20

MEMBER GRAHAM: A question, then,21

to AECL: A lot of these seem like ordinary22

issues, some of them. Some of them are maybe more23

complex, but some of these issues and some of24

these questions I guess are of a nature that25

���������

277

perhaps could be resolved through open meetings.1

Are you prepared to meet, not only Concerned2

Citizens of Renfrew County but other people, with3

regard to one-on-one issues that they might have?4

DR. FEHRENBACH: Yes. Thank you5

for the opportunity to reply.6

We would of course be willing to7

meet with Mr. Hendrickson and his organization and8

any other organization as well. Part of the9

reason for publishing our community newsletter is10

to reach people across the entire spectrum of the11

Counties of Pontiac and Renfrew and we are more12

than willing to meet with our local neighbours at13

any time.14

MEMBER GRAHAM: Thank you.15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Barnes.16

MEMBER BARNES: A question to17

staff.18

Mr. Hendrickson asked to complete19

and make public the Regulatory Gap Analysis and20

the Environmental Effects Review. Could you21

indicate what you see as the fate of these22

documents and public accessibility?23

MR. HOWDEN: Barclay Howden24

speaking.25

���������

278

We don't see any problem making1

this information available. A certain amount of2

the Regulatory Gap Analysis has been made3

available to Mr. Hendrickson. The latest response4

from AECL to us has just come in, so we will make5

that available to him.6

For the Environmental Effects7

Review, the intention is that all this information8

will be available to him.9

So far all the progress reports10

and chapters that have come in, except for the11

last two that were just received, I believe have12

been made available to Mr. Hendrickson.13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Giroux.14

MEMBER GIROUX: I would like to15

explore briefly a question of importing wastes16

from other sites to the AECL facilities. You17

imply in your written document that the volume of18

indigenous or local waste is going down and the19

volume of imported waste is going up. The volume20

of imported waste might even be the most important21

part of it.22

My question to you is: If this is23

part of the mission of AECL to store or to dispose24

of waste for users outside the facility, why25

���������

279

should that be a problem, beyond the "Not in my1

backyard" syndrome?2

MR. HENDRICKSON: I think the3

problem comes with what you said "store or dispose4

of". Right now there is no disposal plan for5

these wastes, they are in storage. So then the6

long-term fate of those wastes becomes a matter of7

public interest and can then potentially be caught8

up in issues of long-term financial guarantees.9

They are going into waste management area "B" I10

believe, many of these, and they are essentially11

being mixed with internally generated waste.12

There comes then a question of13

whether -- for example, the taxpayers, we will14

call it the stakeholder, the federal government is15

going to actually be expected, or is already16

subsidizing this commercial waste storage activity17

and whether there is sort of full cost accounting18

for the real long-term cost of managing those19

exogenous wastes.20

MEMBER GIROUX: Thank you. You21

raise a very interesting point about the financial22

responsibility of outside customers and maybe AECL23

and staff could comment on whether there is any24

plan to take that into account, not in computing25

���������

280

the costs of decommissioning but assigning the1

costs.2

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you. The3

costs associated with the interim management and4

ultimate disposal are being charged to commercial5

customers. Let's be very, very clear on this. if6

we had talked to the customers over the past year7

they would have voiced much displeasure with the8

fact that the rates have really gone up. So I9

think that aspect is being covered.10

Disposal charges are also being11

credited to the segregated decommissioning fund12

and the disposal charges are based on our13

knowledge of what those costs will be.14

MEMBER GIROUX: So you are15

recovering upfront right now. But this is for the16

last one or two years. How about historically?17

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: We have been18

recovering for many, many years. What we have19

done recently is we have brought them in line with20

our knowledge of the final disposal cost.21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. McDill.22

MEMBER McDILL: This is the second23

submission in which it has been stated that24

strontium-90 is measurable in Ottawa. I wonder if25

���������

281

staff could comment on whether they agree with1

that statement.2

DR. THOMPSON: This is Patsy3

Thompson, for the record.4

The information we have obtained5

from the City of Ottawa is that strontium-90 in6

the Ottawa public drinking water network is at7

levels that are similar to background, which is8

essentially taking into account weapons testing.9

So there is no measurable impact in the City of10

Ottawa drinking water from activities at Chalk11

River. The same situation exists at Pembroke.12

MEMBER McDILL: Do you agree with13

that?14

MR. HENDRICKSON: I do not. There15

has been a study of that very issue and a fairly16

detailed analysis of the bomb testing source.17

From atmosphere testing we are still seeing a bit18

of that, versus the amounts that come from Chalk19

River. I will look for that study and I can20

provide it to you.21

THE CHAIRPERSON: If you could22

provide it to the staff, I think that would be the23

best place to send it. I think everybody is24

searching for the best information possible.25

���������

282

Any further questions?1

DR. FEHRENBACH: Madam Chair,2

could I request that we receive a copy of well? I3

would be most interested.4

MR. HENDRICKSON: You will get it.5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Either6

directly or through the staff we will certainly7

make sure you get it.8

Thank you. Other questions?9

Thank you very much, sir, for10

coming.11

03-H2.712

Written submission from the Ottawa Valley Tourist13

Association14

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would now15

like to move to the next submission, which is a16

written submission from the Ottawa Valley Tourist17

association, as outlined in CMD document 03-H2.7.18

Are there any questions or19

comments from the Members with regards to this?20

We will then move to a series of21

written submissions that have been grouped22

together since they reflect similar comments or23

requests of the Commission.24

I will ask the Secretary of the25

���������

283

Commission to read the list of intervenors, after1

which I will ask Members if they have questions on2

the issues raised in these letters as a totality.3

Monsieur Leblanc.4

MR. LEBLANC: Merci. The5

intervenors and the document numbers are:6

7

8

03-H2.89

Written submission from Beth McLaughlin10

11

03-H2.912

Written submission from Pierre Morin13

14

03-H2.1115

Written submission from Jim and Doris Sutherland16

17

03-H2.1518

Written submission from Beatrice Biederman19

20

03-H2.1621

Written submission from Lucy Sharrat22

23

03-H2.1724

Written submission from Kelly O'Grady25

���������

284

1

03-H2.232

Written submission from Kristen Ostling3

4

03-H2.245

Mémoire de Environnement Jeunesse6

03-H2.277

Written submission from Daniel J.H. Spence8

9

03-H2.2810

Written submission from Carolyn Topp11

12

03-H2.2913

Written submission from Pamela Shapiro14

15

03-H2.3016

Mémoire du Conseil régional du développement17

durable de l'Outaouais18

19

03-H2.3120

Written submission from Yosef D. Robinson21

22

03-H2.3223

Written submission from Concerned Citizens of24

Manitoba25

���������

285

1

03-H2.332

Written submission from Sierra Youth Coalition3

4

03-H2.345

Written submission from Ron Harshman6

03-H2.357

Written submission from Nancy Peckford8

9

03-H2.3610

Written submission from Randall Barnhart11

12

03-H2.3713

Written submission from Bevan E. Slater14

15

03-H2.3816

Written submission from Chantale Killey17

18

03-H2.3919

Written submission from Phillip Penna20

21

03-H2.4022

Written submission from Paul Dehler23

24

03-H2.4125

���������

286

Written submission from Lynn Jones1

2

03-H2.423

Written submission from Kristen Howe4

5

6

03-H2.447

Written submission from Tamara Di Saverio8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there any9

questions or comments arising from these written10

submissions on behalf of the Commission Members?11

Mr. Graham.12

MEMBER GRAHAM: I just had one13

comment with regard to 03-H2.8, and that was from14

Beth McLaughlin. I think it was noted there that:15

"The new CRL license should16

require AECL to monitor and17

make annual public reports..."18

All I'm just asking is that the19

openness that we have heard about today that is20

being committed, that that continue and that21

intervenors like this be notified of reports and22

so on that may be relevant with regard to23

radioactive contamination of groundwater in the24

Ottawa River, and so on, and that any reports that25

���������

287

are available be made public either through your1

library or whatever.2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Any comment from3

AECL?4

MR. LAFRENIÈRE: Thank you.5

AECL does prepare annual reports6

on the effluent and environmental monitoring7

results as required by the site licence and these8

are submitted to the CNSC staff. This information9

is available to the public and if a request is10

sent to AECL we will make sure it is sent out in11

timely fashion.12

THE CHAIRPERSON: Further13

questions or comments?14

Thank you very much.15

16

03-H2.1017

Written submission from Walter Robbins18

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will then19

move to the next submission, which is a written20

submission from Walter Robbins, as outlined in CMD21

document 03-H2.10.22

Are there any questions or23

comments from the Commission Members with regard24

to this submission?25

���������

288

1

03-H2.122

Written submission from The Lung Association of3

Renfrew County4

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move5

to the next submission, which is a written6

submission from The Lung Association of Renfrew7

County, as outlined in CMD document 03-H2.12.8

Are there any questions or9

comments from the Commission Members with regard10

to this submission?11

12

02-H2.1313

Written submission from Renfrew County District14

School Board15

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move16

to the next submission from Renfrew County17

District School Board, as outlined in CMD document18

03-H2.13.19

Are there any questions or20

comments from the Commission Members with regard21

to this submission?22

23

03-H2.1424

Written submission from Ken Birkett25

���������

289

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move1

to the written submission from Ken Birkett, as2

outlined in CMD document 03-H2.14.3

Are there any questions or4

comments from the Commission Members with regard5

to this submission?6

7

03-H2.258

Written submission from Ministry of training,9

Colleges and Universities10

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move11

to the written submission from The Ministry of12

Training, Colleges and Universities, as outlined13

in CMD document 03-H2.25.14

Are there any questions or15

comments from the Commission Members with regard16

to this submission?17

18

03-H2.4319

Written submission from Great Lakes United20

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move21

to the written submission from Great Lakes United,22

as outlined in CMD document 03-H2.4323

Are there any questions or24

comments from the Commission Members with regard25

���������

290

to this submission?1

2

03-H2.453

Written submission from Town of Laurentian Hills4

Volunteer Fire Department5

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like to6

move to the written submission from the Town of7

Laurentian Hills Volunteer Fire Department, as8

outlined in CMD document 03-H2.45.9

Are there any questions or10

comments from the Commission Members with regard11

to this submission?12

13

03-H2.4614

Written submission from Town of Laurentian Hills15

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now move16

to the written submission from the Town of17

Laurentian Hills, as outlined in CMD document 03-18

H2.46.19

Are there any questions or20

comments from the Commission Members with regard21

to this submission?22

23

03-H2.4724

Written submission from Ottawa Riverkeeper25

���������

291

THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like to1

move, then, to the written submission from the2

Ottawa Riverkeeper, as outlined in CMD document3

03-H2.47.4

Are there any questions or5

comments from the Commission Members with regard6

to this submission?7

With respect to this matter, then,8

I propose that the Commission confer with regards9

to the information that we have considered today10

and then determine if further information is11

needed or if the Commission is ready to proceed12

with a decision and we will advise accordingly.13