Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Community Advisory Council
Pickering Nuclear Information Centre
Meeting Minutes, January 19, 2016
Highlights
Site Update
Brian McGee reviewed employee safety and plant productivity performance; the Government
of Ontario decision to approve the Darlington refurbishment and to extend the operating life of
Pickering to 2024; a Conference Board of Canada estimate of the positive economic impacts
of Darlington refurbishment; and a CNSC notice of violation regarding an administrative
matter at Pickering Nuclear. Council members raised questions about these items.
Public Affairs
Carrie-Anne Atkins reviewed OPG's recent and forthcoming involvement in community
events. A plant gate collection for local charities, planning for the March Break program, and a
salmon egg hatchery at the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre were among the items
mentioned.
Update on NWMO Site Selection Process for Long-Term Management of Used
Nuclear Fuel
Jo-Ann Facella presented a progress update on the site selection process for a Deep
Geological Repository (DGR) for the long-term storage of used nuclear fuel. She emphasized
that a DGR will only be sited in an informed and willing host community with a suitable
geologic formation. She noted that NWMO is now engaging with nine communities that have
expressed preliminary interest in hosting a DGR and have successfully moved through the
first phase of the process. Council members were very impressed with Jo-Ann's presentation.
They asked questions about the possibility of re-processing the used fuel, how used fuel from
future nuclear plants will be managed, how communities along transportation routes will be
engaged, and other matters.
1
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Community Advisory Council
Pickering Nuclear Information Centre
Meeting Minutes, January 19, 2016
Pickering CAC:
John Earley
Donna Fabbro
Keith Falconer
Mary Gawen
Bill Houston
Donald Hudson
Tim Kellar
Greg Lymer
Pat Mattson
Zachary Moshonas
Helen Shamsipour
Dan Shire
Ralph Sutton
Deborah Wylie
NWMO:
Jo-Ann Facella
OPG:
Carrie-Anne Atkins
Brian McGee
Glenn Pringle
PDA:
Francis Gillis
John Vincett
Regrets:
Elliotte Boyko
Jim Dike
Kevin Heritage
Cody Morrison
Moe Perera
Siegmar Pulst
Uma Suresh
Topic #1: Introductory Items
Given that the CAC minutes for December 15, 2015 were just being distributed to Council
members this evening, Facilitator John Vincett said they would be reviewed at the next
meeting, along with the January minutes.
John noted that Volume 13, Issue 4 of the NWMO newsletter is now available at:
https://www.nwmo.ca/en/More-information/Newsletters.
2
Topic #2: Site Update
Senior Vice President Brian McGee presented a site update. He began with some highlights
from OPG's 2015 Performance Report for Pickering Nuclear:
 The site achieved Excellent Performance in all measures of safety, including Accident
Severity Rate and Employee All Injury Rate.
 Emissions to the environment were better than site targets for the year.
 The site's forced loss rate (unplanned losses of energy during a given period of time) of
2.89% was an historic best. The best rate before 2015 was 5.86%. The target for 2015
was 5.5%, so the actual rate achieved was considerably better than targeted.
 Unit productivity for 2015 was the best since 1995. Pickering has generated 21.2 Terra
Watt hours (TWh) since 1995, producing a huge savings in greenhouse gases (GHGs)
over coal burning units.
 In 2015, the site achieved its historic best in human performance.
So 2015 was a good year, Brian concluded, but as he says to staff, “that's history.” The
ratings are the what, but the station must not lose sight of how they were achieved. “If we
drive the safety and performance culture,” Brian said, “the score will take care of itself.”
Brian went on to present other update items:

It is 151 days since the last lost time accident at Pickering Nuclear.

There have been no significant safety or environmental issues since the December
meeting.

Of the six active units at Pickering Nuclear, Units 1, 5, 7, and 8 are operating at or near
full power. Unit 6 was returned to power over the holidays and is being gradually
brought up to full power. Unit 4 is down for a planned outage and is scheduled to return
to power in late March. The outage is going well. There was a brief forced outage of
Unit 7 (now back in service at 99% of full power).

Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli and OPG CEO Jeff Lyash convened a news
conference at Darlington to announce plans to go forward with the refurbishment of the
Darlington station and to extend the operating life of Pickering Nuclear to 2024.
Pickering Mayor Dave Ryan and Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster attended the event
along with local MPPs, including Minister Tracy McCharles and other dignitaries. Jeff
Lyash was interviewed on Global TV (link)
GLOBALCIII_FOCUSONTARIO_5_37PM_JAN16_2016_TORONTO_5_30MIN

Extending operations to 2024 changes the planning basis for Pickering Nuclear and
how it fits into the province's long-term energy plan. Adjustments will be required. All
six currently active units will be operated to 2022. Of these, four will continue to 2024.
We have to do a technical analysis of which two units make the most sense to take off
early. It is not necessarily the newest units that will be operated to 2024. We need to
determine on a unit-by-unit basis what needs to be done to extend operations to 2022
and 2024. We have to look at the outage program and the state of the pressure tubes
3
in each unit. In general, ongoing inspection and maintenance is what promotes safety.
But additional extensive inspections will be required to determine what needs doing to
extend operations in preparation for our licence application.

The Conference Board of Canada has estimated the Darlington Refurbishment's
economic impact on Ontario. Key findings:
 Investing in Darlington Refurbishment will increase Ontario's nominal GDP by a
total of $14.9 billion.
 Due to the project's low import content and heavy reliance on Ontario-based
contractors, on average, for every $1 spent on the project, Ontario's GDP will
increase by $1.30.
 Over the 2010-26 calendar years, the refurbishment investment is projected to
lift employment by an average of 8,800 jobs per year, and 11,800 jobs per year
during the peak period 2014-2023.
 The increase in economic activity and the resulting increase in labour income
and corporate profits would boost federal, provincial, and municipal
governments' tax revenues by a total of $5.4 billion over the project's period.
 Of that total, $1.9 billion accrues to the federal government, $3.1 billion to the
Ontario government, and $407 million to local municipalities.
 Since increased employment and GDP translate into increased income, the
project is expected to boost wages and salaries by $8.1 billion and household
income by a total of $8.5 billion, or $502 million per year from 2010 to 2026.
 Similarly, the project is expected to raise pre-tax corporate profits by $2.8 billion
and the pre-tax income of unincorporated businesses by an additional $253
million in this time period.
A link to the report can be found here:
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/e-Library/abstract.aspx?did=7529>

As announced on the CNSC website
(http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/pdfs/Regulatory_Action/2016/20160112-AMPOntario-Power-Generation-eng.pdf), Pickering Nuclear has received a notice of
violation from the regulator on a security related matter. OPG is constrained from
discussing security issues and so it is not possible to be more specific. Though the
violation is administrative in nature, OPG takes it very seriously. The regulatory
process will determine how we proceed from here. But the safety and security of the
facility was never in question.
Brian responded to Council questions:
4

Was there a fine also?
Yes, there was a $31,000 fine—a lower level fine.

Has there been any such occurrence before?
No.

Can OPG appeal the notice?
Yes, that is one option.

How did this event come about?
A CNSC inspector saw something different in our administration of the station. But we
don't want to minimize the situation. I have to be careful what I say, given certain legal
and security aspects.

Regarding the announcement of extended operations at Pickering Nuclear, what's
been the feedback?
Naturally, the staff and community are happy, but we must continue to earn the trust of
our community every day.

Regarding the life extension of Pickering Nuclear, as you decrease the number of units
operating after 2022, it creates a bit of vulnerability. From that point on, any outage will
reduce a greater proportion of energy output from the plant.
That is true, but taken all around this is a good news story for Pickering and the
province. There will be significant rate savings and a savings of eight million tonnes of
GHGs.

What happens with the site repurposing project?
We are going to carry on with it. The new schedule just gives the project team more
time to work on it. It gives us more time to look at the repurposing options more fully.

Does the extension require re-licencing of Pickering Nuclear?
Yes. By June 2017, we will be able to indicate which units will be shut down first in our
submission to the CNSC for a licence hearing in the second quarter of 2018.

Is the decommissioning plan part of the licence application?
If we go for a 10-year licence, the last four years will be devoted to the safe storage
and decommissioning process. At our last licence hearing, the CNSC noted an
expectation that the next licence application would give an indication of the approach to
the decommissioning process.
Topic #3: Public Affairs
Public Affairs Manager Carrie-Anne Atkins reviewed OPG's recent and forthcoming
involvement in community events:
5

On December 18, through the generosity of staff, the Generating Change Gate
Collection Campaign raised an impressive $2,763 for local charities including Herizon
House, Big Brothers Big Sisters Ajax-Pickering, St. Paul's on the Hill Community Food
Bank. Employees also made generous food and toy donations in support of the
Durham Regional Police Service food and toy drive.

As mentioned by Brian, on January 11, the Ontario Government announced its
decision to invest in refurbishing the first of four units at the Darlington station. The
province also approved plans to continue operating the Pickering station until 2024.

The Public Affairs Department is now heavily involved in planning the March Break
program with many community partners, including Let's Talk Science, Windreach Farm
and Durham Children's Safety Village.

The next edition of the Neighbours Newsletter will be distributed in March. The March
Madness schedule will be on the back of the newsletter.

We are once again hosting some local schools to be part of helping to raise salmon
eggs in the hatchery at the Pickering Nuclear Information Centre and this year, there
will also be a hatchery in the Pickering Public Library.
A Council member asked if the Public Affairs department had received any calls from the
public concerning the proposed operating licence extension period. Carrie-Anne said that no
calls have come in since the new year.
Topic #4: Update on NWMO Site Selection Process for Long Term
Management of Used Nuclear Fuel
Jo-Ann Facella is Director of Social Research and Dialogue at the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization (NWMO). She presented a progress update on Adaptive Phased
Management (APM) and site selection for a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for used
nuclear fuel. She provided historical background on the NWMO and described: the design of
the DGR; the site selection process and where the NWMO is at in that process; technical
studies of the geoscience and environment for the DGR; transportation issues; and
community, Aboriginal and government engagement (Appendix 1).
Jo-Ann presented some background on the NWMO and its governance. Prior to the formation
of the NWMO in 2002, there was a close to 10-year environmental assessment of long-term
nuclear waste management in Canada, which concluded that a DGR was technically feasible
but was not demonstrated to have public acceptance. It was apparent that the only way to
gain public acceptance was to develop a plan in consultation with Canadians at every stage.
The NWMO is federally mandated and is funded by the major waste owners (OPG, New
Brunswick Power, Hydro Québec and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)). The nuclear
industry in Canada has cradle to grave responsibility for nuclear waste; i.e., nuclear waste
6
management is to be fully funded by the sale of electricity.
During the study phase of work Canadians said that, as the beneficiaries of nuclear generated
power, the used fuel of which is hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, our
generation needs to offer waste storage that future generations do not have to manage
(though they can access that waste if they want to). The same principle holds in other
jurisdictions around the world.
Jo-Ann emphasized that the site selection criteria are that the DGR will only be sited in an
informed and willing host community with a suitable geologic formation. The project will only
proceed with an interested community, First Nation and Métis communities in the area, and
surrounding communities working together with the NWMO to implement the project.
The site selection process was initiated in May 2010. Phase 1 of the process, which included
preliminary assessment of 22 communities expressing interest in the project, is now
complete. Most of those communities are located in Ontario (see map in Appendix 1, Slide 9).
Thirteen of those communities are not identified for further study.
Phase 2 assessment of the remaining nine areas is now in progress, including field studies
and expanded community engagement.
Canada’s plan requires that all used fuel in Canada will be stored on one place. Since used
fuel is currently being stored at seven locations on an interim basis, transportation is a key
component of the Adaptive Phased Management planning and implementation process for
long-term used fuel management. Jo-Ann described how the used fuel transportation
package will meet the primary goal of safety. The NWMO has produced a video showing the
safety tests of the transportation package being conducted. These extreme tests are very
interesting to the potential site communities. It is also quite helpful for people to see and touch
these packages.
Regarding the expanded community engagement, Jo-Ann noted that information is important
in communities' perception of nuclear power: “They're very impressed with what goes on at a
nuclear facility.”
In 2016, community engagement will look at such questions as how can the project help the
community to achieve various objectives and whether the project is a good “fit” for the area.
Jo-Ann listed new NWMO materials to support learning and dialogue, including pamphlets
using infographics, so people can understand more of the project at a glance. (Two
pamphlets were passed around at the meeting, and the Council members liked this easily
understandable format, requesting copies of these items).
Jo-Ann also talked about Aboriginal engagement, which includes outreach to national and
regional organizations and community specific engagement. She noted that the NWMO is
also working on an Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Policy.
CAC members expressed appreciation for Jo-Ann's presentation, which they found very
7
informative. Jo-Ann responded to Council questions and comments;

It would be excellent to hear about used fuel waste management processes in
European countries.

Does the DGR approach to waste storage provide for the possibility of re-use of the
nuclear fuel?
We recognize that the DGR technology needs to be flexible enough to adapt to new
technology and are keeping a watch on that situation. The NWMO puts out a watching
brief once a year. Canadian fuel (which is from CANDU reactors) is different from that
used in many other countries. Also, different countries have different amounts of fuel to
store, which means the economics of re-use is different for each country. But even
countries that do re-processing need a storage technology for whatever does not get
re-processed. A decision to re-process used fuel would be up to the owners of the fuel,
not the NWMO. Hazard reduction could be another reason for accessing the stored
fuel. There is no evidence to date that we are on the verge of re-use or hazard
reduction opportunities, but we can't predict future opportunities.

Do U.S. states bordering on the Great Lakes have a voice in site location decisions?
Resolutions in opposition to the siting process have been passed on both sides of the
Canada-U.S. border. This is part of the democratic process. Information makes a big
difference to the way people see things.

Does the NWMO offer payouts for the municipality chosen to site the DGR?
The NWMO has talked about how the community can use the DGR as an engine to get
economic goals such as jobs. The community comes up with a plan to meet the
interests of all stakeholders. For example, stakeholders may need job training
programs. NWMO has made no specific promises, as we don't want to be seen unduly
influencing decisions of a community. But the economics of the process are very large
without payouts, and there is enough time to provide training, business incubation, etc.
We are looking at a long-term process, so long-term monitoring is an important part of
the project. Ultimately, the DGR will be sealed and closed in partnership with the
community.

Sealing and closing assumes we will have nuclear plants for a limited time only.
It's very important that communities know the volume of fuel they are committing to if
they agree to host the repository in their area. The regulatory review process requires
that the specific volume of fuel to be placed in the repository is identified. If the volume
of fuel to be stored is to increase in the future, this would not only require agreement
from the host area but would also involve the regulator. But in the interim the storage of
used fuel from existing plants to the end of their operating life is what is being
discussed with communities. [Further clarification on this question is available in the
CAC minutes of February 16, 2016.]

Will you be consulting with communities along used fuel transportation routes?
Based on what we understand to date, many communities share the same concerns.
8
Our plan is to understand community concerns regarding transportation. We are not
planning at this time to go to all communities along the route. We think of it more as a
broader decision but will learn as we go.

Will you consider using existing mineshafts for the DGR?
No. We are looking for rock with no or few fractures or fissures, which precludes
existing mine shafts. Also, mines are in areas where there are minerals, and we are
looking for homogeneous rock without economically exploitable minerals. (Glenn
Pringle, Manager of the Pickering Used Fuel Management Facility, added that those
minerailsed areas are likely to be the subject of further exploration activity by mining
companies, another reason why they would be unsuitable as sites for a DGR.)

Is there significant high-level contact between OPG and the NWMO?
Glenn said, yes, there are lots of interactions between OPG and the NWMO at the
higher levels, but not with site operations at Pickering. Glenn said that Pickering has
hosted a number of visits to the waste management facilities of community
representatives from municipalities and aboriginal groups working with NWMO. Jo-Ann
noted that OPG owns 90% of the used fuel in Canada and so participates in the
NWMO Board of Directors.

Given that safety is a strict pass/fail situation, has any thought yet been given to
resolving a “tie” between two communities in terms of the other site selection criteria?
The partnership between NWMO and the host community is going to require a lot of
effort and the coming together of many minds over a considerable period of time. At
this point, we anticipate that one community will stand out as the right one for site
selection; but we are giving the matter some thought in the current plan.

Has the Deep Geologic Repository project in Kincardine (for low and intermediate level
nuclear waste) received government approval yet?
(John noted that NWMO has a mandate to manage the used fuel waste and that the
facility proposed for Kincardine is an OPG project for the management of Low and
Intermediate Level waste. This DGR was subjected to a review by a federal Joint
Review Panel, which recommended that that project be approved along with a series of
recommended conditions. The previous government extended the review period until
after the federal election. A response from the federal Minister of the Environment to
the JRP recommendation is due by March 1, 2016.*)
A member suggested a Council tour of the Pickering Waste Management Facility. John noted
that the CAC has toured the PWMF two times in the past and that, yes, it is time for another
tour. PDA will work with Glenn and Carrie-Anne to organize a tour of waste management
facilities later in the year.
*
There was a subsequent letter from the Minister asking for additional information:
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=104963
9
Topic #5: CAC Annual Report
John said that the remaining portion of the CAC 2015 Report would be distributed with the
minutes (Appendix 2)
Topic #6: CNSC News
For selected news items from the CNSC, please see Appendix 3.
Next Meeting
Tuesday, February 16, 2016, 6 pm
Pickering Nuclear Information Centre
(supper available at 5:30 pm)
10