Bill C-38 (Historical)

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

This enactment permits Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River in Ontario for a period of 120 days despite certain conditions of its licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

Sitting Resumed

[Barclay D. Howden]

Mr. Chair, our view on the operation is that prior to November 18, when neither pump was connected to the emergency power system, it was not an acceptable situation. However, the proposal put forward by AECL is to have one of the pumps connected to the emergency power system, with the other pump operating normally. We agree the safety of that will be greater than it was before. However, again, that is the reason why we want to look at the safety case to determine whether the risk to safety is acceptable to go forward.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I think we have agreement from all three parties at the table tonight that the situation with the NRU is it would in fact be as safe as or safer than it was prior to November 18 if it were allowed to resume production immediately.

I want to go back to the issue of how long it will take the NRU to get up and running. We seem to have some clear indication that if the bill is passed tonight, there is the opportunity to have the production of isotopes resumed within about a week. Seven or eight days I think is what we were talking about.

Could AECL tell us how long it thinks it would take to get the reactor running without the act? Then I will have a further question on that, as well. Is it approximately two weeks?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, it is somewhat speculative. If we take the path of not pursuing the act, pursing the safety case and a commission hearing, there are some uncertainties associated with that. I think it is fair to say probably the best case scenario would be at least two weeks before the reactor is back in full production.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, it sounded to me tonight like there were some issues between the two agencies in terms of the safety case. AECL suggests that it has submitted one and the CNSC does not seem to find that adequate. It is suggesting that AECL should submit another one. I think that is basically what we are hearing.

If AECL submits the safety case and the CNSC has issues with the safety case, then what is the time length we could expect before it would likely be up and running? There is, I imagine, a span of time there, but what would be the earliest we would see it if some of those safety issues have to be dealt with?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, that really becomes an open-ended question without knowing specifically what any of those concerns would be. Because safety analysis is time consuming and somewhat complex, it could take anything from a week to, in some cases, a matter of months.

The sort of safety case we are into is something that is normally done at a different pace than we are attempting to do it at right now.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I understand there is a sense of urgency here, and the witness is talking about that.

I have a bit of a concern. I have not heard that sense of urgency tonight from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I listened to the opening comments and a response to the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore earlier in the evening, as well as the explanation of the requirements that AECL would have to fulfill. I also listened to the response to the member for Mississauga—Erindale's comments. I did not feel there was a sense of urgency on the side of the CNSC that this needed to be done immediately.

I guess I got the sense that the CNSC may be more interested in asserting authority rather than working in a really constructive and quick way with the other agency.

Could Ms. Keen comment on that, if she has a comment?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, certainly that is not correct if that is the impression I left. I said that the CNSC was working 24/7 to discuss this case. We had staff on the site repeatedly all weekend, looking at this case. We are moving expeditiously.

A normal tribunal, to allow people to come and participate, intervenors from the communities, et cetera, would require 60 days to ensure people had an opportunity to look at the materials and plan to come. To go from 60 days to 1 day is extremely expediting the process. The staff have been willing to look at parts of the safety case as it comes along. Therefore, the commission is working very hard.

However, there is a reason for a regulator and there is a reason for the safety case to be reviewed to make sure it is complete, and that is, safety. This is something we have to emphasize today. We are not talking about paper. We are not talking about bureaucracy. We are talking about what the professionals need to do to look at safety. Therefore, this is very expedited.

I am sorry if any other impression was given.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ms. Keen, in your view, I want to know if the CNSC has done any reflection or study of the risk to human life in not restarting the reactor. Have you have done any work on that? What is the risk to human life and human of shutting off 70% of the world's medical isotopes for a month? Has that been any part of the considerations of your position in this issue?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, the commission does understand the need for radioisotopes. Because we regulate all the hospitals and clinics, we are involved with them on a daily basis as well.

However, the mandate of the commission is very clear, and that was given to us by Parliament. Parliament gave us the mandate in the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Therefore, we are operating under that.

We did receive the directive. That does put some new responsibilities on the commission in terms of evaluation. We will be looking at that as we move forward with licences with the new directive.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Ms. Keen, earlier you said that you did not have an economic mandate. I think that was part of the introduction of what you said. This morning you were asked to consider seriously the existing health and safety issues.

What have you done throughout the day to take those into consideration?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I and the commission and the commission staff will continue to operate within the law. The law is that we regulate for health, safety and, since 9/11, security of the establishment and the protection of the environment.

This is not in the current mandate and we follow the law. We do what we are told to do.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I believe you were given that mandate this morning. Therefore, I do not think you can say that you do not have a mandate in that area. I think you need to consider it seriously.

I want to thank all the witnesses for making the effort to be here tonight. I know some people had to come a long distance.

However, I would like to go back to our two witnesses who showed up recently.

I want them to reiterate their comfort level with the immediate resumption of the reactor. Could they tell us a bit more about whether they feel comfortable with the legislation passing and then the reactor being started up immediately.

[Robert Strickert, Former manager of Pickering and Site VP of Darlington]

Mr. Chair, we were provided with the AECL case on NRU operating with the extra pump and we were provided with a copy of AECL's letter. We were not provided with a copy of the licensing issues, so we looked at the safety side of it with respect to the safety case and not with respect to the past licensing track. We are not into the legal licensing issue at all. We were looking at the safety.

Having reviewed that case, we thought it was prudent to restart the reactor, that it appeared to be a reasonable case, certainly on our background knowledge. Dan, in particular, has had a background in nuclear safety review at NRU. I have been quite involved over the years with a number of submissions at various plants on nuclear safety. I was the signing authority for Ontario Hydro for a number of plants, for a number of years. It was my name on the document in terms of what was submitted.

Our understanding was the reactor was capable and safe before it was shut down, and that there has been an enhancement made that will give it an additional level of safety. We believed, based on the information we were provided, that this plant could operate for a short period of time, up to the 16 weeks that was mentioned, with the required level of safety and a better level of safety than it had operated for in the past 50-odd years.

That was the opinion we put forward based on the information we were provided, which was the AECL submission.

[Daniel Meneley]

Mr. Chair, I agree completely with Mr. Strickert's evaluation, based on some 45 or so years in the nuclear business, and quite a lot of that concerned with safety.

Specifically, with regard to NRU, a recent review of the possibilities, the consequences of failure if everything goes wrong and the consequences of failure in NRU are not that large.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Chair, when I graduated from engineering, I actually worked with AECL in Manitoba for a time. I have found this discussion this evening very interesting and informative, but most important, very serious.

I have a few questions for Ms. Keen. Ms. Keen's testimony tonight seems to suggest she is looking at this issue from a very narrow regulatory point of view. However, as each day goes by, there are exponentially more and more people being affected by the delay in starting up the reactor.

Is there some onus on the regulatory side to take into consideration the broad public safety aspect or consequences of shutting down the reactor?