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.

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

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, I am not going to really comment on licensing, but I would comment on safety.

Our colleagues in the CNSC have stated that that reactor has been safe and it has operated safely up until the time that the reactor was shut down for its routine maintenance last month.

With the safety upgrades that we have made, in my opinion we have taken a safe reactor and we have made it even safer. The safety of producing medical isotopes in that reactor is, for me, without question, we are able to do it. We have made the case which we think is very strong in order to license the reactor and operate it safely and produce all the medical isotopes that this reactor is capable of.

This reactor, I have to say, produces almost 50% of the world's radioisotopes for medical use. When other reactors go down, it can produce 70% of the world's supply.

Mr. McGee has operated the reactor earlier this year to produce medical isotopes for the world at times when other supplies were not there.

We can produce the isotopes. We can produce them safely. To me that is the bottom line. We can do it safely and we can do it well.

[Barclay D. Howden]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to clarify our position.

As I said before, the reactor underwent seven upgrades to bring it up to modern standards. There is a difference between safe operation versus risk to safety. This reactor has operated with no significant accidents, although there have been events in the past, one called Line 1212 in the early 1990s, where there was a small loss of coolant. This was the reason why AECL recognized the importance of upgrading it to industry standards. That was a good thing to do. Completion of the upgrades and this final connection is essential.

The other issue is risk to safety. Because of no accidents, it has been operated safely. However, the issue at hand for us is if an accident occurs, is the reactor vulnerable. Our position is that it is vulnerable without the connections.

Another safety case is being put forward and the intention is to review that when everything comes in from AECL to assure ourselves that it is robust to be able to give the green light.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, this issue of risk to safety is a very important one. That is what we are trying to ascertain in weighing the risk to the workers at Chalk River versus the need of Canadian patients in our medical system.

It is sort of ironic that some six years ago the workers at AECL at Chalk River lost their right to strike because it was presumed that it would be detrimental to the production of isotopes if the workers ever went out on strike. Here we are with the situation where the work has been stopped, the reactor has been shut down, and we still have all kinds of questions that need to be answered.

Perhaps I will start with another question to Ms. Keen. She said that the commission is going to have a hard time trying to figure out what is really happening at Chalk River as a result of this legislation and that she is going to be shut out of checking the system. We need to know what that means.

The legislation would appear to suggest that the only area where regulations do not come into force would be related to the installation of seismically qualified motor starters on the heavy water pumps and the connection to the emergency power supply. Does that not mean that the commission still has full range of supervising and surveillance of Chalk River and the whole AECL operation?

Maybe I will ask a second question to the ministers. Would they agree to have AECL report regularly to the House over the next 120 days so that we can know what is at risk, what is happening, and if there are any dangers that we or the public should worry about?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, subclause 1(2) in the legislation says, “Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Unit Reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so” in other respects. What that means to the CNSC is that the legislation is giving AECL its own self-regulation and own oversight. Because the CNSC will not be involved in this operation in terms of the 120 days, and as I say, this is a very preliminary look at this, we are absolutely not sure about whether the CNSC would have any oversight over this because it is giving AECL its own self-regulatory ability. This is a very preliminary look at this. As I say, this is unprecedented; there is no nuclear facility in Canada that is not under our act.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I believe one of the questions was would we agree to have AECL report to the House during the 120 days.

We are all here to cooperate. Our number one focus, again, is to resume the production of medical isotopes in an absolute safe way. We would have no objection if there were a need for a report to come forward at some intervals to the House to make that available if there were specific questions that it wanted to be reported. In fact, we would welcome that.

I should also point out that the president of the CNSC has indicated that if the bill were to pass, it would have no authority over the NRU. That is not the opinion we take. We cannot take one section of the bill in isolation of the other. In fact, when we read both sections of the bill, there is no question that CNSC would continue to have regulatory authority over the NRU. The only specific exception would be this single pump.

Therefore, I believe it is important that we recognize the bill in its entirety and it would continue to have regulatory authority over all other aspects of the NRU, the reactor.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just offered what constitutes a legal opinion. Could he provide the House the supporting documents from the law officers of the Crown that would verify that the other aspects of the CNSC's regulatory regime are in no way impacted by the one change that I presume he suggested we should make?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am happy to respond. Again, I stress what we are all trying to focus on is medical isotopes. That is from a Department of Justice lawyer. We will be happy to make that available to all hon. members of the House in a cooperative approach to see if we can resolve this issue tonight.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has just over five minutes left.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to this issue of regular reporting to the House because there are certainly some questions that we all have. We want to ensure that we get back to production of isotopes, but the question of risk to the safety of workers is also of concern.

I want either of the ministers to clarify that they are willing to have a report every 20 or 30 days on the status of the operation over this 120 day period so Canadians can have confidence that there is no risk to the safety of workers and, in fact, that all precautions are being taken. That is one question.

The second question would be this. This whole issue has been quite a fiasco in many ways. Here we are today hearing the conflict between AECL and CNSC and there is clearly some animosity and conflict happening. Parliament has a right to know exactly what happened that led to this point. We need to have this matter referred to the health committee or to the natural resources committee in January or February so we can get to the bottom of it.

I would like clarification on those two points from the government.

I would also like to ask both Ms. Keen and one of the representatives from AECL about the possibility of there being a problem once immediate start-up occurs and this 120 day period commences. Some folks have expressed concern that it is in the start-up that we may see some complications in terms of threat to safety or risk to safety. Has that been analyzed and what are we likely to see once start-up commences?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, we would have no objection and we would ask that AECL submit a report once every 30 days throughout this period just to update the members of the House on the current status, including the start-up. This is a reasonable request and we think that should be able to be accommodated without any difficulty.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On the start-up question, would someone from CNSC or AECL like to address that?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, yes, I am going to turn this over to my colleague in a minute, but I want to respond to an issue that was raised on item number 2, which I have read, that AECL may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so.

I want to stress that the operator is responsible for the safety of the plant. We are responsible for the safety of the plant. Therefore, this statement to me is exactly what we are supposed to do, which is to operate the plant safely. If we think the plant cannot operate safely, then we shut it down.

I am not a lawyer; I am a nuclear scientist. When I look at number 2, it is telling me to do what I have to do anyway. The regulator provides the oversight to make sure we are operating safely. I believe the regulator would continue to do that. I do not see number 2 is telling AECL to do anything that it would not normally do.

For this specific question, I am going to turn it over to my colleague, the chief nuclear officer, to comment.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, there is no safety-related issue with the start-up of this reactor. This reactor shuts down once a month for typically about four days. Start-up and shutdown evolutions are more common for this reactor than they are in the power reactor sector, where the shutdowns are typically for maintenance between a year and three years. There is a lot of experience and a lot of competence when it comes to shutdown and start-up evolutions for this reactor.

The issue at hand relative to these pumps has no significance from a start-up or shutdown perspective.

I would like also to mention, to reinforce Dr. Torgerson's comments, that I have been in this industry for quite some time and a cornerstone of how I lead is based on safety of my people and safety of the facility, and that is uncompromising. In my experience within the industry, that is an industry norm, but I can assure the House that I will not compromise safety under any conditions.

I felt at the time it was safe and prudent, based on the licensing basis issue, which was primarily a licensing legal issue to hold the reactor back. Last year I made a decision to hold the reactor down based on what I thought had to be resolved, a lower level safety issue that had to be resolved. I held the reactor back on that occasion as well.

My commitment to safety is not just words. It is demonstrated and it can be demonstrated through the operation of this reactor as well.

[Linda J. Keen]

I wanted to mention this, and then I am going to turn it over to Mr. Howden for the specifics of the start-up. When we look at the issues of the act, the commission was not consulted on the act. We received copies just very recently and we did not have legal counsel because justice took it away. It thought there was going to be dispute over this bill. Therefore, we do not have legal counsel to review this matter.

When the commission looks at this, we absolutely agree with AECL, that it is responsible for the safety of the establishments. We absolutely concur with that. We require it to be that way. Because this reactor would not, under the present licence, be licensable with one pump, it is of very great interest that it will not be within the licensing basis. This licence is not going to be applicable for this area, so what exactly does the commission do? That is exactly what we will look at.

Mr. Howden will speak to the issue of the start-up.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.