Evidence of meeting #5 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nuclear.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
There are multiple reactor installations in Canada. This clarifies that financial security applies to each reactor within an installation.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I want to ask Mr. Bevington if he sees the fact that any installation containing nuclear material.... Does that not include nuclear reactors?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We can't, of course, ask other members of the committee questions.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
What's the difference between what he's proposing and what's already on the books?
December 4th, 2007 / 10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Maybe you can ask that of the witnesses.
Mr. Anderson, on a point of order.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask the member to clarify his amendment so we understand it. I have the same question.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga—Erindale, ON
If I'm going to vote on it, I need to know what.... I'm addressing it through the chair to Mr. Bevington.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Bevington can choose to answer, and he didn't indicate that he was prepared to.
Mr. Bevington, go ahead.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Sure, no problem.
It's simply a matter that a number of nuclear installations have multiple reactors, so the $650 million liability would apply to each reactor rather than to the nuclear installation. And we have, quite clearly, a number of installations that have more than one reactor.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
I would just like to ask the staff who are present what their view is of that, and then how commonplace it is in the industry, or is it nuclear installations that are insured?
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
Under the existing legislation, the Nuclear Liability Act, in the case of certain multiple reactor facilities, those multiple reactor facilities are designated as a single installation because they all make use of one vacuum building, so they operate as an entire station. And in the event of an incident, the radionuclides would be contained in the single vacuum building.
It's for this reason, for example, that at the Darlington plant in Clarington the four-station unit is considered to be one installation. Similarly, at Pickering those multi-unit reactors, if they share one vacuum building, are considered to operate as a unit and would be considered as one installation.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
That's the current legislation and the current situation. Worldwide, is that the standard as well?
Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources
I don't know.
Jacques Hénault Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, this applies, for example, in the United States. What they call a nuclear installation would apply. There would be several reactors, but one policy would apply to that particular site. And I believe the same thing occurs in Europe where there are multiple reactors.
Conservative
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We would be opposing this because we think the legislation does cover the nuclear installations as it should. That's all I have to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Bevington, do you have a final comment?
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It was our understanding that in the United States the liability applies to each reactor. I'd just like a clarification on that, to make sure we're covered here in terms of the information.