Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Dr. Michael Binder]

With all due respect, I'm not a lawyer, but I know that section 19 of our act gave the government the authority to direct the commission. I also know, because our lawyer is telling us, that you cannot legislate by direction. In other words, any new mandate imposed on the commission would have to have gone through a formal legislative change, not through a direction. What that means is that we do not have two mandates.

I'd like to be very clear: we do not have two mandates; we have one mandate. If you think we're not going to shut down a facility that is unsafe, I think you are making a mistake.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Binder—

[Dr. Michael Binder]

We've just ordered a couple of licensees, one that I don't know if you're familiar with, the Mackenzie plant, which was in trouble.... We drew an order about removing some material. We will not hesitate to take action if a facility is unsafe.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Binder, let me ask you this, then. If you don't have a dual mandate, why did the government, by order in council in December 2007, published the day after Christmas, give you a second mandate?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

What has happened—and again, I wasn't there, so I'm just telling you what I would do. You have to weigh risks. We have to weigh risk on the impact on the environment. When a proponent comes to us and wants to open up a new mine, we have to weigh the risk of the impact on the environment, the impact on native communities, and so on, in making a decision.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand that, sir, but now your risk management has been fettered by directive of the crown.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go now to Mr. Shory from the government side.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd also like to thank the departmental officials for coming here this afternoon. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague, Cheryl Gallant.

Mr. Binder, as I am a new member on the committee, to have a better understanding I want to know, what is heavy water and what is light water?

Secondly, in the past, at one time, reports suggested that radioactive water was flowing unchecked into the Ottawa River. Can you please explain the treatment process, if there was any?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Heavy water is when deuterium and hydrogen get together and there is another neutron in hydrogen. It is naturally occurring. I don't remember what the percentage is, maybe 10% heavier than normal water. It's a natural kind of element. It's used to moderate, by which I mean to control, the nuclear reaction in a nuclear plant. That's the value of this heavy water. By itself, it's not radioactive. It is a naturally occurring thing. It's when a neutron is getting bombarded in this water that creates some of the radioactive elements.

Sorry, what was the second question you had?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

My second question was that reports at one time suggested that radioactive water is flowing unchecked into the Ottawa River. Was there any treatment process undertaken?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

All facilities have a place where they collect the radioactive material and many other materials--there are all kinds of other materials. Some of them get treated; some get measured and controlled in terms of release to the outside world; some of them are stored in permanent facilities. So how you treat the material depends on what the components of the material are. But whatever goes outside the plant is measured and controlled. It always has to be within the allowable health level that we impose on the licensee.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Gallant, go ahead.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Binder, you said that heavy water is not radioactive. What about toxicity? How much deuterium would have to get into the Ottawa River for somebody to suffer toxic effects? How many gallons would they have to drink?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

It's not toxic at all. It's plain water. In fact, it will never happen because it's very expensive. I don't think anyone would just allow heavy water to flow into the water, because in fact you're reprocessing and trying to recover as much of the heavy water as you can so that you can put it back into the nuclear core.

It's not toxic.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So it's not to a company's benefit to let any of that go. It's valuable for use in the reactor.

What about tritium? Does it occur naturally?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Tritium occurs naturally as a result of cosmic radiation, if you like. We have a chart here. If you look at the first chart, it shows that the natural background radiation for all Canadians is 2.4 millisievert. There are all kinds of nuclides in the atmosphere, and they're called background radiation. And if you look at the levels, the regulatory limits, that we impose on licensees, you'll see they're well below the background radiation.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How would it compare to having a chest X-ray, the amount of allowable radioactivity that is emitted?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

If you look at this chart you'll see that we actually put this on. Every time you undertake a medical process, it's around 1.2 millisievert, whereas the regulatory level is 1.0 millisievert over a year. So our standard for those operating facilities is lower than what you'd get from some medical X-rays.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

So then background radioactivity is even greater than an X-ray.

It's getting to the point, though, where the different companies are required to report emissions that are less than the background radiation that's occurring naturally.

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Correct.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You mentioned it was contained in that particular leak on December 5. So there wasn't any radioactivity that was allowed to go into the river?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

It goes into our waste facility and it's measured. All the material goes into one facility. Some of it goes into permanent storage, some of it is controlled and measured as they release it to the Ottawa River. There's always some sort of ongoing release well below the health limits we impose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Gallant. Your time is up.

For about two or three minutes, Madame Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Binder, I must tell you that I am really totally ignorant about nuclear things, but I am not the only one. People still remember Chernobyl and the impact that it had. You tell us that you are informing the public through the Internet, but let us not forget that some regions of Canada do not have the Internet. People do not naturally by instinct consult the Internet to find out what is going on. I think that you should establish a better mode of communication to inform the people about the problems you are facing. In fact, these things are worrisome only to those who know nothing about nuclear physics.

You say that there is no contradiction between protecting public health and ensuring a supply of isotopes, and that these are merely factors that need to be considered in making decisions. As you said, the previous departmental directive did not include the management of isotopes. Therefore, is it not right to say that your position is more sensitive than your predecessor's position was?