Evidence of meeting #41 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was operator.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
I should clarify that. It hasn't been made public, but it is available for anybody who is seeking to look at it.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
No, it's not on a website. With government, if you decide to publish something you need to have it translated in both languages, and at the time the study was done for the department, and we kept it inside. But there have been people who have asked to have a look at the study and we've made it available.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I know we're at the eleventh hour here, but is it possible for this committee to see that study?
5:20 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, certainly.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, and prior to our next meeting, hopefully, because it may inform some of our discussions around this bill. That would be very helpful.
To go back to this study, I take your word for it on the conclusions the department came to, and it arrived at this figure. The bill, then, has assumed that a nuclear accident is contained within the site. Is that what I'm understanding? You said that no radionuclides would escape containment, essentially. Is that...?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
What the study described was a situation where there was controlled venting of radionuclides after an incident, but the contamination was controlled, contained.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In terms of a reference point for the committee, then, would a contained or a controlled venting look similar to the venting that happened at the Chalk River facility when it had a leak and there were so many kilograms released through the air and some through the water? Is that what you mean?
Sometimes I find that within the nuclear industry there's a certain terminology, like there's a spill but it's contained, or it's not a spill, it's a leak. Terminology that I would pass as normal means something else in the nuclear field, so when you say “contained venting”, what does that mean?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I don't think I would be the best person to go into the details of it, of making the comparison, but that was the basis when we were looking at in terms of the limit. That was one of our considerations; it was kind of a risk assessment of an accident at a nuclear facility.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So then again, the scenario under which this bill was drawn up...and this bill was first drawn up in 2004-05, is that correct?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That is correct.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So in 2004, if I could pick a time, the scenario in which we ran through potential compensation for Canadians or communities affected was that if there were a nuclear accident, there was contained and controlled venting onsite, with no great loss, no explosion, no Chernobyl, no anything like that.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is that assumption safe to make in the sense that...? Is it physically impossible with the systems we have developed under AECL to have a nuclear accident that goes beyond a contained accident?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It's extremely unlikely.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So when we deal with risk insurers and assessments, there's always the probability of trying to understand. Is it a 5% risk or a 2% risk or is it 10%?
I guess what I'm trying to understand is, if the assumptions made at the beginning of an experiment or a thought exercise, are such... When you say extremely unlikely, I don't know what that means.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
When we were developing the legislation and developing the limits, there was no consideration of providing a limit on the operator that might address an incident that was extremely unlikely, using Canadian technology, a Canadian regulator, etc.--western technology--and I think you would find that's the same with most legislation around the world.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This brings me to a second point. Was it also imagined that other than CANDU technology...? I would assume it also fits under this legislation. If someone were to bring another technology to Canada and run nuclear operators, does it assume that?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I still don't quite have a definition on what... I know anecdotally what “extremely unlikely” means, but are we talking 5%--
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
We seem to be getting quite a ways off the clause that we're looking at here. I think Mr. Cullen is welcoming a general discussion about the bill, but we're really dealing with one clause here. I wondered if we could possibly come back to it and then perhaps we can move on.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
On Mr. Anderson's point of order, I've been attempting to be very diligent about this particular clause. This clause, clause 15, talks about economic loss incurred. If the economic loss incurred we're talking about is based upon some assumptions that the committee has not yet heard... I remember talking to you, Mr. Anderson, about how an exclusive meeting with the officials, rather than the 20 or 30 minutes we got after the minister's testimony, would have alleviated some of my questions.
I'm here now with this bill. Some of the testimony I've been hearing today I'm hearing for the first time, just in terms of what the economic assumptions were. We're dealing with a clause on the economic loss incurred by a person, loss that is caused by a nuclear incident. I heard for the first time today that it's contained within site. That's interesting and important in terms of setting the actual limit, which is what this bill is designed to do.
I'm trying to be as diligent as I can in staying on the topic that we've been given.
