Mr. Allen.
Evidence of meeting #42 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 accident.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #42 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 accident.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Chair.
This is just to clarify this whole line. We heard during the testimony from CNSC, when they were here, that in 63 years they've never had an event, and it's because of the regulatory environment we have.
From your viewpoint, isn't that what insurance is all about? It's just like insurance that we buy for anything in our whole life: it's based on risk and probability. Given that we have a tremendous regulatory environment and that CNSC will be continuing to discharge that responsibility going forward, one could say that the risk is virtually nil going forward and that there will not be a catastrophic event, and because of our history and because of the type of technology we have and the containment structures we have, what Mr. Cullen is talking about is some hairy-fairy idea. It's a theoretical concept, and it's really not reality, given our 63-year history.
Is that true?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's basically the philosophy, when we look at the foreseeable accident: that the likelihood of a catastrophic, very serious accident in which we'd lose containment is so unrealistic that we don't set the limit on that basis.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Was this study on the likelihood of accidents, which allowed you to determine the maximum level of risk, done in 2000?
November 25th, 2009 / 3:55 p.m.
Jacques Hénault Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
The report you are referring to was published in 2003. It deals with design basis accidents. The likelihood of accidents of that kind is higher than for catastrophic accidents, but they are still—
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
We will soon be in 2010. Do you believe that the age of the reactors could cause the data to change, together with your risk assessment? Or do you think that the data are recent enough that a reassessment is not necessary?
3:55 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
There again, it is the commission that regulates the facilities. The risk remains the same. If the risk exceeds the limits of what we call design basis accidents, the facility does not receive its licence.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm not sure if the expertise exists with you folks, but on that notion of design-basis accidents, can you explain the terminology so that I have some reference?
3:55 p.m.
Analyst, Nuclear Liability and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Natural Resources
This is probably a question that the CNSC should answer, but essentially, the way we understand it is that, during its environmental assessment and before a plant can have its licence, the CNSC has to consider design-basis accidents. The plants have to be designed in such a way that they can't have accidents beyond that. They have to address those types of accidents.
Again, in reference to the Magellan report, some of these catastrophic accidents that they say should perhaps be studied further are things in the order of one in a hundred million years. That's why the CNSC does not consider those accidents, because one in a hundred million years is not very frequent.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Cullen, we are dealing with clause 15. Your questioning is not about clause 15; it's about that report. We're not here to deal with the report. Could you please limit your questions to clause 15?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On the economic loss incurred by a person as a result of their bodily injury or damage, when the government was looking to set that liability regime it had some research commissioned. Did it update that research prior to this bill being introduced?
I want to get a sense of the shelf life of this bill. You mentioned that before this thing came out, you had set the framework for a liability regime and $650 million was what you came up with, the international standard in terms of economic loss. Was it then updated prior to the re-introduction of the bill this time?
4 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
No, I think the $650 million limit existed as well in a predecessor to this bill, which was Bill C-5. It wasn't updated prior to the introduction.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In your other testimony you said this was produced in 2003.
4 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The government came up with this liability limit prior to this report being done. Did I hear that right?
4 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, that's correct.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I can't remember exactly.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, so either 2002 or 2003. We're now going into 2010. There's been no refresh, I suppose, in understanding the international context for what kind of economic loss or liability the owner of a reactor may be subject to in those, now, eight years.