Evidence of meeting #43 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 cleanup.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm trying to understand where your liability of risk limit lies. Where do you set the boundaries? Clause 18 talks about people under evacuation order. I can't think of anybody else so far under clause 18. Is that it? Is this just about evacuations?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
No. For example, if there were situations where decisions were taken to prevent further damage, an order was issued banning the consumption of certain foodstuffs, for instance, that would be considered a preventive measure. Because that would be an order to prevent further damage, that action would be compensable.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, this is helpful.
So when you're talking about further damage--and the damage I've been imagining so far is physical plant damage--you're talking about damages in the broad sense of damages. As for foodstuffs--I'm not sure what you're saying about food. Why is that?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
It would be to prevent damage. For example, if there were a decision not to--
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I mean if there were an order not to harvest a crop, etc.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I see. Or it could be livestock or what not. If they were ordered killed or what not, they could be compensated here.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Yes.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Going back to the transportation routes, if CN were unable to access the line going by a plant for a few days, would they end up here?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That can add up.
If the 401 is closed for three days, who would sue for that? In terms of CN, it's a clear case--the contractors or what not. If you close a major highway route in Ontario or Quebec, who sues?
November 30th, 2009 / 4:50 p.m.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Well, those individuals who consider that they had sustained damage would launch a lawsuit, and it would be up to the judge to determine whether they could be compensated under the legislation.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Back to this estimation question, this is a limited liability bill. In clause 18, one of the specific examples we've used concerns evacuation and lost wages and the hardship associated with that evacuation. What studies did the government either initiate themselves or reference in trying to understand what a typical evacuation might cost per day?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
We set a limit, which was our recommended limit for operator liability, of $650 million. We then undertook the study by Magellan, which we produced for the committee on Monday, to determine how the damages associated with a foreseeable incident would relate to that $650 million limit. That was the study we undertook.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Magellan also said to take a look down the road at a Pickering-type scenario. With reference to things like clause 18, I don't understand how you set the limit. For the number of people we're talking about around Pickering, give or take 250,000, you would then work your way backward through clauses like clause 18. Is that what you just said?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
We didn't work our way back specifically through different types of damage. We identified the various types of damage for the consultant, and the consultant did an evaluation of a foreseeable incident and what the likely cost of the damage would be. The study indicated that it would be within the bounds of the limits we had set.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What you just said is that the study you did looked at a couple of sites, Gentilly-2 and one other, and that this was within the range of compensation that would be coming. They added up all these different areas of compensation. One of them was the likely cost of an evacuation.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
That's correct.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The study authors then said that what you must also implicitly do is two things: look at a more serious accident, and look at a site that has a higher density of population around it. I'm assuming that one of the reasons they did that.... The government instructed the authors to look at the sites they looked at. I don't remember anywhere in the study where the authors said that they chose the sites. The government said to pick these two sites.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
As I recall, there was a discussion with the consultant, and it was determined that Gentilly and Darlington were considered to be mid-level facilities, and the population density was mid-level. So those would be indicative of the costs that would be incurred, and that's why they were chosen.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Would they also be indicative of the costs that would be incurred around a site like Pickering?
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think there would probably be more costs associated with Pickering just because the key element, in terms of damages, is the evacuation cost. If there were a denser population, one would expect that the costs would be higher for the evacuation.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think this is a concern that's pressing for something like clause 18. When we talked before about there being a certain limited amount of money that a judge or a tribunal will dispense, the amount of money is based on two places that have a much lower density than a place like Pickering, which we just talked about. My concern is that we're going to run out of cash, in terms of paying, and then they'll seek cash from Parliament for a place like Pickering, under clause 18, right away. We're tripling or quadrupling the number of people we're evacuating. And I assume that we're quadrupling the cost of that evacuation, as well.
Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources
The limit on liability was not set based on any particular incident. Rather, it was based on international levels, insurance capacity, and other factors. Then we assessed that vis-à-vis the study.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, I know. I understand. And yet the author said to head down the road, look at Pickering, and also look at more serious accidents--I would assume for clauses like clause 18.