None--reported anyway.
Evidence of meeting #48 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waste.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #48 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waste.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
None--reported anyway.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Could you explain the difference between heavy and light water reactors?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Go ahead, and you have 15 seconds to do that, Mr. Binder, so take all the time you need.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Okay, then I will take it.
One is using heavy water and the other one is using light water. Within 15 seconds, light water is thus pure water, whereas heavy water is—how do I explain it—deuterium.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
We go now to the second round, four minutes each.
Mr. Tonks, go ahead, for up to four minutes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
The answer, Rick, was yes, he can; he was able to explain it.
Mr. Binder, it has been suggested that the radiation from these generators is equivalent to a lung x-ray. Do you agree?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Yes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Are the workers not in danger? I understand the public’s concerns. Afterall, the ship is carrying radioactive material. We have mentioned Ontario. You met representatives from that Province but what about Quebec? I would like you to tell me whether mayors and the Union des municipalités du Québec have indicated their agreement. I think that you should meet with the mayor of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Denis Lapointe, who is one of the intervenors for the Great lakes and the surrounding municipalities.
The first thing I would like to know is what steps you took to protect workers from potential radiation exposure? This is a legitimate concern. Secondly, I would like to know whether the mayors and the UMQ now support your approach.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
We conducted two types of assessments to ensure workers are protected. The first scenario we developed focused on the drivers of the trucks making a round trip with the 16 generators. We concluded that the worker would be exposed to 0.02 mSv. The annual maximum permitted public dose is 1 mSv. Consequently, drivers would be exposed to a very low dose. The second assessment focused on the ship’s crew. They would be exposed to 1.8 mSv annually in the course of their work. The maximum permitted exposure for workers is 50 mSv per year. In both cases, workers are protected. They are, therefore, not exposed to levels of radiation that could be harmful to their health.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Have the UMQ mayors approved your assessment? Did you consult them after the fact?
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I have to be blunt. In my opinion, this is not about safety anymore; this is about anti-nuclear. There is a professional anti-nuclear organization that is preying off the fear of nuclear. Let's be realistic; they interfere. They signed--
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Dr. Binder, respectfully, I know many, many mayors, and those mayors are not part of the—
4:15 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
They all signed an almost identical petition, not written by them, but by some other people who scared the hell out of them about the possible doomsday scenario of an incredible kind of accident. Our conclusions are that this is a safe activity.
I can tell you that when we read some of those petitions, some of the statements about poisoning the Great Lakes water were outrageous. It is not true. It is not even close to being a threat to the drinking water of the Great Lakes.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions. Just cutting to the quick with respect to process...and having been a former mayor, I'm not anti-nuclear, so I don't think this is a demagoguery-implied question.
Would it have better satisfied the concerns that have been raised, and the context you have given us, if an application had been made under the Environmental Protection Act, where the onus is on the applicant to provide an analysis of different alternatives? I don't mean to imply that you exceeded your authority or anything like that. I'm not implying that.
But in terms of satisfying the public, would that process have played better in terms of objectivity and a rational analysis of the issue?
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
It could be. It's hypothetical. But I can tell you that the CEA Agency itself does not believe this requires their type of EA. In fact they deferred it to us and said that as a responsible authority we should do the environmental review, which is equivalent to the environmental assessment.
For clarity, that is the way we do practically all environmental assessments under CCEA. If you asked me would it have been better if we did a screening assessment under CCEA, our staff believe they have done that. It wasn't under the umbrella of the CCEA, but it was totally equivalent to CCEA's.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Tonks.
We go now to Mrs. Davidson, for up to four minutes
Please, go ahead. Welcome to the committee.
March 8th, 2011 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for your presentation this afternoon.
My riding is Sarnia--Lambton. I have had several concerns expressed to me, so I'm very interested to hear what you have to tell us today, and to hear the science behind the decision that has been made.
There are a couple of things I would like to ask you about. You say you've done the extensive environmental assessment and review. You've evaluated the multiple worst-case incident scenarios. I think you said that even in the worst-case scenario the public dose would be less than 1% of the public dose limit per year.
When you're evaluating the worst-case scenario, how do you evaluate the threat to drinking water? You've made some comments today about there being no threat to the drinking water of the Great Lakes.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection and Assessment, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Essentially, we looked at the characteristics of the steam generators in terms of the content of radioactivity and the characteristics of the generator in terms of the radionuclides, which are not soluble, so it's a coating inside the tubes that is not soluble in water. There are plates that are welded shut, so there is no foreseeable manner in which the plates would fall off. Essentially we looked at those characteristics, and in our evaluation we looked at scenarios where the spikes....
Despite those characteristics, we made the assumption that radioactive material would find itself in water, and we looked at what the consequences to drinking water would be and hence to people who are drinking water. All those scenarios looked at steam generators falling into the Great Lakes or looked at the St. Lawrence or Owen Sound. We looked at the dispersion of material, contamination of drinking water plants, and what the consequences would be.
Even considering what is not possible because of the characteristics, no one would be exposed to levels of radioactivity that would approach the limit set for drinking water standards. No one would be at risk in terms of health.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you.
Dr. Binder, you said they had never shipped a steam generator before, or anything of this size, on the Great Lakes system, but has a package with comparable nuclear activity been shipped? I don't know the correct terminology. I'm talking now about activity as opposed to size.
4:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Absolutely. There have been quite a few, not only this but also on the U.S. side. If memory serves, the U.S. shipped steam generators on a barge. All kinds of materials are being shipped that are at a much more radioactive level than these particular steam generators.
I don't know, Mr. Jammal, if you want to elaborate on that.
4:20 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Sure. Our president mentioned the fact that there have been shipments on barges on the Michigan side of the lake. We have the list here. I can provide it for steam generators from Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, to Barnwell, South Carolina. Unit after unit after unit was safely transported on the Michigan side of the lakes.