Natural Resources Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Denis Lapointe]

In fact, the information started to be made public and we were able to review all the details of the project after the announcement was made, after citizens rose up or raised their hands to say that this would cause a problem and to ask how it would be possible to manage it. There's a lack of information, but it's starting to be given to us. I believe the hearings you're holding, and those that were held after people raised these issues, are making it possible to obtain a little more information. It's a little clearer now. The fact remains that the analyses or the review of the documentation that were made do not yet show that this shipment is without risk. We need to feel safer.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

But your—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Monsieur Coderre; your time is up.

Madame Brunelle, you have up to seven minutes.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, madam. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

My name is Paule Brunelle, member for Trois-Rivières. The beautiful St. Lawrence flows in front of my house.

Mr. Ruest, are you still with us?

[Gaëtan Ruest]

Of course, and I'm listening to you religiously.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Good afternoon. First, I want to congratulate you and all the municipal elected representatives for your vigilance. We're talking about 125 municipalities here that alerted us and signed a petition. That's important.

Congratulations to you as well, Mr. Lapointe.

Mr. Ruest, Mr. Binder told us two days ago that you had been influenced by environmentalist groups. Listening to him, we got the impression that these were anti-nuclear groups and that they had even drafted the petition for you. He told us something even more important, as president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and that's that this first shipment would take place and that there would be others. We at the Bloc Québécois are concerned about the precedent that is setting.

What do you say to those comments?

[Gaëtan Ruest]

As you saw in my presentation, which I was unfortunately unable to finish, we have no nuclear waste management policy. That's serious. In Bécancour, it's stored in silos. When the Ontario government owned nuclear power stations, it made a commitment not to change the situation until 2043. Then it assigned ownership to Bruce Power, and that's left the door wide open. The most beautiful country in the world will be giving the entire planet the opportunity to see its waste go back and forth between here and Sweden. No arrangements have yet been made. If we conducted a survey of the Canadian public, I'm convinced that a large percentage of citizens would say that the CNSC has made a mistake and that, if Canada really wants to set an example for the entire world, it should dispose of its waste properly. Furthermore, there are deficiencies that Canada must correct in the policy area.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

So you're suggesting that the licence be immediately withdrawn and that we adopt a policy.

I'm speaking to Mr. Lapointe and Mr. Ullrich. You're telling us that this might set a precedent. The Bruce Power station alone has 64 generators that will be decommissioned and that are likely to go the same way. You're telling us about an in-depth and rigorous environmental review.

In your view, is that a step that should be taken in advance? Is it important for you that we establish a policy, or is an environmental review enough?

[David Ullrich]

Absolutely. That is at the heart of the matter. The difficulty is not when the radioactive waste is in the steel containers, where I agree there is great protection. The real problem here is the true risk that is presented. As soon as you take it out of secure storage and put it into transportation, the risk goes up significantly, and that has not been quantified. I didn't see a single number that characterized the likelihood of an accident. The only number that was put in the record as to the seriousness of the accident was 1% of one of the 16 generators, with only 13.2% of the material actually being available. I think that is so optimistic an assessment that it simply does not have credibility in terms of the likelihood of an accident and then how serious the release is and then beyond that what happens to it.

The assumption that was built in is strictly that it is diluted in a large amount of water. That is not how we solve environmental problems. There is discussion about public health, but there is not a single bit of evidence that I have been able to see that addresses exposure to micro-organisms, plant life, or fish life in the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence. There is much talk about environmental review; I was not able to find anything in the record.

At the outset, Bruce Nuclear said there was zero risk, that no risk was presented. I am not aware of anything in life in which there is no risk, so from start to finish, in terms of the assessment of the risk presented, I simply do not think that the job was done. Suggestions that somehow or other environmental activists have been feeding Mayor Lapointe and our other leadership are simply not true, and I don't think they respect the people who are in office and really care about the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence.

[Denis Lapointe]

With your permission, I'd like to go back to the policy idea. There's no nuclear waste management policy in Canada. I believe that, with regard to sustainable development, it is the responsibility of the producers of that waste in Canada to put in place the necessary tools to manage, within our borders, the waste we produce rather than ship it elsewhere.

Under responsible management, we would take charge of our own waste, as we do now in the regions and ultimately in the communities.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you. One comment concerning the quantity of waste troubled me. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said that it was not possible to assess the quantity of waste that there actually was in the generators because they couldn't access them. So we really wonder.

Ms. Lynn, you're telling us that, at two metres from the generators, there's no problem; we're talking about radiation, but not contamination of drinking water. Have you assessed the potential consequences this could have for drinking water in the event of an incident during shipment? In my constituency, some citizens get alarmed simply because there's fluoride in the water they drink. We should really be reassured.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Dr. Lynn.

[Dr. Hazel Lynn]

When we actually did the assessment for risk of transport, we found that these boilers have been transported across Canada when they came in and also when the new ones came in, and there has never been an accident in their transport. They are transported in their own vehicles and so on, so the actual risk during land transportation of the boiler is pretty low.

The amount of naturally occurring radiation that's in the Great Lakes is about 6 becquerels per litre on average. Even if all of this material was released into the Great Lake—and we're looking at Lake Huron, because that's what we're on here—that would not change anything, and it would still be 6 becquerels per litre. In the big picture of radiation, we are all exposed every day to radiation. We're all exposed medically, we're all exposed from the sun, and although we don't want it in the environment and I think the plan is safe, if the entire load did inadvertently end up in the lake, it wouldn't even change the total amount. It's a very small amount of radiation in total.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Doctor.

Merci, Madame Brunelle.

Mr. Cullen, you have seven minutes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I suppose there are three components to the question we have in front of us. One is the proposal itself to ship radioactive waste through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. The second is the process that was used by the federal government to get permission to do this. The third is this question of influence that has now been put out by the regulator, assuming and saying, and I'm quoting, “...this is not about safety. This is about anti-nuclear. There is a professional anti-nuclear organization who are preying off the fear of nuclear”.

I don't think I've ever heard a regulator go so far beyond the bounds of their own mandate to cast aspersions on anyone who raised questions about this proposal as has been put forward by Bruce Power.

Dr. Lynn, you folks did a formal risk assessment. In your comments earlier you said you assumed no breach in the shield and therefore no accident in that formal risk assessment. Have you published and allowed the public to look at this formal risk assessment?

[Dr. Hazel Lynn]

Yes, we had one at Owen Sound. The city was concerned because the harbour where the generators would be loaded onto the ocean transporters is right there. Basically, there has never been an accident before. It starts to make your probability of an accident go down.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Have you released this document publicly? Can you make this document available to the committee, the formal risk assessment that you did?

[Dr. Hazel Lynn]

I did send it to you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Smith, do you feel that Mr. Lapointe is, as is suggested by the CNSC, under the influence of professional anti-nuclear organizations?

[Mike Smith]

I think Mr. Lapointe can speak to that better than I can, but no, I don't think so. I disagreed with the position they've taken and was very disturbed that as a host community, where the biggest part of the project was going to take place, we didn't get an opportunity to give input to the board before they made their decision and intervention.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Although I could almost see the proponent going out and accusing anyone throwing up roadblocks of being under undue influence from some quarter, it seems strange that the so-called watchdog would be out trumpeting for the industry and saying that anyone who raises a concern is being influenced.

Mr. Lapointe, the president of the CNSC said that everyone who has concerns about the transportation of the steam generators has been manipulated for the purpose of taking part in anti-nuclear activities. Do you agree with that?

[Denis Lapointe]

The answer is no. I believe that, as responsible communities, we have a right to ask questions.

Reference was also made to management. That subject has been addressed on a number of occasions by the mayors who belong to management. We adopted our position based on the information obtained by each of us and on that forwarded by the commission, not under pressure from anyone. We have no links to those organizations.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a question for you concerning the current process.

Under the act, it is not enough for a single official to approve shipment. It was only in response to public pressure that the CNSC resolved to hold two brief public meetings. The act permits a single, unelected individual to make the decision.

In those conditions, can the public viewpoint be respected?

[Denis Lapointe]

That's one of our major concerns.

As I said earlier, when I made my presentation, the information started spreading and the communication started to be established once questions were raised. I believe that all the consultation work should have been done before the process was triggered so that we could follow the development of this project rather than find ourselves in the situation we're currently in.

Now that the entire process has been completed and the decision made, we find ourselves appearing before a committee. Other organizations are also appearing before a committee to express their views, to express their disagreement or their concerns, in certain cases.

I believe that the public health and safety concerns are entirely legitimate. It's curious to find ourselves in this situation now that the decisions have been made. All this work should have been done in advance.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We've heard from Bruce Power that there's no rush, no timeline that they must do this by such-and-such a date. You're asking the government to put a pause on the project and do a more comprehensive study. I imagine you also want better consultation than the lack of consultation you experienced the first time. As the law stands right now, from our understanding, it's one person within CNSC who's able to sign a paper and allow this to happen. There is no discussion with any of the communities along the route. I want to understand your request to committee.