Evidence of meeting #49 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 great.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Mayor, Town of Amqui
Third, that policy will have to clarify Canada's policy on the terms of acceptance governing the transportation of waste...
Fourth, that policy will have to clarify Canada's official policy on the radioactive contamination of global scrap stocks as a result of their deliberate or accidental mixing with radioactive waste.
Fifth, that policy will also have to clarify Canada's policy on the classification of so-called low-intensity radioactive waste—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We go now to our next group of witnesses, who are the first on the agenda for today's first panel. From the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, we have Mr. David Ullrich, executive director, and Mr. Denis Lapointe, chair and director. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here.
Go ahead with your presentation. You have up to seven minutes. Thank you for coming.
Denis Lapointe Chair and Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the natural resources committee, my name is Denis Lapointe, and I am the mayor of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, a town in Quebec, and chair of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. I am also chair of the environmental policy committee of the Union of Quebec Municipalities. With me is David Ullrich, our executive director, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
First, I would like to point out that, contrary to what may have been said, we are not associated with any anti-nuclear organization. Our interest in our presentations and efforts is the public health and safety of the people we represent.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence are the largest body of surface fresh water in the world. They provide drinking water to about 40 million Canadian and United States citizens and are the foundation of the economy of our two provinces and eight states, which together is the second largest in the world. The Great Lakes basin is home to 98% of Ontarians and the St. Lawrence basin is home to over 90% of Quebeckers, with over 50% along the shoreline of the St. Lawrence.
The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative is an organization of over 70 local governments, two-thirds from Canada and one-third from the U.S., with over 13 million citizens. We provide a voice for local leaders on key issues relating to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence, and work together with other stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource with balanced economic, social and environmental progress.
We are very concerned about Bruce Power's proposed shipment of 16 decommissioned nuclear steam generators containing radioactive waste through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. Our concerns are: there was not adequate consultation with other governments and stakeholders about the shipment; the shipment exceeds the International Atomic Agency's safety standards for total allowable radioactivity on a single ship; the environmental risk presented by the shipment was not characterized adequately; and the shipment sets a precedent for the future.
Concerning consultation about the shipment, we believe it has been inadequate with cities, the province of Quebec, first nations and the general public. Many of our members learned about this only from newspaper accounts or from our organization. Although there were some efforts to brief local officials once it became clear that the shipment was controversial, these were initially limited and selective. The decision to hold a hearing was announced only after the controversy developed.
We recommend in the future with a matter of this nature that there be public notice at the time an application is received, full disclosure of all the information that forms the basis of the application and proposed action on it, opportunity for consultation with the applicant and decision-makers, answers to questions raised by stakeholders, and a public hearing to raise concerns.
I will now ask Mr. David Ullrich to address our other concerns.
David Ullrich Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Thank you very much, Mayor Lapointe.
Chair Benoit, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today.
The second major concern we have is that the shipment exceeds the International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards for total amount of radioactivity allowed on a single ship. The CNSC’s February 4, 2011, decision acknowledges the shipment would exceed the safety standards by a factor of six, which is why the special arrangements that include compensatory measures are necessary.
These IAEA standards are set for a reason—to protect public health and the environment. It is the large amount of radioactive waste exceeding the safety standards on a single ship that leads directly to our next concern.
We do not believe that the environmental review was adequate to characterize the risk presented by the shipment. The risk increases as the steam generators are moved from secure storage onto trucks, transported over land to a port, unloaded on a ship, and moved through three Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River, and a system of locks and narrow channels.
The risks to Canadian and U.S. citizens and waters are not adequately characterized, quantified, or differentiated, based on the various conditions present in open lakes, locks, flowing rivers, and channels. If there were an accident, the seriousness of the accident is not adequately quantified, except that an assumption—a very rosy assumption of 1% of the radioactive waste from one of the 16 generators—is made.
The next step in assessing the risk is to determine what happens to the released material. The review essentially concludes that there is so much water in the lakes, rivers, and channels that the problem can be diluted away. Our review indicates that a release as the result of an accident could exceed drinking water standards in Canada. Places with the smallest volume of water are the most vulnerable.
Our fourth concern is that the shipment sets a precedent that could lead to many more shipments. This shipment is not routine. To our knowledge, no shipment of this large a number of nuclear steam generators containing radioactive waste has ever occurred on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence. Yes, there are shipments of other hazardous materials, but those are beyond the scope of this matter.
With Bruce Power alone having 64 nuclear steam generators that may be shipped, and with the amount of additional radioactive waste from nuclear plants along the Great Lakes, the potential for many more shipments is very real. This shipment certainly should be viewed as precedent-setting.
To address the concerns we have raised, we recommend that a thorough, rigorous, comprehensive environmental review be performed of the entire proposed shipment, and be subjected to full public scrutiny and review. If that risk is above levels acceptable under Canadian law and policy, either the shipment should not be made or additional measures should be required to reduce the risks to acceptable levels.
Thank you very much again for this opportunity to speak.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Ullrich and Monsieur Lapointe. I understand you had a fun day on airplanes in various places.
Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
It was an adventure down to Rochester, New York. Then the cab driver could not find number 1 Wellington Street and dropped me off way over on the other side. Even the RCMP didn't know where it was.
Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
It's a pleasure to be here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We will start our questioning now. From the official opposition we have Mr. Scarpaleggia, and then Monsieur Coderre, if there is time left.
Go ahead, Mr. Scarpaleggia.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just preface my remarks by saying that my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis sits on the St. Lawrence. It covers the western tip of the island of Montreal. I'm pretty sure that any citizen of my riding who is aware of this plan to ship these radioactive boilers to Sweden through the St. Lawrence, passing in front of my riding, would almost certainly be against it.
I'm trying to sort out what seems to be contradictory testimony. On the one hand, Mr. Ullrich, you were saying that the amount being shipped is the largest amount ever to be shipped through the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes. Is that correct?
Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
That is certainly our understanding.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
It is six times what is recommended as a safe quantity to be shipped by the International Atomic Energy Association. Is that correct?
Executive Director, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Yes, it's at least that. Our calculations show that the exceedance is much larger. It goes to a question about the interpretation of the International Atomic Energy standards. We were assured that we would get a clarification of that at the September 28 hearing; we have never received that clarification.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
That brings me to Dr. Lynn. You said in your testimony that the amount of radioactive substance is a great deal below what would be considered safe. Is that correct?
Medical Officer of Health, Grey Bruce Health Unit
Basically I'm talking about exposure that would be a surface contaminant to someone who was exposed to the boiler, which is well below what is transportable. The total amount of internal radiation is not going to expose the people who are watching the boilers go by.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
How do you square these two facts? In one case it's six times what is recommended by the International Atomic Energy Association, yet you're saying that one could stand next to one of these radioactive boilers for at least a couple of hours and it wouldn't be much different from getting a chest X-ray. As a non-scientific person, I'm trying to understand how one reconciles those two ideas.
Medical Officer of Health, Grey Bruce Health Unit
The boilers are encased in steel and then with an epoxy coating, which actually is a barrier to the radiation exposure. Judging by the amount of radiation on the external surface available to contaminate people from the exposure, it could be sent in a cardboard box. Inside the boilers there is more radiation, but it's not able to get through the steel.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
So under no circumstances would it be able to get through the steel.
Let's say there was a ship accident and the boiler wound up on the floor of the St. Lawrence River, corroding over time. Would there be no danger of a release that would be harmful to human health? Is that what you're saying?
Medical Officer of Health, Grey Bruce Health Unit
Basically, shielding is just that. We shield it, which we do all the time in X-rays and treating cancers; we shield the people we don't want exposed. The steel acts as a shield. If you breach it, of course, radioactivity will get out.
These are very safe as they are. You could go with what-ifs for many different things that might happen, but as the intact boiler is being shipped, there's very low-level waste.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I'm also trying to understand the difference between Mr. Smith and Mr. Twolan's point of view and that of the 130-odd cities that are categorically against this.
Is it because your town or county deals with nuclear issues all the time because you have the Bruce power plant there? Do you just have a different perspective because it's part of daily life?
Mayor, Saugeen Shores, and Warden, Bruce County
I think that's part of it. We've been host to that nuclear facility for over 50 years. We have a very well-informed public. I believe there was polling done on it in Grey and Bruce counties to see what kind of support there was. There was very high support for the project.
A lot of people who live in our community work there. They come home safely every day. They're no different from any other industry. It's a big part of our community. With that comes a very good understanding of nuclear issues, because a big part of our community works in that huge facility.
Liberal
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lapointe, we spoke with the commission's representatives. I had a feeling that those people conducted a consultation after granting the licence.
Are you concerned because you don't have enough information? The president of the commission virtually said you were all anti-nuclear types and were being controlled like puppets. I know Denis Lapointe. Puppet and Lapointe are two words that don't go together.
What's the basis of the problem? Are your fears the result of a lack of information? If we reassured you on the matter, would that change the situation for you?