Public Safety Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Ken Pereira]

Correct.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

With this system, are we at risk of an event occurring such as happened in Tchernobyl and Three Miles Island? Does the fact that we do not use enriched uranium reduce those risks?

[Ken Pereira]

Not all of them. We have procedures and systems in place to ensure that the operating processes of nuclear power stations are well-designed and that maintenance is properly carried out. Our operating licences prescribe steps that need to be followed to avoid the risk of accidents.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I think you did not understand my question.

Are the risks posed by a CANDU reactor less than those you get with a system that uses enriched uranium?

[Ken Pereira]

No. The levels of risk are no different. But we have control measures that ensure an operating system that provides security assurance.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I visited nuclear generating stations in France and I asked them roughly the same question, such as what happens if, like it occurred in Three Miles Island or in Tchernobyl, control is lost over the nuclear chain reaction? I was told that they have large amounts of heavy water above the reactor that can be readily dumped over it and that will completely stop the nuclear reaction. Do we have the same thing here?

[Ken Pereira]

We have several systems to stop the nuclear reaction. There is a system that is used to protect the reactor and with the injection of reactivity it can stop the nuclear reaction. The system design is slightly different from those of other types of reactors, but we also have several systems to control nuclear reactions.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

So what is the main system that is permanently installed in Canadian nuclear generating stations?

[Ken Pereira]

Mr. Frappier might be able to answer.

[Gerry Frappier, Director General, Directorate of Security and Safeguards, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

We have several systems in place, as Mr. Pereira mentioned. There is a system that will inject what we call a poison, which stops the reactivity in the reactor core. There are also, as you mentioned, several emergency systems that will carry more water to cool down the core.

Generally, there are several systems to prevent serious accidents, as you mentioned. There are always various sources of radioactivity in a nuclear system and we need to have systems ready for every emergency.

A third very important system, since we want to ensure no radioactivity can escape the generating station itself, is one that is able to suck out all the air surrounding a reactor. This system extracts all radioactive substances and carries them to a building that was specifically built for such a situation.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I would like to deal with another issue and maybe you will be able to complete your answer in the second round if we run out of time.

I understand you have a good relationship with three provinces, including Quebec which has emergency response schemes in place in every regional municipality and county.

How do you integrate your own response measures with the emergency response scheme of the regional municipality in the county where Gentilly is located? Are you happy with the relationship?

[Ken Pereira]

We have committees that are tasked with exchanging information. There is a committee that deals with the exchange of information and that looks at security challenges.

Mr. Frappier has been a member of this committee and he might be able to tell you more.

[Gerry Frappier]

Our emergency preparedness program requires an emergency response plan to be in place in all nuclear generating stations. Under this plan, the operator must maintain a relationship with the first responders from the community and the province.

As we mentioned at the beginning, Ms. Keen, our president, could not be here today because she is presently in Gentilly where she chairs hearings on the renewal of their license. Part of this examination will make sure that a good relationship is being maintained and that a proper emergency response plan is in place.

I would say that we are confident that there is a good relationship between the people in Gentilly and those responsible for the emergency systems of the province and the municipality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Comartin, please.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

I want to pursue the same line of questioning as Mr. Ménard on best practices and standards. I'm not speaking of the operation of the nuclear reactor; I'm talking about perimeter security, the potential for an attack, and the coordination and planning in advance for that potential.

I was disturbed, when we went through one of the bills, about the disposal of waste. A story came out on what was going on at Point Lepreau. Two RCMP officers were working 12-hour shifts, 365 days of the year, including Christmas day, providing security for that operation. I don't know if that's still going on, but what's more pertinent is who sets the standard for security at that site, and has it improved. Are you responsible for setting the standard? How do you determine what is best practice?

[Ken Pereira]

The standard was established by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It arose from a design-basis threat analysis that was done. This methodology was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. We carry out these analyses from time to time, and since the events of September 11, 2001, there have been changes in what is done at nuclear generating stations. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issued orders requiring the operators of nuclear power stations and other low-risk facilities to implement certain security measures, including the provision of on-site armed response capacity.

That order has now been incorporated into new security regulations that have been drafted and will be coming into force very shortly. So we have standards for what is required of an armed response force, and the licensees, the operators of the nuclear facilities, have been implementing those measures progressively over a period of time. Initially some licensees needed to build up the capacity. We have an inter-utility working group that discusses the challenges they face. We carry out inspections to confirm that what is being done at the nuclear facilities does in fact respond to the requirements in place that were established for the security of nuclear generating stations.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

When those standards and criteria are assessed and put into place, is there consultation with local policing authorities here in Ottawa and in the region? I'm thinking of the RCMP, CSIS--those kinds of agencies.

[Ken Pereira]

Yes, there's consultation. In fact, with the requirements being incorporated into regulations, there's been widespread consultation on how those requirements are brought to bear. We've gone through the regulations-making process, including gazetting of regulations. Yes, we've had consultations with CSIS and the RCMP.

Then, within the power reactor licensees, we have an Inter-Utility Security Working Group that shares experience and provides input to the strategy that is being implemented.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

In terms of your analysis of Bill C-12, will it in any way enhance that consultation or that exchange of information with your commission?

[Ken Pereira]

I'm not sure that it will, but I'll ask Mr. Frappier to comment.

[Gerry Frappier]

As Mr. Pereira said, after September 11, the commission immediately put out an emergency order that required all the nuclear stations in class I facilities to upgrade their security in a significant way, including having a very significant armed presence there at all times and to increase perimeter security. So the example you're giving at Point Lepreau from the past would certainly not be the case now.

Part of the regulations does require that there is consultation with local authorities, and then part of our job, if you like, back here in Ottawa is to ensure that there is coordination with CSIS and RCMP, both in general for the overall framework and specifically for particular facilities.

I think Bill C-12 will enhance that ability of coordination, because again, as we've mentioned several times, it makes it much clearer that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, and therefore the department as well, has a role to ensure that overall coordination is in place. It specifically mentions the threat as far as terrorism goes.

I agree 100% with our colleagues from Manitoba that the big part here that everybody likes to focus on very quickly is the actual response, but the real work is done in the preparation phase, in mitigating the possibilities. We certainly expect PSEPC, when this bill passes, will continue to expand quite a bit on its capability to ensure that there's good coordination and planning before any incidents, including terrorism.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Dr. Young and Mr. Sanderson, we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They have some concern about the bill in terms of the local authorities, municipalities, etc., not being authorized. They're acknowledged in a very small way in the bill, but their principal role as first responders is not being taken into account in the bill. It's not being acknowledged.

We recognize the constitutional framework of the country, but I wonder if either one of you would have any thoughts as to how the bill could be altered, still staying within the constitutional framework of this country, to get them more into the loop from a legislative standpoint.

[Dr. Jim Young]

I acknowledge that they're not mentioned specifically in the bill. Let me just make a brief comment.

In practical terms, the way we manage emergencies in Canada is bottom-up. There's a very clear understanding that you can't manage any emergency, including something like a public health SARS thing, anywhere but right at the ground level, so the municipality is absolutely key. Everyone understands that, and there is, I think, total agreement on that principle.

The municipalities, as you are more than aware, are created by the province, so generally the discussions take place and the municipalities are brought into discussions. But it's certainly a provincial role to deal with the municipalities one on one, on an ongoing and everyday basis, and there's a certain sensitivity around that. I sat in the provincial chair for a while, and there was really always sensitivity in the Ontario government about Ottawa jumping over the province and dealing directly with municipalities.

I see the municipalities being covered in the bill under the entities. I know they're not specifically mentioned. The practice is that they are included. Can there be improvements in terms of how they're brought in and work with SOREM and be at the table more often? Undoubtedly there can be, Mr. Comartin, and probably should be, but I'm not sure it's a legislative problem. Again, I think it's a matter of our evolving our thinking and our practices more than legislating them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Dr. Young. I think you made a very key comment there.

Mr. Sanderson, in Manitoba, do you have a comment, please?

[Chuck Sanderson]

It's a big issue for all provinces and territories, but I agree with Dr. Young. It is bottom-up. It starts with the individual, then goes to the municipal level. In all provinces and territories, the emphasis is always at the municipal emergency planning capacity level, so they are engaged. They have to be engaged and they are fundamentally engaged in all provinces and territories.

The lack of mention within the bill doesn't negate the reality of the way this country has built its bottom-up emergency management system. Are there ways to improve that? Sure, there are always ways to improve it. But I think you'll find by and large that the strength of the emergency management system in this country is at the municipal level because of that recognition that each province invests at the municipal level.

And Dr. Young is absolutely right. In terms of making sure an emergency management system works correctly during an event, you can't have a federal government jumping to a municipal government and missing the province in between. It's a seamless process, but municipalities are the fundamental cornerstone.