Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

Sitting Resumed

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I too obviously am very worried about the patients and how we can ensure that this never happens again, but as a physician member of Parliament, I am also very worried about the integrity of a regulation system that we in this Parliament put in place in the year 2000 to make sure that there would never be the need for Parliament to override the regulator or the people with the knowledge in terms of the size and picking between he said, she said in what we have had to do tonight.

I am still upset that the news has been that there was a licence given to AECL to run the plant based on a promise to fix all seven NRU safety system upgrades, and that they had to be fully operational, and that that commitment was made to the regulator. Seventeen months later, six of them were done, and yet I understand that AECL misled the regulator, and led the regulator to believe that all seven had been done. I think that it is only when on a spot check the starter pump thingamabob had not been put in place that everybody knew that that absolutely had to be the case.

Now we are in a situation where there is a public health emergency because AECL misled the regulator over this period of time. Now we are being asked to allow the facility to run just on one pump, when the recommendation from science and from the commission has been that it needs two pumps to make that tenfold difference between 100 times safer and 1,000 times safer.

I am worried that in a situation where we now override the regulator to allow AECL to mind itself when indeed it was not fully honest with the regulator on the issue of these two pumps, I hope that we as Parliament will be able to put in place something so that this situation never ever happens again.

From 2000 until now we have needed the regulator. AECL has said it likes having a regulator. Now we as the House of Commons are being asked to overturn the decision of a regulator. It makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable and I hope that we will make sure it never happens again.

Mr. Chair, I will pass to the member for Etobicoke--Lakeshore to ask a question.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is a question for the regulator, Ms. Keen.

The Minister of Natural Resources some time ago gave an assurance to the House based on a legal opinion that the authority of the regulator under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act would continue to apply to Chalk River in the 120 day period, except in respect of the installation of seismically qualified motor starters on heavy water pumps.

If that opinion was added to Bill C-38 in the form of an amendment that would say, “Nothing in this act derogates from the authority of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in respect of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited”, that is, if that legal opinion offered by the minister was in the bill, would it enable the CNSC as a regulator to continue to discharge its regulatory duties in respect of the NRU at Chalk River?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, first I would like to make it clear that the CNSC did not receive a copy of that legal opinion. We received a draft copy of the legislation.

In terms of the legal opinion, that would be a great reassurance to the commission if that were correct, which we assume it would be from justice, and that would stand the test. As I prefaced my remarks, I did not have the legal opinion.

However, the second point is that we talk about regulating the pump as if it were a completely separate piece of the reactor. It is not. It is an integral installed part of it.

I must say that we agree that the installation of one pump is safer than not having the pumps but it will not be as safe as two pumps, which AECL is committed to look at within the 180 days.

All together, we would put in a regulatory program that looked at the whole area and, if this legislation is passed, which is the prerogative of the House, then we would hope that this would be installed as soon as possible and we would return to full regulatory compliance.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Ms. Keen, just to be clear, would it help you to have in Bill C-38 a clause explicitly asserting that nothing derogates from your authority in respect of Chalk River during this 120 day period?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I am a material scientist, just like the people who are at this table are engineers and scientists. I am not a lawyer and so I would not be able to comment on that.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a question of AECL. Could you run though very quickly why you need 120 days to get the second pump going? What is the technical rationale for 120 days? Can you guarantee the House that you can get the job done in 120 days?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, the 120 days is a rough approximation of the time at risk argument that was added to the safety case. Essentially, what time at risk means is that the risk is acceptable for a period of time. That is roughly where it came from.

In order for pump four to return to normal isotope production, the installation of the upgrade would need to be done during those four day outages on a monthly basis. That will represent a challenge for us. I do not want to mislead the member or Parliament. That will be a challenge for us, but it is an achievable outcome.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Just so I am clear, Mr. McGee, are you are telling the House that you can do it in 120 days?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I think the member is seeking guarantees. We believe we can do it but we are talking about machinery and equipment. We are talking about unforeseen things that happen as you execute a schedule. It is a complex piece of work that has to be done in sequence, so we will have to do part of it during an outage and then go back to power and do another part of it. We believe it can be done during that period of time. I would have to stop short. I would be misleading the member if I said that I guarantee it.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up on that. Subclause (2) of the bill states:

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so.

Can we in the House be assured that you would work cooperatively with the regulator on the safety issues so that the public can be assured that you have been in dialogue with the regulator to make sure that when you restart you are safe to do so, understanding the authority that this act gives you to restart under these suspension of licence conditions?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I understand the question correctly, but I will answer it this way. We do have a strong relationship with the CNSC staff. We work closely with them I believe. There are always opportunities for improvement but I think there is a strong, cooperative effort on both sides of the relationship. Regardless of the legislation, I intend to continue to work with CNSC staff on that level.

The House has my commitment that before I declare that reactor safe to operate now or in the future, I will be assured that it is safe. I take that responsibility seriously. It is my accountability.

Earlier, Dr. Torgerson said that a strong regulator was an important part of that overall safety network. This is an industry that is preoccupied by safe operation, and the regulatory framework and the regulator itself is a critical part of that.

Out of respect for that and my commitment to safe operation, I will work continuously with staff to ensure we are doing the right things.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair, the House, just so it is clear, is questioning Mr. McGee's devotion to safety, his good intentions, or his commitment to doing the right thing, but that was not the question. The question is whether, as he works to complete this and restart and get all the pump work done, he will work with the regulator to make sure that he is compliant.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, the answer to that is, yes, we will.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, my question is for Mr. McGee and/or the AECL representatives. Have they ever concealed any facts from the regulator?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, at no time did we knowingly conceal anything. As I mentioned earlier, from a personal integrity point of view, since I am the licence holder and I am the person who is ultimately accountable for the safety of my people on that site, the safety of the site, the facilities and the surrounding public, at no point did we mislead the regulator deliberately. If there has been a question of that, then it was nothing that was done with any intent.

As I said earlier, it is clear from our review of the documentation of both parties that the information is out there and known and we have already committed to provide that to Parliament.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, on February 19, 2007, there was an article in the Toronto Star that read:

At one point, AECL concealed safety problems from the watchdog for almost three months

AECL is at fault regarding the cancer patients who have been denied isotopes. It is the root of the problem. Why would we make it the solution? Why should AECL be charged with determining the safety of reactors when it has been so negligent and defiant to meeting standards in the past? Is this not putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I am not familiar with the stories that the member is quoting so I am really not in a position to comment on them.

All I can do is reinforce my commitment to safety that is supported by a demonstrated track record in that regard.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. McGee, you are responsible for the isotopes. You have caused this problem. Is that correct, yes or no?

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, when it became known to me that the opinion of CNSC staff was that I was outside my licensing basis, which is an entirely different thing from safety, it is a legal licensing basis issue which links with the safety case, but when it became known to me that I was outside the licensing basis of the facility, I made what I considered to be a safe and prudent decision to place the facility in a safe state.

From that perspective, yes, I guess one would have to say that I am responsible for it, but I am responsible for it because when faced with uncertainty and a challenge by CNSC staff, which I thought at the time was a healthy challenge that I needed to disposition before it went further, I made a safe and prudent decision to place the reactor in a shut down state.

A lot of the questioning to this point has been around whether or not I am committed to safety--

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt, but the witness was not finished answering the question. Let him answer the question and then you can move on. That is the way we have operated all night and we will keep operating that way.

Mr. McGee.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, I was going to conclude by saying that it can be both ways. I can be blamed for the shortage but I made a decision that I felt was safe and prudent and based on the information that was at my disposal at the time. It was a decision based on ensuring safety of the facility first and foremost.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I still think that he was shutdown by the regulator.

My question is for Ms. Keen. Ms. Keen, have you ever been pressured by NRC or AECL to water down the safety standards for new and/or old reactors in Canada?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, the process to look at regulatory standards involves an order in council and it involves Parliament. Any regulatory regulations that are passed require the agreement of Parliament on that basis.

In terms of regulatory standards for new reactors, we are now in the process of looking at these. We are trying to see what we can do in terms of putting those together. I think it is a matter of record that there is not a complete consensus about what those standards should be.

From CNSC's point of view, we have made it clear that we think Canadians deserve the international standards that the rest of the world is facing with new reactors and that is what we have put in place.

We are really working through the regulatory process. We are seeking consensus on that. The process takes place licence by licence. The NRU is a unique reactor, as AECL said, and the regulatory oversight for that is unique.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Ms. Keen, do you feel that AECL has been a responsible licensee. Is it resistant to being regulated?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. McGee has talked about changes that he has put in, in terms of a safety culture, which is an important part. I come from the mining industry and it s very important for mining too.

Mr. McGee has talked about what he has been doing. I think it is fair to say that assessments of AECL some years ago showed that there was perhaps not the same standard of concern about a safety culture, et cetera.

In terms of that specific aspect, we do think there has been a definite improvement in AECL's safety culture. There have been instances over the last year, not particularly with the NRU, but, for example in the waste management facilities where there have been some areas of challenge, and that is a matter of public record.