Debates of Dec. 11th, 2007

An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, this issue of risk to safety is a very important one. That is what we are trying to ascertain in weighing the risk to the workers at Chalk River versus the need of Canadian patients in our medical system.

It is sort of ironic that some six years ago the workers at AECL at Chalk River lost their right to strike because it was presumed that it would be detrimental to the production of isotopes if the workers ever went out on strike. Here we are with the situation where the work has been stopped, the reactor has been shut down, and we still have all kinds of questions that need to be answered.

Perhaps I will start with another question to Ms. Keen. She said that the commission is going to have a hard time trying to figure out what is really happening at Chalk River as a result of this legislation and that she is going to be shut out of checking the system. We need to know what that means.

The legislation would appear to suggest that the only area where regulations do not come into force would be related to the installation of seismically qualified motor starters on the heavy water pumps and the connection to the emergency power supply. Does that not mean that the commission still has full range of supervising and surveillance of Chalk River and the whole AECL operation?

Maybe I will ask a second question to the ministers. Would they agree to have AECL report regularly to the House over the next 120 days so that we can know what is at risk, what is happening, and if there are any dangers that we or the public should worry about?

[Linda J. Keen]

Mr. Chair, subclause 1(2) in the legislation says, “Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Unit Reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so” in other respects. What that means to the CNSC is that the legislation is giving AECL its own self-regulation and own oversight. Because the CNSC will not be involved in this operation in terms of the 120 days, and as I say, this is a very preliminary look at this, we are absolutely not sure about whether the CNSC would have any oversight over this because it is giving AECL its own self-regulatory ability. This is a very preliminary look at this. As I say, this is unprecedented; there is no nuclear facility in Canada that is not under our act.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I believe one of the questions was would we agree to have AECL report to the House during the 120 days.

We are all here to cooperate. Our number one focus, again, is to resume the production of medical isotopes in an absolute safe way. We would have no objection if there were a need for a report to come forward at some intervals to the House to make that available if there were specific questions that it wanted to be reported. In fact, we would welcome that.

I should also point out that the president of the CNSC has indicated that if the bill were to pass, it would have no authority over the NRU. That is not the opinion we take. We cannot take one section of the bill in isolation of the other. In fact, when we read both sections of the bill, there is no question that CNSC would continue to have regulatory authority over the NRU. The only specific exception would be this single pump.

Therefore, I believe it is important that we recognize the bill in its entirety and it would continue to have regulatory authority over all other aspects of the NRU, the reactor.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just offered what constitutes a legal opinion. Could he provide the House the supporting documents from the law officers of the Crown that would verify that the other aspects of the CNSC's regulatory regime are in no way impacted by the one change that I presume he suggested we should make?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am happy to respond. Again, I stress what we are all trying to focus on is medical isotopes. That is from a Department of Justice lawyer. We will be happy to make that available to all hon. members of the House in a cooperative approach to see if we can resolve this issue tonight.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has just over five minutes left.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to this issue of regular reporting to the House because there are certainly some questions that we all have. We want to ensure that we get back to production of isotopes, but the question of risk to the safety of workers is also of concern.

I want either of the ministers to clarify that they are willing to have a report every 20 or 30 days on the status of the operation over this 120 day period so Canadians can have confidence that there is no risk to the safety of workers and, in fact, that all precautions are being taken. That is one question.

The second question would be this. This whole issue has been quite a fiasco in many ways. Here we are today hearing the conflict between AECL and CNSC and there is clearly some animosity and conflict happening. Parliament has a right to know exactly what happened that led to this point. We need to have this matter referred to the health committee or to the natural resources committee in January or February so we can get to the bottom of it.

I would like clarification on those two points from the government.

I would also like to ask both Ms. Keen and one of the representatives from AECL about the possibility of there being a problem once immediate start-up occurs and this 120 day period commences. Some folks have expressed concern that it is in the start-up that we may see some complications in terms of threat to safety or risk to safety. Has that been analyzed and what are we likely to see once start-up commences?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, we would have no objection and we would ask that AECL submit a report once every 30 days throughout this period just to update the members of the House on the current status, including the start-up. This is a reasonable request and we think that should be able to be accommodated without any difficulty.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

On the start-up question, would someone from CNSC or AECL like to address that?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, yes, I am going to turn this over to my colleague in a minute, but I want to respond to an issue that was raised on item number 2, which I have read, that AECL 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.

I want to stress that the operator is responsible for the safety of the plant. We are responsible for the safety of the plant. Therefore, this statement to me is exactly what we are supposed to do, which is to operate the plant safely. If we think the plant cannot operate safely, then we shut it down.

I am not a lawyer; I am a nuclear scientist. When I look at number 2, it is telling me to do what I have to do anyway. The regulator provides the oversight to make sure we are operating safely. I believe the regulator would continue to do that. I do not see number 2 is telling AECL to do anything that it would not normally do.

For this specific question, I am going to turn it over to my colleague, the chief nuclear officer, to comment.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, there is no safety-related issue with the start-up of this reactor. This reactor shuts down once a month for typically about four days. Start-up and shutdown evolutions are more common for this reactor than they are in the power reactor sector, where the shutdowns are typically for maintenance between a year and three years. There is a lot of experience and a lot of competence when it comes to shutdown and start-up evolutions for this reactor.

The issue at hand relative to these pumps has no significance from a start-up or shutdown perspective.

I would like also to mention, to reinforce Dr. Torgerson's comments, that I have been in this industry for quite some time and a cornerstone of how I lead is based on safety of my people and safety of the facility, and that is uncompromising. In my experience within the industry, that is an industry norm, but I can assure the House that I will not compromise safety under any conditions.

I felt at the time it was safe and prudent, based on the licensing basis issue, which was primarily a licensing legal issue to hold the reactor back. Last year I made a decision to hold the reactor down based on what I thought had to be resolved, a lower level safety issue that had to be resolved. I held the reactor back on that occasion as well.

My commitment to safety is not just words. It is demonstrated and it can be demonstrated through the operation of this reactor as well.

[Linda J. Keen]

I wanted to mention this, and then I am going to turn it over to Mr. Howden for the specifics of the start-up. When we look at the issues of the act, the commission was not consulted on the act. We received copies just very recently and we did not have legal counsel because justice took it away. It thought there was going to be dispute over this bill. Therefore, we do not have legal counsel to review this matter.

When the commission looks at this, we absolutely agree with AECL, that it is responsible for the safety of the establishments. We absolutely concur with that. We require it to be that way. Because this reactor would not, under the present licence, be licensable with one pump, it is of very great interest that it will not be within the licensing basis. This licence is not going to be applicable for this area, so what exactly does the commission do? That is exactly what we will look at.

Mr. Howden will speak to the issue of the start-up.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I would advise the committee that I had a discussion with the Minister of Justice and he informed me that what Ms. Keen has said is not correct. In fact, Department of Justice officials are available for legal advice to the committee. The only advice from justice was that she might want to seek independent legal advice over and above the typical advice.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

This time slot is already at an end. I see Mr. Howden wishing to respond to the hon. member for Winnipeg North's original question. If he could do so as briefly as possible, we will move on to the next slot.

[Barclay D. Howden]

Mr. Chair, within our regulatory toolbox, what we do to provide assurance of safe operation is verification work. If there is a problem, we do enforcement work if we find things out of compliance. For return to service, we would be looking at three things.

First, main heavy water pump 105 would be connected to the new emergency power system. We would be looking at the quality assurance and quality control applied for that connection, the reliability and the testing to make sure that would be done right.

For the other critical main heavy water pump 104, which would not be connected to emergency power system, we would make sure that it was serviceable, and our understanding is that AECL had not done any work on it.

The final thing would be that when a reactor is returned to service, the operator follows the routine start-up processes. We would do routine verification to make sure that this has been followed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, in responding to the member for Winnipeg North, Ms. Keen made the statement that staff did not make decisions, the commission did. Yet earlier she made the comment that taxpayers paid for the expert opinion of the CNSC staff. Why are the political appointees on the commission routinely overruling the highly paid staff of the CNSC?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but it sounds like a question that she may wish to pose to the panel if she has an opportunity.

We will move on as scheduled with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Chair, I have a few questions and an observation or two. I am going to share my time with some of my colleagues.

First, I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources for clarification because I have heard a couple of different perspectives on this one issue.

I heard Ms. Keen say earlier in her testimony that because of clause 2 of Bill C-38, in effect, for the 120 day period, AECL would be unregulated. Yet I have heard from the minister that this is not the case in his opinion. From a legal perspective, I assume that some of the minister's lawyers have taken a look at it.

I would like a little more precision on why the minister would say that in effect for that 120 days AECL would still be regulated.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to read from our in-house counsel at Natural Resources Canada. We also have similar opinions from Justice Canada.

Clause 1(2) does not displace CNSC authority. It is a limiting condition on the permission Parliament gives by clause 1(1). Clause 1(1) allows AECL to operate in spite of its licence. Except for that one point in its licence condition, no other inference with CNSC authority is affected. They continue to have authority to inspect, and to ensure AECL is in compliance with all other licence conditions.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that clarification.

I want to turn my attention now to what is really the nub of this whole discussion, and that is the safety issue. I do not think for a moment that members of the House would want to deny the start-up of AECL again and for the production of medical isotopes if they were convinced there was not a safety concern.

The one main concern in the line of questioning I have heard from all members is we have to be convinced that this would be absolutely safe for the community at large. If we were convinced of that and AECL were then allowed to start up production again and begin production of medical isotopes, that is something we would all want to see. This is the only issue in my mind.

With that in mind, I would like to ask Mr. McGee or Dr. Torgerson to speak a little about the safety record of AECL.

Second, mention was made of a couple of points, if I heard correctly. Under the current circumstances with no pump whatsoever, as if it operated like the for the first 50 years, the probability of a nuclear incident would be one in about 1,000 years. With one pump operating, it would be in probability of one in 50,000 years. Therefore, please try to give assurances to the House as to the safety concerns raised by others and to the safety record of AECL. That is really the only issue I see in question here.

[Brian McGee]

Mr. Chair, the primary responsibility I have as a site licence holder is to ensure the safety of the facility. That is an ongoing day to day challenge. When I say challenge, I mean from the point of view of my responsibilities. My job is to ensure that safety, working with staff, working with my management team in total to ensure the ongoing safety.

My time with AECL began two years ago, so I cannot talk too much about the long term. However, in the two years I have been with AECL, I can assure members that the site has operated safely. We place a lot of emphasis on that. We have more oversight mechanisms in place now than we have ever had. We have a strong relationship with CNSC staff.

It was described earlier, and I am not sure exactly what the description was, but I would not describe this as a dispute with staff or the commission at all. I would describe it as we are working through possibly a difference of professional opinion, but the common goal I believe of both organizations is the safety of the facility.

My commitment to the House, to the Canadian public, to commission, to staff and to my workers in my local communities is I will not compromise the safety of any of those facilities on that site for any production reason.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Are you in a position to comment about the safety record of AECL over the first 50 years of its existence?

[David F. Torgerson]

Mr. Chair, I can, first of all, say that safety is number one. I chair many meetings within AECL, everything from the design of nuclear reactors all the way to the operations of the CRL facilities. The first question I ask every senior executive is, what can you tell me about safety? Health, safety and environment is the first agenda item.

With all of the people who report to me, there are safety goals in their performance reviews. Mr. McGee will say that his performance is based on our judgment of how safe he is operating our facilities.

Safety is not number two. It is not number three. It is not number four. It is number one all the time and there are no targets that compromise that target being number one. I do not care what it is that we are managing, there is nothing more important than safety, whether it is making isotopes or operating the Chalk River site.

I would have to say and want to stress that safety is number one. There is no case in which safety is not number one.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That concludes the five minutes for the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.