:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
[Translation]
I am pleased to be here today to discuss nuclear regulation in Canada and the mandate of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
[English]
I've prepared short opening remarks. I understand they've been distributed.
Accompanying me this afternoon is Dr. Patsy Thompson, our director general of environmental and radiation protection and assessment.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by explaining the role and responsibilities of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
[English]
Simply stated, the CNSC is Canada's nuclear watchdog. We regulate nuclear facilities and activities in Canada. We regulate nuclear power plants, uranium mines, waste management, nuclear medicine, and small devices.
Our core mission is to protect the health, safety, and security of the public and our environment, and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
[Translation]
We are governed by the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which clearly sets the objects, roles and powers of the Commission.
[English]
One of our fundamental operational principles is to conduct our regulatory work in an open and transparent way. We routinely hold public hearings to license major facilities and to discuss significant developments that affect our policies, regulations, and our stakeholders.
We held 28 such public hearings and meetings in 2008. We heard from 260 intervenors and made 37 licensing and 13 environmental assessment decisions. In fact, just last week, in a public hearing here in Ottawa, the commission heard an update from CNSC and AECL staff on the recent leaks at the NRU.
We webcast our public hearings. Everyone can see and hear the proceedings. To get a real feel of how open and interactive our hearings are, I invite you and other honourable members of Parliament to tune in to future hearings or to look at our recent proceedings, which are stored on our website at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca. We want to make sure that the work of the CNSC is accessible, interactive, known, and understood.
To make sure that our nuclear safety mandate is carried out, we have developed a rigorous regulatory oversight framework. Our Canadian safety standards are benchmarked against international standards.
We rely on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, and other eminent groups of doctors and nuclear experts, such as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and the International Commission on Radiological Protection, as well as Health Canada and Environment Canada. We rely on these organizations to develop and advance the science that takes into account health and environmental effects in nuclear management.
[Translation]
We take these international and domestic standards and incorporate them into licensing requirements that our licensees must meet.
[English]
And then we go further. When it comes to safety considerations we expect more from our licensee than these standards. Indeed our licence conditions for all nuclear sites include reporting and action levels that are far more stringent than the international standards. These reporting and action levels require licensees to identify and report to us any significant event as soon as possible so that action can be taken long before there is potential impact on human and environmental health.
We set these very demanding reporting requirements or thresholds to ensure the safety of Canadians and the environment. Setting an effective regulatory framework is important. However, one has to make sure that the rules and regulations are being complied with. We require licensees to monitor, measure, and report periodically on operations, performance, and releases to the environment to ensure that this approach works. To ensure this is being done, we also have on-site staff at all major nuclear facilities in Canada who monitor and oversee nuclear safety on a daily basis.
Given that we deemed the December leak at the NRU to be of low safety significance, we were caught by surprise at the level of interest the events generated. As requested by the Minister of Natural Resources, reports by CNSC and AECL on those events were tabled in Parliament. The reports explain that AECL acted appropriately in its reporting to the CNSC. There was no cover-up; there were no risks to health, safety, or the environment from these events.
[Translation]
We have distributed a handout for you this afternoon, which portrays the actual releases against regulatory limits.
[English]
I would be willing to take you through those handouts.
We have recognized that we, both the industry and the regulator, can improve communication on all our activities, and we are acting to meet these expectations. As you may be aware, there was another small leak of heavy water at the NRU this past weekend. AECL notified the CNSC of the leak on Sunday morning, and AECL exercised its voluntary reporting obligations and provided information on its website yesterday. We also updated our website. The lessons learned from the December event are being implemented.
Like the other event in December, the leak had no impact on the safe operation of the NRU, and it posed no risk to the health and safety of the public, workers, or the environment.
[Translation]
In closing, I want to note that Parliament legislated the basis for a solid and clear nuclear safety regulatory framework. That framework is based on international and domestic standards and best practices.
[English]
Canadian nuclear facilities are safe. Otherwise we wouldn't license them to operate. Our regulatory framework makes safety our number one priority. We do not compromise on safety; it is in our DNA.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
:
In any industrial project, from petroleum to coal mines, you name it, there are what are known as “planned emissions”. In our business it is controlled, it is monitored, it is measured. In other words, we set the boundary of what is acceptable in the operation.
These boundaries are set by the international scientific and medical community. It's the health community that tells us what is an appropriate level; it is not us. We adopt these, we put them in place and we impose them, and then we add some more safety factors to them.
For example, the real or true impact on the health of the public and the environment is yet another measure, and it's called millisievert. If the allowable health impact is one millisievert, all of our standard behaviour is that as long as you are below that level, there are very low risks to health.
I don't know, Dr. Thompson, if you want to add to that.
All our operations in Canada are based on this particular health-related standard.
:
Well, the moment something happens.... First of all, everybody should know that there are all kinds of bells and whistles and triggers and indicators measuring things that might happen. If something gets triggered, operators go in and try to find out what's wrong.
If they suspect, let's say, a leak, as happened on December 5, they go in. We have staff on site; we are on top of the operators like a wet blanket. We monitor what they do. The operator there phones our desk inspector, if you like, and informs him the very next day that something is going down. And our people go in there and together they observe what's going on.
If they break a particular threshold—in this particular case, 10 kilograms of heavy water leaked—they absolutely have to submit a formal written report to us. That report is filled out, and if it's deemed to be significant, the licensee has to appear in front of the commission in a public hearing to explain the significance of the event. This is public and people can intervene and comment, etc.
So the problem has been that the two sides have decided that something is insignificant because of the relatively minuscule amount of water. We've agreed that we can do better. Since they report to us, we might as well report to everybody that it has happened--and we are looking into improving our reporting requirements.
:
Mr. Binder, on December 10, 2007, the government registered an order in council, which was only published and made public for the Canadian people on December 26, the day after Christmas 2007, splitting or in fact giving your Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission a dual mandate. On the one hand, you're in the business of nuclear safety, and now, on the other hand, to read from the order in council, you must take into account “the health of Canadians who, for medical purposes, depend on nuclear substances produced by nuclear reactors”.
There was no debate about this, no tabling of legislation, nothing in the House of Commons, nothing at this committee.
Last night, Linda Keen, on cbc.ca, the CBC's website, is quoted as saying at 11 p.m., through her first interview since her firing by the former minister, that she feared for the safety of Canadians for two reasons, one because in the second phone call she got from Minister Gary Lunn she was ordered to restart the NRU. She was ordered to start it up even though, acting within the four corners of the statute that empowers your commission, her advice was that this was unsafe.
The second reason she gave was that Canadians should fear nuclear safety in this country because of the dual mandate that you must now execute on, given to you by the Government of Canada or the Conservative government with no consultation, no parliamentary debate, no committee debate, which now compels you, as Canada's top nuclear safety regulator, to balance the production of medical isotopes with nuclear safety.
First, is she wrong? Secondly, is there another nuclear safety commission anywhere in the world with this dual mandate?
We will resume the meeting now with our witnesses. From Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, we have Hugh MacDiarmid, president and chief executive officer—thank you very much for being here—Bill Pilkington, senior vice-president and chief nuclear officer, and Michael Ingram, senior vice-president, operations.
Thank you, gentlemen.
From the Canadian Nuclear Association, we have Murray Elston, president and chief executive officer.
Thank you, Mr. Elston, for coming this afternoon.
I understand that Mr. MacDiarmid will be making a presentation on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada.
Mr. Elston, you don't have prepared notes; you may have a very short statement to make. I understand, Mr. Elston, that you have to leave by about five o'clock or shortly after.
:
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting us to speak to you about Atomic Energy of Canada today.
I am accompanied by Mr. Bill Pilkington, Senior Vice-President of Research and Technology, and Chief Nuclear Officer. His responsibilities as a manager include the operation of the installations in Chalk River. Mr. Michael Ingram, Senior Vice-President of Operations of the CANDU Division, is also here. He is specifically in charge of a refurbishment of the plants, like those at Bruce and Pointe Lepreau.
[English]
Before taking any questions, I would like to provide an overview of AECL's mandate and to review two issues that have recently been the subject of comment.
AECL has a dual mandate from Parliament. The first is to build a global commercial enterprise—
:
As I said, AECL has a dual mandate from Parliament. The first is to build a global commercial enterprise that designs, constructs, and services nuclear reactors. This business is based in Mississauga, Ontario. AECL's CANDU technology is a proven supplier of safe, clean energy to millions of people, here in Canada and in countries around the world.
The second mandate is to operate a national laboratory for nuclear science, which is located in Chalk River. This has led to the development of a world-class research and development program supporting both our CANDU fleet and the Canadian research and academic communities, as well as, most topically, our isotope production function.
On the topic of isotopes, there are five reactors in the world that produce the bulk of them. Typically, the Chalk River reactor has delivered approximately one-third of global isotope production. Last summer, the largest of the other four reactors, located in the Netherlands, was forced to shut down, and it is only now restarting. To make up the supply shortfall, AECL increased its production and has been supplying over half the global demand.
It bears mentioning that average Canadian requirements are roughly 10% of AECL's production levels. The vast majority of our production is for non-Canadian consumption.
Ensuring reliable supplies of isotopes and other essential R and D requires investment. The majority of the incremental $351 million that is being requested for the upcoming fiscal year applies to the program to upgrade our Chalk River laboratories, including improvements to the reliability of isotope supply.
We are very mindful of the need to acquire the CNSC licence renewal for the NRU by October 2011, and we're working very closely with the CNSC to that end.
That brings me to concerns that have been raised about leaks at Chalk River. I refer, honourable members, to reports on the subject from AECL and the CNSC that were tabled in the House by the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to emphasize that these reports clearly show that the public was never at risk whatsoever and that AECL strictly followed all established procedures.
I would also like to comment briefly on the provision in the 2008-09 supplementary estimates (C) for $100 million to continue ongoing life-extension work on two key reactors. AECL's ability to provide reactor life extensions is fundamental to CANDU's competitiveness. There's the potential to undertake 20 such life extensions over the next 15 years. The two life-extension projects currently under way at Bruce and Point Lepreau are very different in nature from each other. Both of them are first of a kind in their own right.
Unfortunately, the schedule has slipped, and unbudgeted cost increases have occurred. But these life-extension projects are not simply tightening a few bolts and applying a fresh coat of paint. It's a complex task to deconstruct and then reconstruct a nuclear reactor. In some respects, it's more complicated than building a new one.
We have put in place intense scrutiny and oversight procedures. We have made changes as necessary and are benefiting from lessons learned. We have assembled experienced, capable, and committed teams of professionals at both locations to deliver on our undertakings. While doing this, we will, of course, not compromise workplace safety.
[Translation]
Once the projects are finished, for 25 more years, our clients will have reactors that can produce electricity in a reliable manner and with few emissions. More than 50% of the energy used in Ontario comes from nuclear plants, and in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the percentage is 30%.
[English]
To conclude, yes, there are challenges. As AECL has done for over 50 years, these challenges will be met and overcome. Beyond the challenge is a remarkable once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this country. Global demand for electricity will double in the next 30 years. Demand for nuclear reactors is growing rapidly. This is a $2 trillion opportunity. AECL's history, its products, its Canadian partners, and above all its remarkable employees place Canada in a unique position to create an industry for the 21st century that will provide thousands of high-paying jobs. It is this opportunity that is foremost in our goals at AECL.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, thank you for inviting me. I do apologize for not having prepared remarks. I have circulated some highlight information from our 2008 handbook. The 2009 one is now being prepared. We have publications on our website. We also have hard-copy publications, including World Energy, in both French and English. Both versions are available on our website, but there are some hard copies available as well.
The reason we're a little bit pressed for preparation time these days is that we have our annual conference coming up Wednesday. I thank the Parliament of Canada for permitting me a brief advertisement. Of course, members have been invited to attend our sessions.
You can see, just by the profile of speakers, that we are addressing broadly the interests of the nuclear industry. It's a $6.6-billion-per-year industry in this country. We have a tremendous record of exports. In fact, when we looked at the results generated by the sale of two CANDU 6 reactors externally, for instance, we saw that there was a $5.973 billion hit on the GDP. So it is in fact a very prosperous opportunity, as has been outlined by Mr. MacDiarmid.
I can tell you that we in the Canadian Nuclear Association are thankful for the efforts being taken to ensure that we remain competitive. I would say, for instance, that as Canadians across this country look at developing the new and innovative industries that will carry us forward, they ought not forget about the nuclear industry, which is already at the head of many areas in the development of nuclear technology worldwide. Competitively it gives us a very big and prosperous opportunity internationally. I was pleased to see the investments brought forward in the budget along those lines.
I have all kinds of other information available for people who would like to check the website, but right now, with those brief remarks, I'm available to answer a few questions and go forward from there.
:
Yes, I have just a brief comment.
First of all, there are a couple of places where uranium exploration and development have grown quite quickly. Canada used to be the largest known reserve area. It has been surpassed by Australia. Australia has taken off moratoria on some of their mining and expansion. At the same time, Kazakhstan both has been opened up to exploration and has seen developments for the finding of uranium. Until about 2011, we will also see the use of MOX fuels from the conversion of Russian military material into civilian fuels. So in the immediate future and for several decades to come, there is no expectation that there will be the kind of shortage that would cause a huge problem for the industry.
Secondly, in the operation of nuclear plants, the fuel costs are a relatively small amount, less than 5% of the overall operating costs, so the impact is also well restricted against the final price going to the consumer. That, of course, is one of the reasons why the development of the ACR-1000, for instance, looks at reducing the consumption of fuel, looks at a reduced machine to produce more energy, and at the end of the day at getting a more competitive electricity price out to the people. We expect, with those types of advances, that we will see an extension of the life expectancy of the reserves.
The other thing that is interesting about uranium is that as the price goes up it becomes more profitable to go into more marginal deposits. Marginal is a relative term, but I can tell you that in Saskatchewan—for instance, at McArthur River—they have 80% pure uranium deposits, which is just a phenomenal resource for Canada. In other places it's not so good, but as the price goes up, you will find more reserves being opened up, more work going on. In fact, in addition to the different fuels that may be used, we have a very long life expectancy ahead of us.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think there are a couple of things that have to be understood as well. The techniques that are being applied to the refurbishment at Lepreau and at Bruce are different because the models they're working on revitalizing are different. But in each case there has been a tremendous amount of research and development and deployment of new technology by the people from AECL.
The work with the new machines, the new mechanisms that reduce the waste and then move it for storage are first-generation types. That same research and development has spawned a number of products that have been used in other sites around the world. We are focusing on single projects at Bruce and at Lepreau, but the research and development undertaken by this company has led to a series of commercial opportunities in other markets.
One, there are lessons learned, for sure; two, there are new pieces of equipment that will be usable at other sites; and three, the development of new people who will work on these refurbishment or revitalization projects is going to be indispensable in providing Canadian know-how around the world as we move on to those 20 reactors.
The other thing is that our industry generally is on the upswing in terms of hiring new women and men through our universities and colleges. That type of capacity that is coming from these refurbishment programs is the type of thing that will provide us with stamina to resist the types of heavy competitive forces we go up against around the world.
You have reflected on the one item, but there are so many other pieces of very good work that are going to provide us with the capacity to have a very robust nuclear industry into the rest of the century.
:
Thank you for the question. We believe this process is being managed in a very thorough and careful way, with a goal to having the highest probability of the re-licensing application being successful in October of 2011.
We are working very carefully and closely with CNSC staff so that there are clear expectations as to what we must do to satisfy their licensing requirements and to understand that far enough in advance that we can actually do the work in a systematic and thorough way.
As it relates to our own internal governance process, we have both a project risk review committee and a science and technology nuclear oversight committee of our board of directors. I, as the CEO, with Bill, as the chief nuclear officer, and Michael, as the head of operations for our refurbishment projects are collectively accountable to those directors of our corporation. We have very, very thorough and regular reviews.
We do not intend to let any of our regulatory commitments fall by the wayside because of that October 2011 deadline.
:
There are two very important items. Once a project like the production of electricity from nuclear reactors is given the green light, there are all kinds of people who have to be hired to do the regulatory work, both in front of the CNSC and in terms of environmental assessment, the types of gathering of information, the huge amounts of work that go into that. You can easily see the expenditures of $30 million to $50 million in the lead-up to getting these projects on the go.
We are anticipating in Ontario, obviously, the decisions around Darlington, and already there are people who are at work laying the groundwork for the regulatory compliance, so that we can actually start building plants as we move into the next decade.
So there is an immediacy of employment. There is a spinoff from the types of jobs that are created. There is an uptake in education opportunities in our universities and in our colleges, and there are tax dollars generated from the preparation alone, let alone when we get into the actual new builds. In the refurbishments, we're talking about 1,500 to 1,600 people at the Bruce site, I think, who are working on those revitalization projects, and that alone is quite a boost in the Ontario context.