[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 9, 1996
.1540 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
We're here today...[Technical Difficulty - Editor]...all of you or one of you. We'll go around the table in that manner. Who would like to begin?
Mr. Ellard.
Mr. Jim Ellard (Director, Emergency Measures Ontario, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services): Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing my great delight at having been invited to give testimony today.
I'd like to begin by explaining my special area of interest in nuclear matters. I'm the director of Emergency Measures Ontario under the direction of the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services for Ontario. I am responsible for monitoring, coordinating and assisting in the formulation and implementation of emergency plans in the province and for ensuring that Ontario's plans are coordinated with the plans of municipalities and the Government of Canada.
Within that broad mandate, I have specific responsibility for the provincial nuclear emergency plan and the nuclear plans of municipalities that are intended to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents who could be affected by an accident at a nuclear facility.
Let me emphasize my responsibilities concerning the off-site effects of a nuclear accident. I am not responsible for worker safety or for dealing with accident effects contained within a reactor site.
In Ontario, there are twenty nuclear reactors operated by Ontario Hydro at three different sites - namely, Bruce County, Darlington and Pickering reactors in the region of Durham. At a fourth site, near Chalk River, Atomic Energy operates a research reactor. As well, Ontario's plans encompass emergency preparedness arrangements for nuclear reactors that operate outside the province. One of these is the Fermi II reactor in the state of Michigan, which is close enough to require detailed nuclear emergency planning for three municipalities in Essex County.
Emergency preparedness requires a commitment of time and resources from all levels of government and from the nuclear industry, which operate the reactors. The required level of support is not always freely given - a primary reason, I guess, for me being here today.
.1545
The bill under consideration, Bill C-23, empowers the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the successor to AECB, to establish and enforce national standards to prevent unreasonable risks to the environment and to the health and safety of persons. It is my submission that the current legislative framework, as endorsed by the proposed amendments, authorize AECB and its successor, the CNSC, to exercise its regulatory function in a manner that promotes nuclear emergency preparedness in fulfilment of its statutory obligations.
Specifically, Bill C-23 at clause 3 indicates a clear responsibility to provide for the development, production and use of nuclear energy in a manner that prevents an unreasonable risk to the environment or to the health and safety of persons. In clause 9, the objects of the commission reinforce that responsibility.
In clause 24, the CNSC will be prohibited from issuing, renewing, amending or replacing a licence unless, in the opinion of the commission, the applicant will, in carrying out that activity, make adequate provision for the protection of the environment and the health and safety of the persons who might be affected.
In short, I believe the proposed legislation provides the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission with a strong mandate to establish and enforce national standards in these areas.
Public safety is the predominant consideration of my branch, and it is the primary objective of the nuclear emergency program I administer. There is no doubt that minimum national standards, set and enforced by the CNSC, would contribute to public safety in communities contiguous to nuclear reactor sites.
As well, effective nuclear emergency preparedness will mitigate the deleterious effects of a nuclear accident, therefore reducing liability under the federal Nuclear Liability Act. However, legislation in itself is not enough to ensure the safety of the public. Of equal concern is the question of how the legislation will be interpreted and how effectively it will be applied.
Bill C-23 will provide the CNSC with the authority it needs to recover its operating costs. If they choose to do so, they could also levy costs against operators of nuclear reactors to provide Ontario with the resources necessary for achieving the national public safety standards that we expect are going to be set.
If we believe in legislating national standards for ensuring public safety in the event of a nuclear accident, then I believe we should also take the next step, which is to ensure that the resources are put in place to give effect to the legislation. The Atomic Energy Control Board has chosen not to do so, and unless the CNSC addresses the issue of financial resources I predict continuing difficulty in this area.
I appreciate very much the hearing you've granted me. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may put to me now or perhaps later. In the event I'm unable to answer any questions today, I would undertake to provide you with a response as soon as possible. For that purpose I have added my name, address and telephone number at the bottom of my statement.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Ellard.
Mr. Walter.
Mr. John Walter (Assistant Deputy Minister, Technical Standards Division, Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, like Mr. Ellard, welcome this opportunity to address the members of the standing committee on this important subject.
The Technical Standards Division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the province of Ontario is responsible for the regulation of public safety for a number of areas, particularly elevating and amusement devices, fuel safety, which deals with petroleum, natural gas and propane, and obviously, the reason we're here today, boilers and pressure vessel safety.
To explain our relationship with the Atomic Energy Control Board I would point out that in accordance with AECB policy, individual nuclear facility licences issued under the present Atomic Energy Control Act require conformance by the licensee with all laws of general application of the province in which the facility is sited. That's the reason the Province of Ontario has been involved. It really has been at the invitation of the board. It has long been the practice for staff of AECB and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to jointly conduct the regulation of pressure-retaining components that are already installed or that are to be installed in nuclear facilities sited in the province of Ontario.
.1550
This long-standing collaboration between the two organizations has worked well to benefit the people and industries of Ontario. We have utilized codes and standards published by the Canadian Standards Association for, among other things, the construction and inspection of boilers and pressure vessels, the general requirements for pressure-retaining systems and components in CANDU nuclear power plants, and also the periodic inspection of CANDU nuclear power plant components. With the introduction of Bill C-23, we assume that this successful level of cooperation will continue in the future.
Although the present system has worked well to provide a high degree of safety in nuclear power plants, we believe that the proposed act more adequately clarifies jurisdictional issues. Clearly through the passage of this bill, all aspects of nuclear energy will be regulated by the federal government. The commission will establish and enforce national standards and will ensure consistency with international standards. These clarifications will give both organizations - the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the ministry - the ability to review and correct areas of overlap and duplication to potentially reduce duplicate government activities for both governments, while still retaining high levels of safety, health, security and environmental protection.
Modernization of the regulatory aspects of nuclear power is long overdue. In particular, we support the separation of the regulatory functions from the research, development and marketing of nuclear energy, as this avoids any real, potential or perceived conflict of interest. Those who regulate nuclear energy will not be promoting nuclear energy. We also support that the enforcement powers of inspectors and the penalties for infractions are being brought up to date with current practices.
As a sound business philosophy, we support the ability of the commission to require financial guarantees to ensure that the costs to take a nuclear facility out of service are carried by the licensee and not by the taxpayer. Equally, the authority of the commission to incorporate provincial laws is supported. By referencing those laws, the commission will be able to delegate powers to the province in areas where we may be better able to regulate.
Unlike other presenters to this committee, particularly some of the comments Mr. Ellard made, we are not overly concerned with our costs in this regard. We provide a high-quality service on a businesslike basis, and we generate sufficient fees to fund those services. That revenue generation allows us to retain sufficient numbers of well-qualified staff to maintain the high levels of service.
In conclusion, although the present system and the present partnership work well, we believe that Bill C-23 will provide more opportunities to improve that partnership in the future. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. Walter.
Dr. McQuigge.
Dr. Murray McQuigge (Medical Officer of Health, Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound Health Unit): I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to present today. I hope you have the handout I put together.
There are two Ontario medical officers of health with major reactor power plants in their district. I am in the counties of Grey and Bruce, with Bruce nuclear power development reactors, and Dr. Bob Kyle is in the Durham region, with Pickering and Darlington reactors.
Medical officers of health in Ontario are charged with the responsibility of protecting the public health. Over the past several years we and others have worked to establish the medical capability in our areas to manage a small nuclear accident resulting in injured and radiation-contaminated victims.
.1555
We've educated ourselves and have tried to educate ourselves and our staff about nuclear reactors and the risk to the public that might arise. We've tried to understand the Ontario nuclear emergency plan and be capable of fulfilling our roles as health officials in that emergency plan. We've tried to educate ourselves to be able to convey radiation risks to the public, either as routine emissions or abnormal emissions, and establish notification procedures to ourselves and municipal officials in the event of an abnormal situation in the nuclear plants.
What does this have to do with Bill C-23? I think plenty. By August of last year, both Dr. Kyle and I had been involved in several nuclear emergencies - in Pickering in 1992 and 1994, May 1995 at BNPD, and November 1995 at BNPD. We reached such a level of concern that we asked for a meeting with Dr. Agnes Bishop head of the Atomic Energy Control Board. We flew up and met in Ottawa in October of last year, and despite what we both thought was an excellent meeting, we have little to show in the way of results one year later.
From this meeting...Dr. Kyle and I had concerns about the nuclear power plant industry and the AECB. Those concerns are the same between the two of us and our staff. We perceive a lack of adequate information and notification when an abnormal situation arises at power plants. We've experienced that. In the past, the Atomic Energy Control Board has seemed to limit its concerns to those within the boundary fence of the nuclear power plants. We are looking for AECB's involvement and commitment to public safety, public education, emergency planning, and working in partnership with the provinces.
AECB's regulatory levels were and are out of sync with provincial levels, and there's no attempt on AECB's part to reconcile the differences. One of those instances is tritium in drinking water. Presently at 1% of the derived emission limits set by AECB, it would allow at Bruce A something like 100,000 becquerels per litre at the outfall. Our drinking water standard in Ontario is 7,000 becquerels per litre. That would easily be exceeded at the Port Elgin water intake. We're wondering why some joint committee isn't looking at that to at least recognize that it exists.
We have a concern that AECB's inspectors need power plant experience. In order to have this experience, it inevitably means the inspectors will be past nuclear power plant employees and as such may have a bias toward the industry.
The Atomic Energy Control Board is not transparent to its customers outside of nuclear power plants. Medical officers of health in Ontario need to get independent, expert technical advice in an abnormal event and be kept up to date on data and trends in the industry.
There's a lack of depth in Canada when it comes to training for radiation emergencies. Both Bob and I have had to fly to Oak Ridges, Tennessee, where they put the nuclear warheads and missiles, to get that kind of training. It's not available in Canada.
There's a lack of core advisers on radiation emergencies. By that I mean if we get into an emergency and I need good technical advice to decide on the safety of the public, right now I have a sort of list on top of my desk that I use to call around Canada to try to get a hold of somebody. But there's no established place - such as in the AECB, I would suggest - where I can phone to get the good, independent kind of technical advice I need in the event of an emergency. In the United States, particularly in Tennessee, they have REAC/TS, which is involved in training and expert advice. So they're capable of that kind of coordinated planning and advising.
Ontario reactors at Pickering and Bruce are aging. If you're a baby boomer like myself, that sometimes means patch, patch, patch. It certainly means there's a potential for having more problems. We worry about that.
There's no mechanism in the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure that Ontario nuclear power plants learn from each other's experiences and problems. This has been a concern for many years and I would say this is becoming more of a concern. An example of this was the lack of training at Bruce Nuclear after the Pickering accident in 1994. In May 1995, Bruce Nuclear had a loss-of-coolant accident, even though it refused to call it that. It was an event very similar to the accident at Pickering several months earlier. Bruce had not reviewed the accident scenario of what had happened at Pickering at that time.
I went through the accident scenario in its training building, where we simulated it on its computers. At the end, I said I had heard that in the Pickering accident, if they had followed the technical book on their decision flow chart on how to handle this accident...it actually got worse. They said they didn't know because they hadn't reviewed it yet. It was a very similar accident, with chattering downstream in the pipes that Pickering had already had. In any critiques of Hydro by outside agencies, I think you'll find that's been repeated, that there hasn't been that learning from other people's problems.
.1600
As well, I experienced poor information transfer between Bruce A station and Bruce B. You can see them across from each other, but they act like two independent stations. There is not good information transfer between those stations. Similarly, there's no visible mechanism to learn from Canada-wide and international accident experience, or for us, as medical officers of health, to share in that learning process.
The Atomic Energy Control Board's actions appear to lack clout. Ontario nuclear plants belong to INPO, a peer review program that started in the U.S.A. after the Three Mile Island accident. The reactors in the United States said it doesn't look like the federal agency can regulate us very well, so we'd better have a go at regulating ourselves; we'll do peer reviews of each other and make our report.
In the U.S., the nuclear plants are independently reviewed and recommendations are made. If the recommendations are not met within the required timeframe, the manager responsible is disciplined. I'm told that they're fired in the U.S. if they don't meet those regulations within the timeframe.
Ontario Hydro belongs to this group. They joined it but said let's forget about this firing the management stuff, so there are no consequences when the recommendation is not met. In their 1995 annual review of nuclear safety they frankly state that they've joined INPO and they're peer reviewed, but it doesn't seem to be having the same effect as in the United States. It's no wonder it's not having any effect, because nobody is held accountable for those actions. That is a real concern.
In a recent newspaper article from Ontario Hydro it was stated that Ontario Hydro themselves were concerned about the poor management of nuclear generating stations and a lack of commitment to safety issues. This report is filled with those kinds of concerns and it's their own document. If they're concerned about their own nuclear industry, we should be darn concerned about it. There is a part in here that talks about the legislation that this committee is looking at. ``Regulatory Initiatives'' - it's found on page 27 of their document. It says:
- Revisions to the Atomic Energy Control Act were expected in 1995, but had not been
introduced by the end of the year. Expectations now are that the legislation will be introduced in
early 1996 and that it will not result in any significant changes to regulation of OHN facilities.
We support - I think I can speak for Dr. Bob Kyle - the change in the legislation. The name change emphasizing safety is a fine one. I think the points I've tried to make have highlighted the need to have less secrecy and more safety in the nuclear industry.
Unfortunately, on page 5, under ``Objects of Commission'', which I look to be kind of a mandate for the Atomic Energy Control Board in its new form, there's no mention of responsibility for public education, public safety, emergency planning or working jointly with the provinces.
On page 13 - this is out of my realm, but I couldn't help but notice it - is this notion of refund of fees. This clause is repeated in the document and sets out no circumstances where the commission would entertain this notion. If I was Ontario Hydro and read this bill I'd say I'm not too sure what message this conveys, but if we're fined there's a high probability of getting the fine back, or that fees are somehow negotiable. I don't know if that's just legal jargon in this bill to accommodate some notion that there may be circumstances where the fine or the fee is refunded, but I think it would be in all our best interests to lay those conditions out.
Other than the name change and the ability to hold public inquiries, where's the emphasis on safety and commitment to the public here? My expectation of Bill C-23 was to see the mandate for the Atomic Energy Control Board spelled out to deal cooperatively with issues regarding public safety in the nuclear industry.
.1605
It reads kind of like ``Trust us; even though it's not spelled out in the legislation, we're going to do the right thing''. They may do that, but it's not in the bill.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We'll turn to questions.
Mr. Deshaies.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): I'm very pleased with the presentation by our witnesses today. In other presentations, with the exception of Tuesday, we were told that everything was going well, that it was a new bill which was going to update a 50-year old act giving Canadians the tool that would allow them to sleep with complete peace of mind.
Generally speaking, people do not sleep well when they think about nuclear energy. They are anxious and stressed when they think of a nuclear plant close to home or 50 or 60 miles away.
I could start with Dr. McQuigge. Should the board of directors be more opened so that more specialized questions could be asked?
You said that there was no mandate for public education and that there were question marks about the repayment of fees. Would it not be important that the public could ask more specific questions from the board of directors?
[English]
Dr. McQuigge: That's a good point. I'm not saying that we are about to have Armageddon with the nuclear industry; I'm saying that enough things have happened that they can't say it will never happen here any more. They used to say that seven years ago, but they can't say it now, because we've had two major accidents by anybody's standards in the world.
When I say the Atomic Energy Control Board isn't transparent, I mean the organization. I've been in this business for seven years, fairly heavily involved in the nuclear notion, and I still don't have a good notion of what the Atomic Energy Control Board can or can't do for me.
I think there should be a mechanism where they would not only be asked direct questions but have us understand who can give accurate answers to those questions. They have good people in the Atomic Energy Control Board, but I'm darned if I know who some of them are.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I too am convinced that there are very good people at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I had suggested to them to appoint one member of the board to represent the public and another one to represent the industry.
[English]
Dr. McQuigge: I don't think it would hurt to have somebody from the public on the board. You always get into the problem of how much they are capable of knowing in a short time, but I don't think that's a bad notion.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: It was also said that the former commission would be divided in two parts: one would look after standards and safety and the other one would look after the promotion of nuclear energy.
[English]
Dr. McQuigge: I can't give you a good answer for that, nor should I. I think there should be a clear separation between the folks who are selling the nuclear industry and the people who are regulating it. I think that should be the minimum, so that there's no conflict of interest and each can get on and do their jobs well. I don't know if that helps you or not.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Ringma.
.1610
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Thank you for the presentation and, I think particularly, Dr. McQuigge, your detailed examination and presentation of inadequacies. I think that will be very helpful for us to be able to review Bill C-23.
I'm concerned, as is my colleague from the Bloc, about a couple of aspects here. Public education is one. The secrecy that has enveloped nuclear energy over my lifetime has prevented any good interplay with the public, and I think there have to be provisions.
I'll ask a specific question of all of you. Do you think we can look just to Bill C-23 to redress this, to give a mandate to the new commission to undertake that as part of its job, or should we be looking at another organization perhaps to undertake that public education - not only public education, but facilitating the public being able to address their concerns?
There are a lot of examples. I look at Mr. Ellard's concerns and yours, sir, and I think of the proposal to import plutonium rods and process them as fuel. I think that may not be a bad proposal, but the public looks at it and says that it's terrible, that it's weapons grade plutonium we're talking about here. It has a tremendous possibility of danger or explosion in their minds. This may not be so at all. I think we've got to do something serious about allowing the public to inform themselves.
My first question is whether it should be addressed within Bill C-23, and I think part of the answer there is yes, at least address it there where we don't now adequately. The second part of that is whether it should be addressed elsewhere. I'll let you take it from there.
Dr. McQuigge: There's an irony here that when it comes to radiation, we know far more about radiation than we do lots of chemicals in our society. We can measure it accurately; we know what steps to take to protect ourselves against it; we know the situations where it's likely to be a problem. The irony is that we have a pretty well thought out notion about radiation, and yet we've been unable to convey that to the public well.
Dr. Kyle and I find that the joke's kind of on us. We've complained about this for several years and now find ourselves in a position where we have to do this kind of thing to educate the public, and we're trying to break down those old barriers where every time people hear radiation they think something terrible is about to happen, when in fact, as I said, we know a lot about this.
I think when I make the plea around the Atomic Energy Control Board and its new structure or its new commission status, there doesn't seem to have been much of a push to get them in a position where they must better educate the public. They've done some things around this and put out some booklets and that kind of thing.
The member who talked about living around nuclear power plants and the fear of that.... We both find that is increasing and increasingly we're more involved with that - not terribly willingly, I would tell you, but we find ourselves, because we are responsible for the public's health, having to address that for people around power plants.
It's just starting up in my area. Down in Durham it's been at quite a high level for some time. So I think we do owe it to the public to be able to explain what's going on with the nuclear power plants, what kinds of risks they're under, what they can do to protect themselves, how likely or unlikely it is that there's going to be a problem.
Mr. Ringma: The other thing addressed here is the division of responsibility between those pushing the product and those responsible for the regulation. We have looked at it today, just the act and the agencies involved, but we have heard in this committee other expressions of opinion that perhaps you should split that responsibility by the ministers involved.
.1615
The Minister of Natural Resources, of course, has a mandate and an interest in the promotion, to some degree, of the use of uranium and nuclear power. But as the promoter in this case, should it be separated from her responsibility as a regulator at the same time?
Do you see the desirability of a split in the responsibility, or is it beyond your sphere of interest?
That's a very leading question.
Mr. Ellard: It may very well be.
I'm sure you're aware that Ontario Hydro is a crown corporation that operates at some distance, but not too great a distance, from the combined Ministry of Energy and Environment. You have a situation where the same minister is responsible for producing, through nuclear means, 60% of Ontario's hydro and at the same time is responsible for the protection of the environment. There is a conflict there.
My minister, the Solicitor General, is concerned with public safety. Of course, we have a somewhat different perspective than the Minister of the Environment and Energy, and occasionally we are in consonance and occasionally we are not.
I see a positive benefit, from my standpoint, in separating the concern for public safety from the production of power. I think the separation is a good thing in that context.
To get back to your earlier question, from a public education standpoint I certainly believe, with Dr. McQuigge, that the public has a very warped perception of the risk of the operation of nuclear power plants. I'm not here to try to convince you that there is no risk, as there certainly is, and the accidents that Dr. McQuigge has pointed out to you have happened and are real. But the public, as I said, has a very warped view as to the consequences of the threat and its potential impact upon them.
I know that Ontario Hydro spends a good deal of resources on educating the public about the operation of nuclear power plants and the risks emanating from them. I'm not sure how effective that is.
My ministry spends a certain amount of resources to educate the public about how to respond to the risk, and certainly that is an area where we could spend a great deal more time, attention and resources, because we really are not getting through to the public in the way we should. They have a very great concern - I believe in some cases a needless concern - about some of the worst effects, or their perception of the effects, of the nuclear industry.
There's no doubt that some harm has been done in that area by being assured repeatedly by the producer that there is no risk when in fact there is, and the events of the last few years have certainly proven that.
So I think public education is an area where additional resources could certainly be applied.
Mr. Ringma: Let me leave you with a notion that's been building in my mind since hearing not just your testimony but that of the previous days as well. Rather than taking the defensive approach of saying the rules are no good, everyone's secret and everyone has a cover - do the CIA approach - there is enough knowledge, as you point out, Dr. McQuigge, on the whole business of handling nuclear radiation. There is an expertise in Canada because we've been handling this stuff for over 50 years. Maybe we should intellectually turn this around a bit and get together, and not only get on with the education business but look to export our technology of safety, controls, regulation, and everything else. There's a need for it in the world, and I think we could probably do something positive for our country and for our industry by perhaps moving in that direction.
.1620
I would like quick reactions.
Mr. Walter: I agree with you. I think we have an excellent safety record. I think the cooperation between the provinces and the board can only be increased to help export that product, even as a province involved in the sale of nuclear reactors outside Canada. Because the division that I head is accredited internationally, we're in a position to assist industry to sell the product in other countries.
Three of my staff just came back from Japan, where in fact we've been accrediting manufacturers' inspection agents to sell Canadian nuclear power plants into China. Those kinds of things, though, have not been done well because of lack of resources in governments. That's not seen always as the best way to invest the public money. I would hope with your comment about public education that the proper funds have to come with the commission in order that they can do their job properly.
Dr. McQuigge: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying is that technically we have the knowledge about the technology.
I don't think anybody who reads the Ontario Hydro 1995 annual report is going to say we are going to export safety knowledge; we are not. We're looking for the United States to bring people in for one or two years to try to get our industry shaped up, and that's what they say in here. I don't think anybody in the industry can contradict me. That's what's happening.
There may well be potential to do that, but we've got a long way to go before that happens.
The Chairman: Thank you, Doctor.
Mrs. Cowling.
Mrs. Cowling (Dauphin - Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is to Dr. McQuigge on the nuclear energy and health component sides with respect to radiation and where we're involved with radiation, in all aspects - for instance, microwaves, our watches, this type of thing. There is a very positive spin that we can give to nuclear energy.
My question is, what would you recommend to this committee to enhance the role of the educational component of nuclear energy? It is a very good story to tell in many respects.
Dr. McQuigge: It has been a very good story to tell. The last couple of years have not been such a great story to tell. Those of us who are involved quite heavily in the notion of emergency planning and accidents at the plants wouldn't have a good story to tell right now.
But I agree we've been leaders in this area. When we smuggled out 400 kilograms of heavy water from Norway in the war and developed an industry, we did well.
However, we're saying that right now we have some concerns in Ontario, and so does Hydro. I would look for some language in the bill that talks about public education. I would look for some language in the bill that talks about establishing a mechanism between the Atomic Energy Control Board and the provinces to work in partnership around the nuclear industry.
Mrs. Cowling: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if Dr. McQuigge would be able to table with this committee certain sections of the bill where he thinks this may be appropriate and may fit into the bill, so that we can look at it from a committee perspective.
Dr. McQuigge: Yes, I think I can tell you that right now. On page 5, under ``Objects'' of the commission, I would look for some language in there, because I do believe that's really setting out the mandate of the commission in many ways. To me that's the most important part of this.
I don't think you can regulate anybody to do great things, but I do think you can encourage them and set the way for them.
.1625
Mrs. Cowling: Thank you.
The Chairman: I have a few questions to ask.
I'm sorry, Mr. Bélair, I didn't realize you wanted to ask a question. Go right ahead.
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): I didn't know you were a dictator.
The Chairman: I've been called much worse.
Mr. Bélair: Are you giving the floor, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Absolutely.
Mr. Bélair: I was somewhat taken aback by both presentations from Dr. McQuigge and Mr. Ellard, in the sense that I think they could be summarized in one word and that is enforcement. The old law from the existing act provides for enforcement, and both of you are saying the regulations are not being enforced.
You and Mr. Ellard both state, to use your exact words, that the AECB has chosen not to do so. There's something wrong here.
Mr. Walter questions somewhat the competence of the inspectors. I don't know.
You've met with Mrs. Bishop and you were satisfied with the meeting, but nothing happened afterwards on the questions of transparency, implementation and enforcement.
All those words seem to be coming back after each and every one of your talks. Is it serious to the point where the federal government, or the provincial government for that matter, does not enforce the regulations that already exist?
Dr. McQuigge: I think there will always be problems. Hydro has had a hard time spitting that word out in the past because they see it as a negative notion that the public won't trust them. We all make mistakes and we all have our problems. The trick is to recognize potential problems as soon as you can and, if they are there, to crack down on them.
Pickering is now under the gun. They've basically been told that they'll close unless they shape up. I think the Atomic Energy Control Board has taken a better leadership role there, but so has Hydro, frankly.
I guess we perceive that this has been a pretty cosy industry for all the things you might suspect. So it's not hard to understand, as I've said, that AECB has to pick their people so that they're knowledgeable, and the only way they're very knowledgeable is when they come from the industry.
The industry is to a large extent self-regulated. AECB depends upon Hydro saying they've got a problem or going through that reporting structure with them. Then AECB has to investigate it and decide whether to act.
Around enforcement I think what we're seeing and what we're concerned about, as medical officers of health, is that we've had some close ones in Ontario. We've had some that frankly weren't a problem at all but the public perceived them as a big problem. So we need to talk about that and we need to look for ways to make sure there is enforcement.
The problem here, and maybe you didn't grasp it or maybe I didn't say it well enough, is that in the United States the nuclear industry looked at their federal regulator and said they didn't think they could regulate them, or were regulating them. After Three Mile Island they formed INPO to regulate themselves, to bring a higher standard to the industry.
I can't comment on the situation in Canada, other than to say Ontario Hydro chose to join that organization but never put any clout into the recommendations. So I guess we do look for the Atomic Energy Control Board to have that kind of mechanism with some clout in it.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Ellard, would you care to comment on your statement?
Mr. Ellard: Yes, I would. I am very anxious to do so.
I personally do not believe that any regulation is worth having unless there is some enforcement.
.1630
There are three provinces in Canada that are producing energy through nuclear means, and we have three differing standards of protecting public safety. I don't think any of the standards that are in place are entirely appropriate to their particular situations. I believe there should be a national standard, and I think it should be set for the benefit not only of the nuclear -
Mr. Bélair: Doesn't that standard exist already?
Mr. Ellard: It does not exist as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Bélair: Does C-23 address the problem?
Mr. Ellard: It gives the commission the power to address the problem, yes. But as I said in my statement, the proof is in the pudding in terms of, first of all, how they set a national standard and then how rigidly that standard is enforced.
We're not only concerned with the producer or the operator of the nuclear facilities here. It's not only Ontario Hydro. The provinces have a responsibility and a role to play also. I would therefore suggest to you that they are in need of enforcement as well.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Walter, you seem to take an exception in your brief when you say, ``all aspects of nuclear energy will be regulated by the Federal Government''. Just before that, you were talking about the long-standing collaboration between both governments. So do you really take exception to this? Do you perceive that this is what Bill C-23 will do?
Mr. Walter: I would agree with Mr. Ellard. I think the tools are in Bill C-23. It depends on how they are enacted and on how strong a position the new commission takes.
The collaboration between Ontario and the board has really been an unwritten collaboration. It has been there because the board, as a policy, adopted provincial legislation. It is not enforced in writing in any way, which is why we, again as Mr. Ellard stated, support a national standard.
I think all of the tools are here, but the mandate has to be given to the new commission to more actively regulate and to enforce.
Mr. Bélair: Together with the provinces?
Mr. Walter: Yes, I think very easily with the provinces. For example, the staff we have.... It relates back to some other questions.
We are in a ministry entirely separate from Ontario Hydro or the Ministry of Environment and Energy, so we are seen as an internationally accredited agency. We are accredited by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers as a nuclear inspection facility agency in North America. So our position is also quite separate from that of Hydro. I think that continuation can only be strengthened. I think the laws we have, the standards we have, just need to be more strongly enforced.
The Chairman: Mr. Chatters.
Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): From listening to the various witnesses as we have gone along, it has become more and more apparent that there is a real need in Canada for a real public debate about nuclear energy and the benefits and the dangers or risks of nuclear energy, if you will. I can't see that this Bill C-23 can allow for that, however. I wonder how that might happen.
There are quite expert people in Canada who have grave concerns about the dangers of what's happening in nuclear energy. There are others, mainly within the industry, who have for years promoted it as the safest and cleanest form of energy and all the rest of it. So how can a public debate take place? What would bring it forward?
Dr. McQuigge: I think there is a mechanism in the bill to do that. I think this notion of public inquiries and the like can set the foundation to do it if that option is chosen.
Mr. Chatters: It depends on who's on the board.
Dr. McQuigge: Yes.
Mr. Walter: I would agree with Dr. McQuigge. I think the objects start to reference it, but they perhaps don't go far enough to show the public involvement.
Mr. Chatters: As a member of Parliament, I represent the views of my constituents, as all of us do. Generally, our constituents are quite poorly informed about nuclear energy; nevertheless, we are expected to represent their views. Here we have a strange situation whereby we have a ministry of the Government of Canada promoting and selling a product. I don't think this is the mandate of the Department of Natural Resources, but it seems to be a job that they're doing. Yet we have this problem of representing our constituents and not being able to provide to them both sides of the argument on the issue so they can make up their minds.
.1635
Dr. McQuigge: I was a little afraid that we were going to be put in the section called kooks, complainers and crackpots.
The trouble is there is that part in the public. I think both Dr. Kyle and myself have found ourselves labelled by Ontario Hydro from time to time as being in that category, when frankly we're not anti-nuclear. We have a genuine notion of protecting the public, though, and what should be done. That's the conundrum.
Has anybody here who isn't on the Atomic Energy Control Board walked down to their building? It's an interesting exercise, because it's a very secure building. You would feel very intimidated if you were a public member going in there. There's no sort of friendly arm of the AECB, at least that I'm aware of, in Ottawa. If you go into their building, I think you'd be hard-pressed to feel like you wanted to pursue anything, for instance.
Ever since we've been involved in nuclear energy in the war, and with the U.S. having them in their submarines, there's been this whole veil of secrecy around the notion of the spread of atomic weaponry. We don't want to see that.
I think we're looking for some better balance there. Yes, you need to have that, but you also need to have more public involvement and education in the industry.
The Chairman: I have a couple of questions to complete this.
First of all, here's a general question to all three of you. Do any of your organizations have the authority to close a nuclear power plant if you believe public safety is at risk?
Dr. McQuigge: With great trepidation, but it's probably possible.
Mr. Walter: Given the adoption by the board of the provincial legislation, if they did not meet the provincial legislation, we could head in the same direction.
The Chairman: So some of those safety concerns we've been discussing, at least as the director of health, you could shut it down if you believed it was -
Dr. McQuigge: Under the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act - there are certainly some segments of the public unhappy with us having these powers - if we suspect - ``if we suspect'' are the words, because we don't have to prove it - there's a danger to the public health, we can immediately ask that segment to cease and desist.
This is unlike other agencies that must go through an appeals court procedure before any action is taken.
As medical officers of health, we can say that must stop right now. They can take us to court if they're not happy with that. But I'm pretty sure that I would be standing up in quite a large courtroom of people should I ever consider doing that.
The Chairman: Here's a second question. Again, it's to all three of you. The AECB, as it has proceeded in previous years, has made regulations. Have your organizations been consulted in that process of developing the regulations?
Mr. Walter: Speaking on behalf of my ministry, yes, we've been involved at regular stages. We had been consulted in the formation of this bill, for example, and in previous amendments.
I don't want to be lumped in with the kooks and crackpots by complaining. I must reiterate that I think the level of cooperation between my ministry and the board has been excellent. I would suggest that, yes, there have been some problems within nuclear facilities, but let us bear in mind that they have all shut down safely. I think that's the aspect we always put into any system we regulate, whether it's an elevator, a propane gas tank or a nuclear facility. If it shuts down safely, then it is working the way the safety regulations have been set.
.1640
The Chairman: Mr. Ellard, is that the case with you as well? Have you consulted with the AECB?
Mr. Ellard: Yes, I would suggest, from my perspective, that we have a good rapport with the AECB. We don't always agree on their action, or lack of an action, in certain areas, but we do have a good rapport and we consult regularly.
To get back to your earlier question, which was about who has the authority to shut down a nuclear plant, we certainly don't harbour any illusion that this authority is ours. We believe the AECB has that authority and would exercise it at the instant an unsafe situation develops. I have no hesitation in expressing that confidence.
Dr. McQuigge: I would say our relationship, the medical officer of health and the AECB, is almost like that of new lovers. We're just kind of dancing around each other trying to understand what the relationship is about.
There's some of that afoot right now. I was only aware of Bill C-23 at a late moment, and only because I'm on the group of medical advisers for the Atomic Energy Control Board, so I did receive a copy of this to peruse.
The Chairman: I have a question about the provincial nuclear emergency plan. Has long has it existed?
Mr. Ellard: For a very long time, ever since nuclear power began to be produced in Ontario. It was not always the responsibility of my ministry. In fact, it passed to my ministry, I believe, in 1974 or 1975. The current plan was approved in 1986. We're into the first year of a three-year program to rewrite our plans completely. That shall be completed in 1998.
The Chairman: Is AECB involved in that?
Mr. Ellard: Absolutely, yes.
The Chairman: Are public hearings involved in that as well?
Mr. Ellard: Not that I'm aware of.
The Chairman: So there's no public input in the development of the emergency plan?
Mr. Ellard: No, but the public is involved through the municipal councils that participate with us in that process.
The Chairman: Okay. I have a couple of other questions here.
We were talking about the object of the commission. This is something we've heard from a lot of people. It's a question that I'm going to put out there in order to get the department to answer.
Consider the objects of the commission, which is in clause 9. If you go to paragraph 9(b), it seems to me that it's setting it out there that it does have that obligation or objective. It says that one of the objects of the commission is:
- (b) to disseminate scientific, technical and regulatory information concerning the activities of
the Commission and the effects, on the environment and on the health and safety of persons,
Dr. McQuigge: Yes. What I'm concerned about is the word ``disseminate''. Disseminate doesn't mean work with, plan with, or work in partnership with; it simply means we'll hand out some information. That's an area that should be explored.
The Chairman: One of your recommendations might be an amendment that makes it more clear that they need to have more open consultation and public participation.
Dr. McQuigge: What Mr. Ellard perhaps didn't elucidate is that Ontario is developing a new nuclear emergency plan. Atomic Energy Control Board is in a similar process. I'm not aware of whether they're talking together. That's maybe because I don't know, but I'm not aware of that.
The Chairman: The other thing I wanted to mention is that I'm not certain, but I believe in 9(b) you referred to the fees. I will certainly make sure with the department that if somebody makes an application and they provide a fee with the application and the application is rejected, then the fee is refundable. You don't end up paying for something you don't get. I think that's what it's meant for, but we'll confirm that.
I could understand where you are coming from in saying not to worry about a fine. If we fine you, we'll just give it back to you. That, of course, would certainly be a concern, but I don't think that's what they're driving at in that section. We'll make sure of that when we have the department officials back here. I think we might be able to satisfy your concern.
.1645
Dr. McQuigge: I'm concerned about how it might be interpreted.
The Chairman: Absolutely.
I have one last question, especially of you, Dr. McQuigge. You've expressed some concerns about Ontario Hydro. Have you approached Ontario Hydro in your official capacity and said that as the medical officer of health, you have certain concerns about their operations in your area? Have you taken that step?
Dr. McQuigge: I think the word ``constantly'' would be accurate, and I would say the same for Dr. Kyle.
The Chairman: What type of response do you get from Ontario Hydro?
Dr. McQuigge: Sometimes I get a good response and sometimes I get a less than adequate response.
I won't talk a lot of jargon, but there's the notion of creep in the fuel tubes. There's the notion of O-ring placements. There's a new notion in here that I know nothing about; I think it talks about the displacement tubes between the boiler side and the secondary loop in the reactors. There's the notion of chattering downstream, which the Atomic Energy Control Board has already pointed out and which may be a design flaw in the reactor.
Those are the kinds of things that Dr. Kyle and I.... If we hear those words, we'd like to be able to understand them better. How big a risk is this? Is this no risk? Some of that technical information would help us put it in perspective. Until now we've had to go begging for that. Nobody is phoning us and asking, by the way, did you read our report and do you have any questions? There's not that kind of follow-up. We're viewed with considerable suspicion, I would say.
The Chairman: Have you ever taken your concerns about a utility directly to AECB, and said you're not satisfied with the answers and asked if they could do something?
Dr. McQuigge: That's exactly why Dr. Kyle and I flew to Ottawa a year ago.
Mr. Ellard: Maybe I could add to that. When the situations do arise, we make regular use of AECB advice in interpreting and confirming what Ontario Hydro tells us. In every instance they have responded to us very quickly.
The Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much. I appreciate your taking the time to travel here to Ottawa to provide us with this perspective. It's an important one. As you can tell from the questions, the committee members were very interested in the testimony, and there are some things we need to follow up. So I extend our appreciation, and again, our apologies for the slight delay in beginning.
The meeting is adjourned.