I spent the evening with Elizabeth May as she addressed an event at Upper Canada College. On the way over, we chatted about (among other things) the unbelievably disturbing situation unfolding with regards to the CNSC and our government. Namely, not only do we no longer have an independent nuclear safety watchdog in Canada, but the independence of all arms-length governmental organizations has been undermined. What’s even more unbelievable for me is that every single party in the House of Commons rolled over and let this happen. Just another example of why we need Green MPs now.
I asked Elizabeth if I could share the following email with you, which I received from her just an hour before she arrived at Union Station. (So from what I can tell, she wrote this off the top of her head on the train.) It represents what is possibly the most comprehensive and damning overview of what’s going largely unreported and why it’s so disastrous not only for our safety, but for our democracy.
We have taken very clear positions on this issue. First, you need to know we have done our homework. Here’s a crash course in the fiasco.
1) The NRU reactor at Chalk River is over 50 years old. It is operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, a Crown Corporation. Closing for even routine maintenance should not have occurred without a contingency plan, alerting the other manufacturers of medical radio-isotopes that they should be prepared to boost production.
2) The reactor closed on November 18 for routine maintenance without any contingency plan. Then the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, discovered that the reactor was operating illegally, having ignored license requirements for emergency back-ups for additional pumps. CNSC told AECL they could not re-open until they met license requirements. AECL still did not alert the government that it needed to make contingency plans. Why not? I speculate here, but MDS-Nordion is the “for profit” operation that was once part of AECL. I think that Nordion and AECL did not want to have reduced profits and a loss of market share. No one informed the Minister of Health of a looming crisis until December 5. For reasons of profit and market they gambled on holding Canadian patients hostage to avoid meeting the regulatory requirements. They won. The President of the CNSC lost.
3) Chalk River’s NRU reactor makes Molybdenum 99. It makes about 40% of the world’s supply. The other 60% comes from facilities in Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, France and Germany. The isotope used in diagnosis is technetium-99m (t-99m), which is derived from the Molybdenum 99. While the t99-m has a very very short half life,
66 hours6 hours, the Moly 99 lasts much longer and could have been stockpiled. A few ounces of M 99 provides enough t 99m for thousands of treatments and diagnostic tests.4) AECL mismanagement: Everyone has known the NRU reactor will have to close eventually. It is way past its “best-before” date. AECL promised to have two reactors up and running dedicated exclusively to making radio-isotopes. That was more than ten years ago. Maple 1 and 2 are pretty much finished at Chalk River. We know they were budgeted at $140 million. They are way over budget and they cannot be opened. AECL cannot figure out what is wrong, They were supposed to have a “negative power coefficient of reactivity (PCR)” — meaning that the nuclear reaction in the core was supposed to slow down as power increased. This is a safety feature. Instead of slowing down, the reaction speeds up. The handling of this project is one of the items the Auditor General reported as a deficiency in her fall report to government, released this week.
5) How safe is safe enough? The NRU reactor, like all nuclear installations, has a very small risk of a very catastrophic accident. That is why they have back up systems. There is a current dispute between AECL, CNSC and Lunn — and it is much larger than the NRU issue. The former President of CNSC is chairing some international nuclear safety committees. The CNSC communicated to AECL that if it plans to build any new reactors, they must meet international safety standards. AECL has protested that is unnecessary. Lunn takes AECL’s side. (After all Harper and company want nuclear reactors to speed up exploitation of the tar sands….)
The Green Party does not accept that the regulator should have been over-ridden. This, plus removing Keen as President, has set a very dangerous precedent. Now the nuclear industry knows that if it is operating illegally and cutting corners, the Harper government will rush to their defence and shoot the messenger. The emergency legislation passed did NOT have any independent expert advice. I am not referring to the fact one expert was chair of a Conservative riding association. The lack of independence is that both witnesses to Parliament had long-standing ties to AECL. We believe the other political parties were too scared of angry cancer patients to be capable of thinking clearly.
Bottom line: WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE IF WE’D BEEN IN THE HOUSE? WHAT ARE WE DEMANDING NOW?
1) WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE IF WE’D BEEN IN THE HOUSE? The Opposition Parties should have contacted every manufacturer of Moly 99 around the world to ascertain whether they could meet demand, and over what time frame. ONLY if it was clear (which it is still not clear to us) there was no way to keep supplies of Moly 99 at acceptable levels, should the bill to re-open the NRU have gone ahead. We would have insisted on re-writing Lunn’s emergency Bill to instruct CNSC to allow the reactor to open on a temporary license, with all safety issues over-seen by CNSC. The bill, as passed, puts AECL in charge of its own operation. An impossible and dangerous precedent of nuclear fox watching over radioactive chicken coop.
2) WHAT ARE WE DEMANDING NOW?
We are demanding a full public inquiry. There has never been a public review of AECL. One was promised by the Joe Clark government, but the government fell before it could take place. Billions of dollars in subsidies have gone to AECL with nearly zero accountability.
We are demanding Lunn’s resignation. His interference with a quasi-judicial regulator is a firing offence. The Harper government does not understand the rule of law.
We are exploring whether the conflict of interest between AECL being within Natural Resources would be reduced by placing nuke issues in Environment Canada… this is a position being taken by some prominent NGOs…
Elizabeth
As we discussed the contents of this email, we listened to an interview with Dr. Tom Perry, a Professor at the University of British Columbia and a physician at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, who struggled to understand how any lives could have been threatened as the Conservative government has claimed. During the whole time Chalk River was down, he and his colleagues failed to notice any health crisis.
In other words, there’s much more going on here than we’re aware of. We need an inquiry. Thank goodness we have in Elizabeth May the only party leader with the courage and credibility to press for the truth.
I forgot the names, but what would have happened if the people who Harper’s government had fired had instead decided to keep Chalk River going and an accident had happened? Who would Harper blame? Not himself.
How long will we be waiting for Canada’s Chernobyl to happen?
There are no good guys in this sordid tale.
Over the years environmentalists have charged the watch dog of protecting the nuclear industry. For example the CNSC’s report on Ontario Power Generations nuclear dump being proposed for the shores of Lake Huron is a whitewash. Principles that were established over twenty years of public consultations in Seaborn and the NWMO were trashed by the CNSC.
Don’t be fooled people. Keen & company are complicit in this affair and an investigation is needed. This whole mess demonstrates that government, the regulator and industry can not be counted on to advance policy in the interest of the public. So it’s up to the public to drive policy.
Per: Mr. Brian McGee (Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer):
“The commissioner has made several comments both at the CNSC hearings and here tonight that we violated the licence. We do not believe that is true and we do not believe that right now if we were to restart the reactor we would be in violation.
We can demonstrate through factual evidence that we can make available to everyone, both CNSC correspondence documentation and our own, that shows that CNSC staff knew at the time of licensing that these upgrades were not complete and we can make that information available to this House.
Our safety report that we submit at the end of every year, so most recently 2005 and 2006, both identify that these upgrades were not complete.â€
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3197379
Another good point (which I’ve touched on in my previous post and this one, but not gone into in depth) which was emailed to me by a friend this morning, copy and pasted below.
Chris
—
Hey there, great blog post this morning. There’s one aspect missing still: the sketchy intentions of the gvt as they have to do with the privatization of AECL, as reported in the Post of all places. we need to talk about the context of why this is happening – taxpayers funding all the R&D for nukes and then selling them to the private sector when they become profitable …
http://www.nationalpost.com/rss/story.html?id=242327
“Why he did this is open to conjecture, but as the Post reported this week, Ms. Keen has made enemies in the nuclear industry because she has imposed tough new international standards on any new reactor built in Canada, in doing so hurting AECL’s ability to sell new reactors to the government of Ontario. She has also ended “pre-reviews” of new reactors, a process that warns operators if there are fundamental barriers to them being granted operating licences. Both measures have made AECL less attractive to potential investors at a time when the government is mulling whether to sell off all or part of the nuclear operator.”
Thanks for getting Ms. May’s permission to republish her excellent analysis and action plan. I’ve taken the liberty of quoting her email to you on the E-Group blog.
One aspect that seems to be just emerging is the tar sands connection. Is Harper paving the way for new nuke development by discrediting CNSC? Are Ontario and Quebec residents being put in danger so Alberta can reap profits from the tar sands?
The GPC can own this issue. The ignorance on the part of MP’s of all stripe was made apparent by the unanimous vote to over-ride CNSC. Ms. May is entirely correct. They should have looked for alternative supplies.
The International Herald Tribune is reporting:
“While the shortage of isotopes was unquestionably disruptive for the medical community and patients, the extent of the danger it posed to health was never entirely clear as there are alternatives to many of the procedures that require them. More expensive and limited supplies of isotopes also remained available from reactors in Belgium and South Africa for urgent treatments.â€
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/16/america/16nuke.php
I also remember reading an article around Dec 18 where May was talking about alternate sources.
Jim Elve
Communications Director
Haldimand-Norfolk Federal Green Party Association
Oh, this is getting interesting.
Y’know, I just thought of this…but, Elizabeth could play a major role in bringing the opposition parties together and ousting Harper, the dictator-wannabe. It would demonstrate not only great concern for the safety of Canadians, but also for the integrity of our democracy.
Anyway, I was posting to say check P’n’P for another choice quote.
An e-mail to Kady O’Malley of Maclean’s:
Katie, you wrote:
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=100761&tid=100761&eid=48&so=1&ps=0&sb=1
“Despite the fact that the Chalk River crisis is approaching its seventh week in the headlines, Canadians still haven’t gotten the chance to hear Linda Keen’s side of the story — at least, not directly. “
This is not true. I watched the proceedings on CPAC where she appeared before Parliament Tuesday Dec 11th and provided her reasons and explanation for the shut-down of the Chalk River facilities.
She was available for questions from 7:30 pm to 11:35 pm.
I don’t know if you have read Elizabeth May’s blog on this – as always full of exaggerations and misinformation (and conspiracy theories that make no sense whatsoever). How about undertaking a critical review of what she claims? You won’t need much more than the Hansard.
A couple of obvious examples, May’s opening statement is complete rhetoric:
Elizabeth May blog: The firing of Linda Keen as President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is sending shock waves around the world. Now Canada is one of only two nations that puts its nuclear industry watchdog function in the hands of its nuclear industry. The other is Iran.
From Hansard:
Linda Keen (opening statement 17:40): …In fact, the CNSC does regulate and license every hospital and health clinic in Canada and we have been working with them to expedite any licence amendments that are necessary for them to be using new methodologies or new equipment…
With 2,500 licensees in Canada in every aspect of the nuclear industry, be that mining, refining, power reactor, research reactors, clinics, and industrial uses, the CNSC has what is arguably the largest mandate in the world for regulation. This is done on behalf of Canadians. Canadians are our only client.
…
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): (22:15) … I think it is fair to say that we have it clear on the record tonight that the role of the commission is intact. I think there was some questioning here that suggested that somehow everything would be thrown out the window and we would have no regulatory oversight.
We have established that this legislation before us tonight exempts AECL only for up to 120 days, so it is a maximum of 120 days. It could be less than that depending on how long it takes to get up and running. It is only an exemption for the motor starters and the connections to the emergency power supply. It has nothing to do with the rest of the operation. It is that limited basis that we are talking about tonight, and that has been put on the record.
We have also had an agreement from the government that it will agree that there should be regular reports from AECL every 30 days, hopefully it could be more frequent than that, to the House so that there can be a regular updating of what goes on.
More Elizabeth May conspiracy theories:
Elizabeth May blog: AECL still did not alert the government that it needed to make contingency plans. Why not? I speculate here, but MDS-Nordion is the “for profit” operation that was once part of AECL. (spun off and privatized in 1988 to Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) and sold to Nordion in 1991). I think that Nordion and AECL did not want to have reduced profits and a loss of market share.
…
No one informed the Minister of Health of a looming crisis until December 5. (I am prepared to accept Tony Clement’s word on this.) For reasons of profit and market AECL gambled on holding Canadian patients hostage to avoid meeting the regulatory requirements. They won. The President of the CNSC lost.
…
I can find no evidence that these medical isotopes are used in treatment.
This is total nonsense. If they were concerned with loss of product and market share, they would have done everything possible to have the reactor started up ASAP – which would have included alerting the Ministers of NRC and Health to put pressure on the regulator.
May accepts Tony Clement’s word on one point, but rejects this part of why he was supporting Bill C-38, and how isotopes are used for treatment:
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): (17:30)
Mr. Chair, I am speaking today in support of the government’s legislation, Bill C-38, to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River.
As the Chair knows, the extended shutdown of this reactor has resulted in a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes. These isotopes are used by physicians for cancer and heart disease treatment and diagnostic tests.
This shortage has resulted in an intolerable situation in which cancer and heart disease treatments and diagnostic tests are being delayed or cancelled.
Our government is very concerned about the fact that Canadians are unable to obtain the treatment they need.
We have learned that many institutions have very limited supplies and some centres, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and in smaller communities across the country, are focusing on emergency patients only.
If the shortage goes on any longer, it will have a serious impact on public health in several provinces. We are already seeing some of the effects.
One hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, has told me that most of its staff in nuclear medicine has been sent home. Without isotopes, there is no work to do. Its last generator expired at 12 noon last Friday and its has no backup. All appointments for patients have been cancelled and all emergency patients are being turned away.
Another gentleman in St. Catharines, Ontario, suffering from cancer, had his badly needed treatment this morning cancelled because the hospital did not have the necessary nuclear isotopes.
Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, has indicated that the CMA is “very concerned†about the situation and that, “In balancing relative risk, it is important to ensure that the serious and immediate human health consequences of the isotope shortage are fully taken into accountâ€.
This is obviously a very critical situation, and resuming medical isotope production is an immediate priority for Canada’s government. In fact, ensuring that cancer patients receive their treatment should be a priority for all the members in the House, and I urge them all to support this legislation.
Another misrepresentation of what DID in fact occur with the passage of Bill C-38:
Elizabeth May blog: We would have insisted on re-writing Lunn’s emergency Bill to instruct CNSC to allow the reactor to open on a temporary license, with all safety issues over-seen by CNSC. The bill, as passed, puts AECL in charge of its own operation…
This is a misrepresentation. Bill C-38 , as amended , made it perfectly clear that all it was doing was allowing AECL to start-up with one back-up power supply for 120 days. ALL other issues/relationships between regulation of AECL by CNSC remains in place.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:
Mr. Chair, this is a question for the regulator, Ms. Keen.
The Minister of Natural Resources some time ago gave an assurance to the House based on a legal opinion that the authority of the regulator under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act would continue to apply to Chalk River in the 120 day period, except in respect of the installation of seismically qualified motor starters on heavy water pumps.
If that opinion was added to Bill C-38 in the form of an amendment that would say, “Nothing in this act derogates from the authority of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in respect of Atomic Energy of Canada Limitedâ€, that is, if that legal opinion offered by the minister was in the bill, would it enable the CNSC as a regulator to continue to discharge its regulatory duties in respect of the NRU at Chalk River?
Ms. Linda J. Keen:
Mr. Chair, first I would like to make it clear that the CNSC did not receive a copy of that legal opinion. We received a draft copy of the legislation.
In terms of the legal opinion, that would be a great reassurance to the commission if that were correct, which we assume it would be from justice, and that would stand the test. As I prefaced my remarks, I did not have the legal opinion.
However, the second point is that we talk about regulating the pump as if it were a completely separate piece of the reactor. It is not. It is an integral installed part of it.
I must say that we agree that the installation of one pump is safer than not having the pumps but it will not be as safe as two pumps, which AECL is committed to look at within the 180 days.
All together, we would put in a regulatory program that looked at the whole area and, if this legislation is passed, which is the prerogative of the House, then we would hope that this would be installed as soon as possible and we would return to full regulatory compliance.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:
Ms. Keen, just to be clear, would it help you to have in Bill C-38 a clause explicitly asserting that nothing derogates from your authority in respect of Chalk River during this 120 day period?
Ms. Linda J. Keen:
Mr. Chair, I am a material scientist [NOT A NUCLEAR ENGINEER], just like the people who are at this table are engineers and scientists. I am not a lawyer and so I would not be able to comment on that.
…
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:
Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up on that. Subclause (2) of the bill states:
“Atomic Energy of Canada Limited may resume and continue the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River only if it is satisfied that it is safe to do so. ”
Can we in the House be assured that you would work cooperatively with the regulator on the safety issues so that the public can be assured that you have been in dialogue with the regulator to make sure that when you restart you are safe to do so, understanding the authority that this act gives you to restart under these suspension of licence conditions?
Mr. Brian McGee:
Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I understand the question correctly, but I will answer it this way. We do have a strong relationship with the CNSC staff. We work closely with them I believe. There are always opportunities for improvement but I think there is a strong, cooperative effort on both sides of the relationship. Regardless of the legislation, I intend to continue to work with CNSC staff on that level.
The House has my commitment that before I declare that reactor safe to operate now or in the future, I will be assured that it is safe. I take that responsibility seriously. It is my accountability.
Earlier, Dr. Torgerson said that a strong regulator was an important part of that overall safety network. This is an industry that is preoccupied by safe operation, and the regulatory framework and the regulator itself is a critical part of that.
Out of respect for that and my commitment to safe operation, I will work continuously with staff to ensure we are doing the right things.
Mr. Michael Ignatieff:
Mr. Chair, the House, just so it is clear, is questioning Mr. McGee’s devotion to safety, his good intentions, or his commitment to doing the right thing, but that was not the question. The question is whether, as he works to complete this and restart and get all the pump work done, he will work with the regulator to make sure that he is compliant.
Mr. Brian McGee:
Mr. Chair, the answer to that is, yes, we will.
Earlier, Gary Lunn had provided a legal opinion from the Dept of Justice to Parliament that Bill C-38 in NO WAY limited CNSC’s existing regulator’s role outside of the specific pump issue.
Perhaps some press scrutiny of Ms. May’s misrepresentations and fear mongering is warranted. She claims: “An impossible and dangerous precedent of nuclear fox watching over radioactive chicken coop.”
Nonsense.
Cross posted from Glenn Huber, GPC (Newmarket-Aurora) PEng’s site:
Glenn,
In Elizabeth May’s latest error ridden and misrepresentative blog entitled “Harper’s Melt-down: Trying to make sense of the nuke fiasco “, she writes: http://greenparty.ca/en/node/3671
The emergency legislation passed did NOT have any independent expert advice. I am not referring to the fact one expert was chair of a Conservative riding association. The lack of independence is that both witnesses to Parliament had long-standing ties to AECL. We believe the other political parties were too scared of angry cancer patients to be capable of thinking clearly.
What exactly is the Green Party saying here? These Professional Engineers are putting the public at risk because of their previous association with AECL, or attempting to mislead parliament? Taken within the context of her other conspiracy theories, it sure looks like it to me.
Here is their testimony before Parliament, Dec 11th, 2007:
Mr. Daniel Meneley (Former Chief Engineer of AECL):
Mr. Chair, Bob Strickert and I were asked a very simple question concerning the safety of NRU if and when it restarts and operates.
We both have a technical background. We do not speak to nor do we know the situation with regard to licensing, specifically. We are talking about safety.
Is NRU likely to be safer or less safe after it restarts than it was before? Clearly, with the addition, as I understand it, of the single seismically qualified power supply to one of the pumps, the safety of the plant should be improved relative to what it was at the time of shutdown.
Therefore, the question is this. How does the risk of that potential operation compare with the standard? It appears, according to the literature we have read, that the plant satisfies the prior licence conditions, but let us leave that one there.
Therefore, the new requirement that is placed on the plant to improve the reliability of the power supply to these pumps is an improvement, we feel, and in the long term should be an enhancement of the safety of the plant.
We come to then a comparison between the risk of continued plant operation versus the risk of the lack of medical isotopes to a large number of people. In our judgment and in our opinion, our judgment says that the risk of operation of NRU is very much less than the risk of not operating NRU.
That completes my statement.
…
Mr. Robert Strickert (Former manager of Pickering and Site VP of Darlington):
Mr. Chair, we were provided with the AECL case on NRU operating with the extra pump and we were provided with a copy of AECL’s letter. We were not provided with a copy of the licensing issues, so we looked at the safety side of it with respect to the safety case and not with respect to the past licensing track. We are not into the legal licensing issue at all. We were looking at the safety.
Having reviewed that case, we thought it was prudent to restart the reactor, that it appeared to be a reasonable case, certainly on our background knowledge. Dan, in particular, has had a background in nuclear safety review at NRU. I have been quite involved over the years with a number of submissions at various plants on nuclear safety. I was the signing authority for Ontario Hydro for a number of plants, for a number of years. It was my name on the document in terms of what was submitted.
Our understanding was the reactor was capable and safe before it was shut down, and that there has been an enhancement made that will give it an additional level of safety. We believed, based on the information we were provided, that this plant could operate for a short period of time, up to the 16 weeks that was mentioned, with the required level of safety and a better level of safety than it had operated for in the past 50-odd years.
That was the opinion we put forward based on the information we were provided, which was the AECL submission.
Are you, as a PEng, responsible for upholding the reputation of the profession, going to allow these inferences by E May to go unchallenged within the GP?
Chris, you write:
Dr. Tom Perry, a Professor at the University of British Columbia and a physician at the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre,
I guess you forgot to mention that Dr. Tom Perry was a former NDP Cabinet Minister, as also mentioned on As It Happens.
As you know, there are only two national parties that are idealistically anti-nukes. The GPC and the NDP. I know, a technicality.
Had you or Elizabeth recalled the debate in Parliament, you will recall that the Minister of Health, Tony Clement indicated that the shortages were uneven across Canada – mainly in the Maritimes, but also ONLY PARTS of BC.
Perhaps Dr. Tom Perry didn’t realize this when he made his observations. But since Elizabeth claimed: “we have done our homework” she should have known.
This is a typical misinformation strategy/campaign that Elizabeth May has perfected over her many many decades as an anti-nuke activist.
It is a shame she goes unchecked within the GPC with these strategies and dubious tactics, and they are repeated by the less knowledgeable.
On the DeSmogBlog site, this is referred to as “Spin and Echo Chamber”
Hello? Hello? Hello?
“We do not speak to nor do we know the situation with regard to licensing, specifically. We are talking about safety.”
When the licence was issued to AECL back in August 2006, the safety analysis report was part of that licence. Back then it was recognized that the NRU was a 50 year old reactor and that due diligence required that upgrades be completed…at least that’s what the commissioners at the CNSC believed to be true.
Now the dinosaurs are saying that’s not what the license called for and the needed upgrades that had been identified by the safety analysis weren’t at all necessary.
Safety amounts to more than weasel words by weasels. Let’s scrap the Nuclear Safety Act. Let’s scrap the regulations. Let’s scrap the licensing process. None of these were enacted for reasons of safety. All we need is the assurance from the industry experts and professionals to decree that all is safe. “We decree that no earthquakes will occur over the next 120 daysâ€.
Been there. Heard it all before. Time for the dinosaurs to move on.
Back in 1997 the OH Board decided to shut down 7 reactors because the standards had fallen to where could not ensure the reactors could be kept running safely down the road.
“In the board’s view, the marginally acceptable conditions of the plants represented an immediate threat to their licensingâ€.
By 1996, the AECB judged the situation at Pickering ‘A’ to be particularly critical and only a six-month licence renewal was granted. In addition the utility was warned that the station was in danger of regulatory shutdown unless improvements were made in management and operational safety. This is evidenced by the public not recognizing that a six-month operating licence is the step just before regulatory closure.
Dr Bishop (AECB Pres.) “It would only be a matter of time before other stations reached the operating level of Pickering; that is, in danger of regulatory shutdown.”
Per OH CEO Kupcis…there had been building evidence of a deterioration in safety. “It comes down to leadership – management had lost its focus on safety and efficiency and allowed a deterioration of standards to occur.” “The findings suggest that Hydro has endemic problems with management culture,”.
The findings per an independent report, “were highly critical of virtually all aspects of management and operational performance, especially those related to the decline of, or lack of, a strong safety culture. Many of the deficiencies that were identified “…represent departures from the “defence-in-depth” concept that forms the cornerstone of the nuclear industry. They result in unacceptable erosions of the margin of safety afforded the public and employees.”
An 18-year-long leak of tritium-laced heavy water into the ground at Pickering, and the release of more than 1,000 tonnes of copper and zinc into Lake Ontario from nuclear plant condenser tubes during the past decade. “This is clearly something that should have been found and reported,” Robert Potvin of the Atomic Energy Control Board said Friday.
“This is another example of what we have been saying for two years. There is a need to improve the quality of work and attention to detail at Pickering”.
CANADA’S NUCLEAR REACTORS: HOW MUCH SAFETY IS ENOUGH?
Interim Report
Fire:
In 1997, the IIPA team paid special attention to fire hazards at the Ontario Hydro stations. A fire protection assessment found a lack of managerial leadership had resulted in poor storage of materials, deficient housekeeping and inadequate controls on flammable materials. It pointed out that there was insufficient understanding of where the plants were vulnerable to fire, how fires in critical locations could affect nuclear safety and where more detection and suppression systems were needed. The team of experts also issued the caution that fire is the dominant contributor to core damage frequency at some stations in the U.S. Core damage resulting from fire at Ontario Hydro units was also a possibility.
Safety Culture
Over the past three years Ontario Hydro (OPG) has attempted to entrench a safety culture in its nuclear operations, in response to criticisms raised in the IIPA report. A safety culture is a mindset — one in which all workers and management team members make safety their first priority in all of their actions and decisions. Without a strong safety culture, the safe operation of nuclear facilities can be compromised. One witness pointed out that the CNSC has accepted the link between corporate culture and safety. He noted
“The regulator figured out in the last few years that culture, the structure of thought in an organization, turns out to be the key to whether reactors are run relatively safely or relatively unsafely.”
The findings of the IIPA of Ontario Hydro nuclear power stations were highly critical of virtually all aspects of management and operational performance, especially those related to the decline of, or lack of, a strong safety culture. Many of the deficiencies that were identified “…represent departures from the “defence-in-depth” concept that forms the cornerstone of the nuclear industry. They result in unacceptable erosions of the margin of safety afforded the public and employees.” The IIPA report went on to note that “Management is neither setting high standards for itself nor demanding the best from other departments, and personnel have not incorporated an adequate safety culture into their normal activities.”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-E/ENRG-E/REP-E/repintjun01part1-e.htm
“We do not speak to nor do we know the situation with regard to licensing, specifically. We are talking about safety.”
The profession has issues with May’s inferences.
The public has issues with the profession.
Today’s TO Star:
*********An unproven and overly intricate design that strained the competence of AECL engineers and scientists.
Shoddy workmanship and lax quality control, which meant grit particles stopped two sets of safety control rods from shutting down the reactors.
An unexplained miscalculation about changes in reactivity – the reactor’s oomph – on which the entire safety scenario is based.
In the view of most nuclear experts and informed observers, these AECL failures are the real cause of last month’s crisis in isotope production that culminated this week in the Harper government’s unprecedented firing of Linda Keen.
As well, top AECL management was repeatedly hauled on the carpet before the Nuclear Safety Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Control Board, to explain poor operating practices at the Universal reactor, including foot-dragging on implementing safety upgrades ordered by the federal regulator.
In June 2005, staff at the safety commission said in a written report that the AECL staff running the aging Universal reactor were prone to “overconfidence,” “complacency” and “deficiencies in management oversight and safety culture.”**********
http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/295589
Per previous post-it’s 10 years later-SSDD. Time for the dinosaurs to move along.
Ron is typical of the anti-nuke crowd – don’t let facts get in the way of a good ideological argument. And use whatever misleading quotes you can to further your already formed ideological opinion.
Take the Toronto Star article he selectively quotes from. What words proceed the first *******? These ones:
Yet in a nearby building two new custom-built MAPLE reactors, designed specifically for isotope production, sit idle eight years after they were supposed to replace the 50-year-old, multipurpose National Research Universal reactor.
The new reactors aren’t operating because of a series of hard-to-believe blunders by once world-class Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Crown corporation responsible for designing and building them.
The blunders include:
How convenient. The article is talking about the Maple reactors, NOT the Chalk River reactor that was the subject of the controversial shut-down.
Typical misrepresentations, or just plain ignorance.
for the benefit of Dot lets repeat what the Star said:
***As well, top AECL management was repeatedly hauled on the carpet before the Nuclear Safety Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Control Board, to explain poor operating practices at the Universal reactor, including foot-dragging on implementing safety upgrades ordered by the federal regulator.
In June 2005, staff at the safety commission said in a written report that the AECL staff running the aging Universal reactor were prone to “overconfidence,†“complacency†and “deficiencies in management oversight and safety culture.â€******
Tell us Dot…was that reference to the Maple or the NRU?
And while were at it….let’s break some more ground…..
A few years back AECL was caught dumping radioactive waste in ditches at Chalk River. AECL downplays dumping. It was only low level waste after all. A CNSC investigation concludes that waste dumping hadn’t created a public health or safety hazard. Meanwhile the dumping had been going on for years and CNSC had lost track of the problem for the last seven years because of staff turnover and poor record keeping.
Good little worker do-bees don’t break the rules intentionally. The comand structure goes to the very top. There are supervisors and mangers with iron rings in the chain of command.
How many more investigations will it take to ferret the dinosaurs out? It’s time for the opposition parties to call for a full blown inquiry into this sordid affair?
And by the way. I’m not an anti-nuke.
Ron,
I know you want to debate nuclear energy, and obviously are against it, hence your references, twice, to “dinosaurs”. But, let’s deal with the real issues – how to strengthen AECL and the CNSC.
So, let’s be honest first. No matter how you may feel, nuclear energy will coninue to be a big part of Canada’s energy mix. Both the recently re-elected McGuinty gov’t in Ontario as well as the PC opposition are pro-nuke (the latter even more so). New Brunswick is looking to expand their nuclear program, and there is a good chance Alberta will go this way as well.
Now, as far as Alberta is concerned, it is not, as Elizabeth May improperly claims (once again) “to speed up exploitation of the tar sands….” It is to reduce GHG’s and offer an economic alternative to the other options (gas and coal). In fact, if you tied your oilsands (or tar sands) development to a nuclear plant, you would in fact delay development of your plant as the development cycle of a nuke is much longer than an oilsands plant.
Now, for years and years, anti-nuke NGOs (led btw by E May at the Sierra Club) have complained about the “subsidies” paid to AECL by the Feds. They have prepared, through CNP, very questionable economic analysis, by an anti-nuke activis,t pointing out the “subsidies” since 1952 (without of course including the economic benefits – heck that would provide a balanced picture). And the anti-nuke NGOs have employed the “spin and echo chamber” techniques to get the message out amongst the less knowledgeable and the anti-nuke activists.
They have also used this to pressure various governments to stop funding AECL (as head of Sierra and recently as head of the GPC Ms. May has referred to both Jean Chretien and Gary Lunn respectively as “whores” for promoting CANDU reactors in Canada and around the world).
So, when Paul Martin ( a good friend of E May) was undertaking his austerity programs in the 90’s, it was not politically difficult to cut funding to AECL.
Today’s problems, as the TorStar article point out, is due to a chronic case of underfunding to AECL over the past many years – which, in my opinion, can be attributed to a great degree to the anti-nuke movement. When you don’t have the funding, you defer maintenace, morale drops etc. and the industry does not attract the qualified individuals it needs for renewal.
To me it’s like the NASA space program. In the early 70’s they went to the moon. Today, there is talk about returning maybe by 2020 – the key knowledge and expertise no longer resides there.
Despite all of the witch hunting and finger pointing that the GPC and other anti-nukes want to undertake (and IMO an investigation would be a good thing to identify the problems) , the question should boil down to this:
Either properly fund AECL, or privatize it (I’m for the latter). Don’t continue to own it and underfund it.
There are many alternatives to the CANDU reactor, and while the focus of late by the anti-nukes has been AECL, there’s a good chance its competitors will be soon building their versions in Canada.
(P.S. go read Hansard, Dec 11th debates to get a full appreciation of the real issues over the shutdown – not the fairy tale E May version)
Two issues:
No supporter of the nuke industry can condone the performance of old Ontario Hydro and AECL today. You’re not helping the industry if you do. Don’t blame it on lack of funding.
Nuclear has been mismanaged in Ontario. The France’s EDF didn’t have to sell off reactors at 10 cents on the $dollar. The OH debacle has cost Ontario $13 billion. That is not chump change. Then there were the secret back door dealings getting OH ready for privatization. One would think that Ontario is some 3rd world banana republic that has been targeted by corporate robbers. The NDP, Liberals and Conservatives are all complicit.
Does this AECL affair not demonstrate the need to change the way the major parties carry on and how government performs? I said up front the public have been cheated by OPG over the nuclear waste dump that is being proposed along the shores of Lake Huron. If you support the industry you can not condone this behaviour.
I may not agree with the Greens on energy policy. I do welcome the Greens furthering the discussion especially if it strengthens the democratic process. That is my overriding concern. So if I am forced to make a choice on account of intransigence by the nuke industry, it will be an easy choice to make.
Ron,
As I previously mentioned, you are obviously an opponent to nuclear energy – hence your willingness to bring in all sorts of issues dating back many, many years. I think it makes your view of recent events very biased.
I was dealing with the issue at hand, and the misinformation put forward in the E May e-mail/blog. We’d all be better off if we dealt with facts.
That is why I endorsed an inquiry into this whole affair – there are longstanding problems in many areas. However, I will not prejudge the outcome or apportion blame until we know the whole story.
I’ll leave that to others. But I do know spin and misinformation when I see it.
Dot-did i blame nuclear technology for the mess Ontario has made of nuclear. The French made nuclear work? What is the problem? The civics & citizenry of province? Our governments? how our government functions?
Agreed lets deal with facts. But that works both ways.
So don’t take issue with “misinformation” in May’s blog and at the same time condone the misinformation and deception by some in the nuclear industry.
The Ontario government is now looking at off-shore wind in the great lakes.
Wind farm efficiencies will double.
The government won’t be having to subsidize wind farms with tax payer dollars.
Electricity prices won’t go thru the roof. Our factories won’t have to move to China.
We will be burning half the natural gas to back up the on-shore wind farms.
Based on: External Costs-Research results on socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport – EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2003
http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf
…a number cracking exercise says that the environmental costs off-shore wind backed-up by gas are lower than the environmental costs of nuclear units backed up with gas or US coal power when the nuclear units are out of service.
Someone else can now crack the financial cost numbers for wind/gas vs. nuclear/gas-coal.
Our Green friends may well be onto something.
However, too bad Ontario Greens don’t have consideration for families being made sick on account of noise pollution from wind farms. You don’t shut down nuclear by driving families from their homes.
But offshore wind would solve that problem too.
And no more 18 year covered-up tritium leaks.
okay i admit it, i lost myself half way through such long posts… :/
Canada may be a leader in uranium etc. production but nuclear energy will not (as most people believe and even some eco-heads suggest) play a significant part of the solution to climate change, and the simple reasons are that:
first – the supply will run out before the global demand will
second – its just too damn expensive (proven by just about every single nuclear project that has ever taken place)
third – it doesn’t address the problem! it just creates a different one, I’m sorry but I have a huge problem with the fact that the largest nuclear facility in Canada is within kilometers of the largest city in Canada…t.o.
I thank you for a very thought provoking article. It is clear that Canadians are being kept in the dark on important issues and it seems money is a key factor.