Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Issue 11 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:15 p.m. to examine issues relating to energy, the environment and natural resources generally in Canada (Nuclear Reactor Safety).

Senator Mira Spivak (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses for appearing this evening. I would ask them to proceed, since we are a bit short of time this evening.

Ms Mary-Anne Pietrusiak, Epidemiologist, Health Department, Regional Municipality of Durham: Honourable senators, thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you about our study on radiation and health in Durham region. Because I will be talking to you about a complex subject, please refer to the executive summary and the full report that we have provided to the committee. I will be happy to answer any questions after I have made my opening remarks.

My presentation will focus on four areas. First, I will tell you a little about Durham region. Second, I will discuss some of the challenges involved in studying potential health effects from nuclear generating stations. Third, I will give an overview of the framework we developed at the health department to study these health effects. Fourth, I will discuss briefly the results. I will conclude with some of our next steps.

Durham region is located just east of Toronto. On our western border is the former city of Scarborough. It is part of the Greater Toronto Area. It is a regional municipality. We are unique in that we have two nuclear generating stations within the region of Durham. In the western part is the Pickering nuclear station, which opened in 1971. South of the town of Bowmanville is the Darlington nuclear station, which opened in 1989.

The region of Durham has been involved with the stations right from the beginning in various functions, including, for example, emergency preparedness. In 1995, the region formed the Durham Nuclear Health Committee to address radiological concerns raised by the public. Members of the public sit on this committee, which is chaired by Dr. Kyle. The health department has been involved in a number of different areas of the nuclear plants and is an integral part of the Durham Nuclear Health Committee.

Studying potential health effects from the stations is not an easy job. First and foremost, radiation is everywhere. We are all exposed to radiation, most of it coming from the atmosphere. Some people are also exposed through medical testing, and there are occupational exposures.

I cannot emphasize enough that there are very low levels of radiation coming from the nuclear generating stations. Basically, for someone who lives on the border of the plant 24 hours per day and who consumes produce, water and milk from that area, the dose estimate is that approximately 1 per cent of their radiation comes from the plant. Thus, 99 per cent of it still comes from other sources.

The main health effect we are looking at is cancer, which, obviously, is a very complex disease. There are many different causes of cancer other than radiation. For example, lung cancer is known to be linked with radiation, but smoking is clearly a much more significant cause of lung cancer.

The other challenge we have is that cancer has a very long latency, which means that there is a long time span between when a person is exposed to a carcinogen and when the cancer actually develops. When we start looking at rates of different cancers around the Regional Municipality of Durham, we do not know that the people have lived there very long. We just know that they were living there when they were diagnosed with cancer, for example, but they may have just moved there and may not have been Durham region residents for very long. That is particularly important for Durham region because we have had tremendous population growth. In fact, in the Ajax-Pickering area, there has been a 50 per cent increase in the population in the five years from 1986 to 1991. That is a particular problem that we must overcome.

These are some of the challenges. We developed at the health unit a framework so that we could, as much as possible, overcome these challenges. We selected indicators based on scientific literature. Predominantly, we used a lot of research from the atomic bomb survivors. There is a lot of good information there. We categorized the indicators based on the level of association with radiation from the literature.

We created four different categories: significant, possible, inconsistent, and theoretical. Significant indicators are those most strongly associated with radiation. Those were the ones we were most concerned about. Those are cancers such as breast cancer, leukemia, bone cancer, thyroid cancer -- those kinds of indicators.

We also tried to make the indicators as specific as possible. For example, there is one type of leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, that is not known to be related to radiation, so we pulled that indicator when we were looking at leukemia. We excluded that type of indicator.

Finally, we considered the latency of the cancers and the proximity to the nuclear generating stations. On this map of Durham region, Pickering and Ajax are on the left side. The big "P" at the bottom indicates the approximate location of the Pickering nuclear station. Far on the right side there is Clarington, and the "D" is where the Darlington nuclear station is. When we were looking at cancer rates and some birth defect rates, we also considered that Ajax and Pickering are the closest to the Pickering plant.

In terms of latency, some cancers, such as leukemia, may take only five years to develop after an exposure. Something like thyroid cancer may take 20 years. Based on the literature, we considered that since the plant in Darlington opened in 1989, realistically, we would not see any health effects, any cancers, because our data only went as far as 1993.

The cancer data came from the Ontario Cancer Registry. We looked at three time periods from 1979 to 1983. We looked at incidence and mortality, incidence being new cases and mortality being death from cancer. We looked at males and females. There were a lot of numbers to look at.

The birth defect data came from the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System, and we looked at five time periods from 1978 to 1991. We did the study in 1996. Unfortunately, at that time, 1991 data was the most recent data that we could obtain because they were changing their system over. That was a big disadvantage.

The conclusion from our study was that there was no consistent pattern of health indicators to suggest that the nuclear plants were affecting the health of Durham region residents. That is not to say that we did not find any high rates or any low rates throughout, because we did. For example, for the period 1984 to 1988, the mortality rate for females was significantly higher in Ajax-Pickering than it was in Ontario overall, but the pattern was not one that suggested something consistent, because for the following time period the Ajax-Pickering rate was right down to provincial levels. As well, when we looked at our comparison area of Halton, which is west of Toronto, with no nuclear plant, they similarly experienced a high incidence rate of leukemia for females. Taking all the information into account, we basically found that there was no pattern.

Our next step is basically to update the framework that we have developed from the scientific literature, possibly to add new indicators, if we can, and also to consider new information. We may look at smoking, for example, because it is such a major factor for some of the cancers. Obviously we will be updating the information, and we will be looking at producing a new report for next year, for 2001.

Senator Banks: The comparisons that you made were with people in fairly close proximity, in my terms. I am from Alberta. How would the incidences of the health problems that you found compare with national averages?

Ms Pietrusiak: For the most part, our rates in Ajax and Pickering are right in line with Ontario. Ontario rates are pretty much similar to Canadian rates, because Ontario makes up a big portion of the Canadian population. In any area that you look at, there will always be some rates that may be high and some rates that may be low. That is true for any area that you choose, wherever in a country. For the most part, we are in line with Ontario and Canada.

Senator Banks: Are you personally comfortable with the methodology? I guess you are, because you invented it. Are you personally comfortable with the level of reporting then and now? Are you comfortable that you are finding out the things that you need to know with no difficulty?

Ms Pietrusiak: As far as the data that are available to us, we have done the best that we can. Given the low levels of radiation that are coming from the plant, it is very difficult to have a more stringent methodology.

Dr. Donna Reynolds, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Health Department, Regional Municipality of Durham: When an epidemiologist is asked if there is enough data, the response is that more data would be lovely to look at for other avenues for cancer and radiation. Strategically, we have been looking with the Atomic Energy Control Board at their pilot study looking at cancer surveillance in a more timely fashion. Our data go up to 1993. We have had to wait now for more data for the next five-year period, so our response time is limited while we wait for new information to come. This pilot study looking at cancer surveillance with the AECB is an excellent opportunity to improve on that.

Senator Banks: Are you happy with the nature of the information you are getting and the way you are getting it? Are you confident that you are dealing with the best information to put in your model?

Ms Pietrusiak: We are dealing with the best information available. We would always want better information. There is no question about that.

Senator Banks: Do you believe you could be getting better information than you are?

Ms Pietrusiak: Yes.

Senator Banks: How?

Ms Pietrusiak: We could get more timely information from the cancer association, for example. They are moving forward to try to provide some of that information more quickly. There are some hold-ups with the Ministry of Health in terms of releasing that information. We would like to get it more promptly. Probably we would like it for a finer geographical area than we are currently able to get. That is just off the top of my head. I am sure I could give you a list of other things as well.

Dr. Reynolds: Even within some cancers, we have a variety of different stages of cancer, as well as histological types. For example, when we look at lung cancer we combine a whole bunch of different types of lung cancer in that larger classification. Some of them may be sensitive to smoking, some may not. Some may be more sensitive to radiation. It is still at a fairly broad brush in the information that we do have. Finer geographic breakdowns for the actual cancer data that we are looking at would be helpful.

Senator Banks: What do you think are the impediments to you getting the better information to help you build a better model? Is it intransigence? Inertia? Are the systems not there yet? Is someone getting in the way?

Dr. Reynolds: There are certain issues around any health information that is pulled together in a systematic way, such as in a registry.

Senator Banks: However, your information is blind, I presume. You do not need to know whether it is Joe Smith; is that correct?

Ms Pietrusiak: That is correct.

Dr. Reynolds: There are other ways of identifying individuals. That is where, in terms of health information and health statistics, there are barriers to providing information at a fine level.

Senator Banks: Do those barriers have to do with privacy?

Dr. Reynolds: Yes, they do.

Ms Pietrusiak: For example, if someone had a very rare cancer and we knew the person's age and approximately where they were located, there would be a potential for residual disclosure, and you might be able to figure out who that person was.

We are dealing at a macro level, so we are not looking at that kind of individual information. We do not have names. We do not have a significant amount of identifying information. However, the finer the information -- having postal code information, for instance -- the greater the possibility that you could identify someone. In fact, if the incidence or count of a cancer is fewer than five people, we always suppress that information. Thus, we will say only that there were fewer than five cancers in this area, but we will not say whether that means one, two, three or four. That is part of trying to protect confidentiality.

Senator Christensen: In your opinion or to your knowledge, has there been a change in the emissions from the plants since the early 1990s?

Ms Pietrusiak: As far as I know, there has not been a change in emissions.

Dr. Robert Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health, Health Department, Regional Municipality of Durham: Not to my knowledge.

Senator Christensen: Are you satisfied with the monitoring and reporting that you are receiving on that?

Dr. Kyle: We receive on an annual basis the results of the environmental monitoring program that is required by Ontario Power Generation. We get a summary of that information and a comparison of the information with radiation protection standards. We get that on a quarterly and an annual basis.

Certainly, the emissions data that we get indicate that the emissions are well within radiation protection standards and the regulatory limits placed on Ontario Power Generation. We do not have any difficulty with the data. We have been getting it for as long as I have been in Durham region, which is about 10 years.

Senator Christensen: Who does that collection?

Dr. Kyle: The Atomic Energy Control Board is the collector. I do not want to speak for them; they will speak for themselves. They set radiation protection standards and emission limits for the nuclear power plants.

Ontario Power Generation, the company that runs the nuclear power plants, is required to estimate the emissions from the plant and the dose to the public based on those emissions. As one of many agencies on the distribution list, we receive an estimation of the dose the public has received and a comparison of that dose with the radiation protection standards. They are very low and they are well within the standards. I have no difficulties with the reporting to us. We have been receiving it regularly for years.

Senator Taylor: A Dr. Wing out of Seattle has done a study of nuclear reservation workers in Washington State. He found that male workers had twice the incidence of myeloma of female workers. He also found that African Americans are diagnosed at five times the normal rate. Do you keep track of sex and racial origin when you do studies?

Ms Pietrusiak: We definitely keep track of sex. Sex is one of the most important things that we must look at, as well as age. For the most part, in Canada we do not look at ethnicity or race. It is very common in many American studies. You will see them split it out by race, but we just do not have that kind of information available to us, and it is probably less relevant here, because it is not as easy to determine.

Senator Taylor: Canada's non-European population is constantly growing. Perhaps it would be wise to start incorporating some of the American patterns into the studies.

Ms Pietrusiak: In Durham region, our population is such that we are predominantly of European origin.

Senator Taylor: Perhaps that section of the population is immune, or perhaps it is something that we could pass on to others.

Ms Pietrusiak: We do have more immigration in the western part of Durham region. Durham region has a population of about half a million people, by the way. It seems that ethnicity would be a major thing you would want to know about in terms of health. However, it is not that easy to determine. People are very complex. You might ask what is the country of birth. That would get at some of it, but if you want to go further back and ask where their ancestors come from, it gets very complicated. You can all appreciate how complex that is, and it may not affect their health at all.

Senator Taylor: We spoke about increases in multiple myeloma where there are increases in radiation. Are there any studies to show increases in myeloma in areas where people eat fish, or where there is more carbon monoxide, or where they handle pesticides? In other words, are there other environments where there is an increased chance of contracting myeloma?

Ms Pietrusiak: A case study was recently completed in which the researcher, John McLaughlin, was finding a link to pesticides. He was still working on some of the results when I spoke to him about it. That is something that we will be working on with regard to updating the framework. We will look at the more recent studies to see what new information we can add to this work.

Senator Taylor: I wish to return to Senator Banks' question on whether you are hitting a broad enough base. It seems that, unless you put the bridge broad enough, you could be blaming something for increasing the chances of contracting cancer, yet there is something over here that does it two or three time faster.

Ms Pietrusiak: Absolutely. That is one of the problems you have with a study of this nature.

The Chairman: On this subject, Dr. Wing looked at nearly 500 people in his studies. From what I understand, the average person is exposed to natural background radiation ranging from one tenth to one third of a rem per year, but the current occupational standard for radiation exposure per year is five rem. The study found that people who had higher exposures to radiation, even within accepted limits, were at a higher risk for this cancer, and older workers were 3.5 times as likely to get myeloma. In the United States, just this January, after decades of secrecy and denials about health hazard, the Department of Energy publicly acknowledged that many of its workers were made ill from radiation.

Are you confident that the occupational radiation exposure limits currently in place are adequate? Has your study looked at this?

Ms Pietrusiak: We do not deal with occupational exposures at all. The Ministry of Labour looks at that. We are concerned with the population of Durham region.

The Chairman: However, many of them are workers who work in the plant.

Ms Pietrusiak: Some of them work in the plant, but they represent only a small portion of the whole region. They do not make up a huge proportion of the population.

The Chairman: The point is that you did not look for that in your study.

Ms Pietrusiak: No, we did not consider occupational exposures.

The Chairman: What about tritium release and the incidence of childhood leukemia, Dr. Kyle? Could you talk about the studies of 1991 by the Atomic Energy Control Board concerning this matter and give us your opinion about how these studies were designed and carried out and about the conclusions that were reached? Are you satisfied with the conclusion reached by some of the consultants that the leukemia rates found in those studies could be due to chance?

Dr. Kyle: You will be touching upon those areas with the next presentation by the Atomic Energy Control Board, and I do not want to speak for them.

It was a while ago. My recollection is that the conclusions of that report were sound. Your question does not have any bearing on the study that we did. We were looking at the general population, and at all cancers and all birth defects. I will leave it up to the representatives from the AECB to speak about their study and childhood leukemia, in particular.

Senator Buchanan: I did not go on the tour with you, but I wish I had. I was busy in Nova Scotia looking after the province's tar ponds.

Could you define "tritium" for me?

Ms Pietrusiak: Tritium is a form of radioactive water. It occurs naturally, but in very low levels.

Senator Buchanan: Are you talking about an emission of tritium from heavy water?

Ms Pietrusiak: It is related to heavy water. It is sort of a by-product of the nuclear generating process and it is released from the plants into the water.

Senator Taylor: Is it released into the water or into the air as water vapour?

Ms Pietrusiak: It can be both.

Senator Buchanan: Can tritium be emitted from a heavy water plant?

Ms Pietrusiak: It is emitted from a nuclear generating plant.

Senator Buchanan: What the about the plant that produces heavy water?

Ms Pietrusiak: Heavy water is a moderator used in the plant. Heavy water is not, by its very nature, naturally radioactive. However, as it goes through the process, it becomes radioactive.

Senator Buchanan: Through what process, though?

Ms Pietrusiak: Through the process of creating energy.

Senator Buchanan: Would that be in the nuclear plant and not in the heavy water plant? I am asking because we had two heavy water plants in Cape Breton that were both closed down. People were always questioning whether there were radioactive emissions coming from those heavy water plants. Some said there were not; some said there were. Now that I know what tritium is, I wonder if tritium could possibly be emitted from a heavy water plant.

Ms Pietrusiak: I could not comment on heavy water plants.

The Chairman: Since we have a witness who will discuss that, we could ask that question later.

Senator Christensen: How do you feel about the assessment, as opposed to a full environmental assessment, that is taking place with the reopening of Pickering A?

Dr. Kyle: I am not an expert on environmental assessment legislation. I have read the pertinent parts of the draft Pickering A environmental assessment report. My interest is in human health. I think it does a reasonably good job at answering the questions I have about health hazards related to both radiation and more conventional types of emissions. Whether a screening report, versus a panel review, versus a full environmental assessment is the way to go is probably more a political question than a scientific one. I would think that many residents in Durham region would appreciate a fuller assessment, but I am not an expert in environmental assessment legislation.

Senator Christensen: You have no health concerns related to this?

Dr. Kyle: I have health concerns, but I think that they are adequately addressed in what I have read so far.

The Chairman: I think there are some questions that we have not had time to explore, particularly your opinion about the adequacy of the standards of exposure. Could we send those questions to you, Dr. Kyle, and get a written response?

Dr. Kyle: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Thank you for appearing here this evening. We are grateful to you.

Our next witnesses are Dr. Mary Measures and Ms Suzana Fraser from the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Ms Suzana Fraser, Epidemiologist, Atomic Energy Control Board: My presentation is made up of several components, including a brief overview of how we get our scientific basis for estimating risk from exposure to ionizing radiation and how we set standards. I will look at leukemia, specifically childhood leukemia near nuclear facilities. That concern has been in the public eye for some time. I will go into some detail regarding the state of the knowledge there. I will then briefly talk about a proposed system to establish cancer surveillance around major nuclear facilities in Canada.

The Chairman: Is there not a study that Atomic Energy Control Board will be undertaking in this area?

Ms Fraser: Yes.

The Chairman: Will you be referring to that?

Ms Fraser: Yes, I will be talking about that.

As an overview, in terms of radiation and health effects, Atomic Energy Control Board relies on the scientific estimates made by several international bodies. These include UNSCEAR, the United Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation, ICRP, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and the BEIR Committee, which is the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee, a subcommittee of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. These bodies periodically review the state of the art with respect to scientific knowledge on radiation effects. ICRP, in particular, makes recommendations for setting standards for radio protection.

The information that these bodies rely on falls into several categories. In particular, much of the information that we have on risk comes from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. These people have been followed up since the incident occurred and we know basically what has happened over their lifetime in terms of risk of cancer, genetic defects and so on. We also have information from patients who received medical irradiation and they have been followed up over time. If they developed a disease, we know about it and we can estimate risks. Last is a category of information that is commonly used, and that is workers exposed to radiation, such as nuclear workers in power plants, uranium miners and so on.

Given that we have the advice of such renowned scientific bodies to follow, why has there been such a focus of concern about cancer near nuclear facilities when evidence, as assessed by these major scientific bodies, would not predict such effects? First, radiation is a known human carcinogen. Second, we know what the effects are at high exposures. There is clarity in terms of dose response and what happens. However, we acknowledge in the scientific community that at the lower levels of exposure, such as in the ambient environment, there is some uncertainty in terms of exactly what happens, because there have never been studies on humans to show that there is an effect at the low doses.

Third, some studies have shown excess cancer rates near nuclear facilities. In particular, childhood leukemia has been most commonly reported. Fourth, radiation is publicly perceived to be a greater risk than many equally or more potent carcinogens. Fifth, unfortunately there are often unsubstantiated reports that claim, for example, huge excess rates of breast cancer near a New York nuclear plant. That hits the front page news and causes public harm because you then have a population that is very concerned about their health if they are living in the vicinity of such a plant. If such reports have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, you know that it is a study that has been produced by a group that does not have the accreditation to do such a study. In a nutshell, that is why the focus exists.

I will go on to talk about what we know about childhood leukemia and the clusters that have been reported. First, where did this concern come from? In 1983, a local television station reported a high number of cases of leukemia among children living in the village of Seascale, near the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. Two years after that cluster was reported, a second cluster of excess childhood leukemia was reported near the Scottish nuclear processing plant of Dounray.

In view of those and the media-generated concerns that resulted, a number of other studies were commissioned. Initially they were studies that looked at individual facilities in Great Britain, the United States, France, Israel and Germany. Subsequent to those studies, in order to make a more powerful examination of the whole issue, multi-site studies were conducted that basically looked either at whole countries and all the nuclear facilities in those countries or at large regions. In Canada that included the John McLaughlin study, which looked at childhood leukemia in Ontario and investigated whether there were excess rates of childhood leukemia near any of the major nuclear facilities in Ontario.

The evidence coming from these studies was generally negative; however, for some locations, including Sellafield and Dounray, the clusters were still reported. That has been confirmed not only to historical times but also to current times.

Because there was some suggestion that the evidence from the two plants in particular could not be replicated, other investigations were done to see what exactly was going on. In the U.K., scientific investigators looked at cancer rates near proposed plants that were planned but never built. It was found that in those areas, similar to several areas with nuclear facilities, there were also excess leukaemia rates.

At that point in time, some further study was done in order to take a look at those areas that showed consistent elevations. I wish to put that into context: there were few out of the hundreds that were examined in these areas. They include La Hague, France, Sellafield, and Kruemmel in Germany. Basically, radiological assessments were such that they showed no exposure relative to background that could explain the clusters.

Given that the evidence was so inconsistent -- in the sense that, yes, some clusters were detected but most places did not show such patterns -- several scientific hypotheses were explored. The first hypothesis is paternal pre-conception occupational exposures, which could explain some of the clusters. That is, are workers irradiated in the workplace, for instance in a power plant, and do they then pass on their risk to children? One study in the Sellafield area said that yes, that was the case. That study was replicated subsequently by three other studies, none of which could show the same relationship, including a study in Ontario that looked at fathers working in power plants and saw no risk to their children.

The second hypothesis is that something in the environment is causing the excess leukemia. That particular hypothesis has not been substantiated either. Again, that is largely based on the fact that we know that the doses are in the area so long, and there is other evidence, which I will get to, that may provide an explanation. The third hypothesis is infectious agents. I will be getting into that area in a little more detail. The next hypothesis deals with whether it could be radon related.

As I mentioned, those hypotheses were not substantiated, with the exception of the hypothesis that the infectious agents are causing the leukemia clusters. I have given the clerk some recent scientific studies that show that the scientific community is starting to believe that clusters of leukemia may be attributed to infectious agents, not exclusively, but to a large extent.

Given the current scientific evidence, the Atomic Energy Control Board concludes that the weight of evidence does not support the position that there is a possibility of excess rates of childhood leukemia near the Pickering and Bruce nuclear plants that are attributable to explosions arising from the operations of these plants.

I will skip over this slide. You have it in your handout. It is the basis on which epidemiologists make causal inferences. There is a distinction between an excess of a disease occurring in one place and linking that disease to something. This slide outlines some of the procedures that are followed.

I turn to our proposed system. AECB does not feel that childhood leukemia is potentially attributable to operations of plants. Nevertheless, we are proposing a cancer surveillance system. Basically, we recognize that public concern over cancer near nuclear facilities continues. Select cities continue to report some excess rates. As a regulator, we want to take a proactive role and pursue health studies to ensure that there are no surprises in our understanding of radiation science and to address concerns raised by members of the public. I can assure you that those concerns continue. I have a letter to us stating that a person attributes their skin cancer to the operations of the plant.

In conjunction with Health Canada's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, we have proposed to establish a comprehensive cancer surveillance system. It is not a study, but an ongoing system of monitoring cancer rates near all major nuclear facilities. We have proposed to establish the system near nuclear research reactors, uranium mines, uranium refining and conversion facilities, fuel fabrication facilities and, of course, nuclear power generating stations. Since this will be national surveillance, we feel it will give us the power to make sure that what we see reflects reality.

As mentioned earlier, we have started working in the area of the Pickering power plant, and we are investigating the best approaches to surveillance in that area. We then intend to take whatever is developed in that area and see whether it will fit to other areas of the country where we want to do surveillance. We would like to note here that we have become quite aware that to produce something that will be useful to the community, and in fact address concerns, as we are trying to do, we will have to get communities involved. For the Pickering pilot we are working with the health unit from the Regional Municipality of Durham. We are taking into account their concerns and their needs.

I have with me an anticipated development time frame of three years to four years. That is likely not a conservative assessment. These matters often take more time than anticipated.

I should like to inform you as to where the surveillance project is at this time. We have investigated what type of data sources may be available to us. We are attempting to determine which might be the best. Our statistical methodological options have been considered. We are looking at the possibility of using models to enhance the utility of the surveillance.

Senator Banks: Thank you for being here. I have a several specific questions that I will ask you to note and answer.

What are the infectious agents to which you refer? I presume that there is some sort of specific list of what they are. Where do they come from?

My main concern is that your argument or position is that you have found some other sources that appear to be equally susceptible to being accused of causing health anomalies. You have concluded that it is okay, because, even though these things may be causing health problems, these other things may be as well.

I am making a joke. However, the most remarkable sentence I have ever read is the one that says that with the exception of elevated leukemia rates in proximity to several nuclear facility sites, the evidence was generally consistently negative. That does not give me a lot of comfort. Does that not say that you have found elevated leukemia rates in proximity to several nuclear facility sites?

Ms Fraser: Basically, yes, and that is the point. With the exception of several facilities that reported some excess rates, overall, as I mentioned, there have been probably hundreds of sites studied to date. I cannot give the exact number, but if you have 100 facility sites, from those there may be three that show excess cluster rates. That may be within the probability of chance. It may reflect other factors that result in that cluster.

Senator Banks: Might it not also have to do with the operation of those three nuclear plants, and the nature of what they throw off?

Ms Fraser: Given that they are similar in nature to other plants, it seems unlikely that they would have distinct effects on the population around them.

Senator Banks: Except that there are lots of people around them who get cancer.

Ms Fraser: No, no, there were only a couple in these areas. There have been other studies to see whether they can explain it. In fact, these studies say that it cannot be explained. It is not explainable on the basis of the low radiation doses that exist. It is not explainable that other plants that have similar populations do not show the same thing.

With this other hypothesis, we know now that leukemia in particular may have some sort of infectious agent. We do not know what it is, but that theory has been reported in 20 different studies over the last five years. It shows that in areas with populations that mix, an area with an indigenous population mixing with workers who arrive for work at a new facility, we often find a subsequent cluster of leukemia that follows. That does not occur only for nuclear facilities. It happens in other sorts of construction and population mixing areas as well. The scientific community feels that what is occurring in these three areas are explained by those other factors.

I should state that, for leukemia -- and I am not talking about other cancers -- this infectious disease hypothesis was posited as far back as 1960. The guru of epidemiology, one of the founders of our field and one of the people who first found out that smoking was bad for you, has come to the point of writing editorials that state that the scientific community must accept this as a possibility. That is strong evidence.

Senator Banks: You are convinced that there is no demonstrable cause-and-effect relationship.

Ms Fraser: Given the state of the information that exists at this point in time, I would say that it is highly unlikely that there is a causal relationship between childhood leukemia excesses seen around the several plants of the many examined and the disease rates there. I am very comfortable in saying that.

Senator Banks: I am sorry to hammer the point, but I am a complete layperson in this area. You are convinced that those three nuclear plants out of 100 plants, if that is the number --

The Chairman: Is that the number, by the way?

Ms Fraser: Yes, basically it is three out of 100 plants.

The Chairman: Can you give us the exact number?

Ms Fraser: They are not even power plants. Sellafield is a reprocessing plant, as is Dounray, Scotland, and La Hague is a power plant.

Senator Banks: That is my point. They are different. They are not made by the same manufacturer in the same kind of setting and ground and they are not putting out the same kind of waste material. Therefore, might those three plants in some way be different or have different nuclear functions than the other 97 plants? Is that possible?

Ms Fraser: I would say that it is not possible, because in many areas, such as France and Germany, they have studied all nuclear facilities to see if there is a consistent pattern occurring across those areas. That is not the case.

Senator Christensen: Have you looked at the potential health impacts as a result of the opening of Pickering A? Do you have any concerns in that area?

Ms Fraser: Not specifically, no.

Senator Christensen: Have you not looked at it?

Ms Fraser: No, and as Ms Pietrusiak explained earlier, we could not consider looking at it because cancer has a latency period. Assessing the impact of any action taking place now would not be doable for 10 years.

Senator Christensen: Based on previous studies, do you see any potential health problems as a result of that?

Dr. Mary Measures, Director, Radiation and Environmental Protection Division, Atomic Energy Control Board: Based on the previous operation of the plant, we would not expect to have very high releases. We would expect them to be the same as they were before, and that is at a very low level. Doses to the people living in the area of Pickering are at a very low level.

Senator Adams: You mentioned at the beginning that you have information on the Japanese people who were affected by radiation from the atomic bomb 50 or 60 years ago. How many people lived long? How many people died from cancer? Are any of those people still alive? What is the correlation between people affected by the bomb and the people who live near the nuclear power plants?

Ms Fraser: Those populations affected by the bomb are followed continually over time. They are, in fact, one of the major populations from which we have knowledge of radiation effects. In terms of an overall global picture, for instance, it has been determined that about 1 per cent of deaths, specifically from cancer and hereditary effects, that have happened in that population so far can be attributed to the radiation they received from the bomb. That puts some perspective on it. Certainly, the information derived from those studies has allowed us to determine that radiation will have an impact on leukemia in particular, especially at younger ages. There are some cancers that are more radio-sensitive and there is an effect that we see. That population has been studied extensively.

Senator Adams: Some of the children born today are still affected.

Ms Fraser: No.

Senator Adams: Did it affect only the people who were alive when it happened?

Ms Fraser: That is right.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming here. If we have further questions, I hope you will not mind if we write to you and ask you to respond in written form.

Our next witness is Mr. Arsalan Mohajer from the University of Toronto.

Mr. Arsalan Mohajer, Associate Professor of Geophysics, Environmental Sciences, Physical Sciences Division, University of Toronto: Honourable senators, it gives me great pleasure to be here to share the results of over 10 years of active research in southern Ontario with respect to nuclear power plant safety at Pickering, from the geology, geophysics and seismology point of view.

As you are aware, projecting risk is an uncertain science to begin with. It is not limited to the stock market, I am afraid, and when it comes to natural disasters we must take certain precautions so as to not expose the general public at large to certain risk levels that they are not aware of.

What qualifies me to comment on this issue? I spent approximately 25 years, after my education in geophysics and seismology at the University of Cambridge and Imperial College in England, looking at different nuclear power plant sites in various parts of the world, including in the United States, Europe and the Middle East.

To my surprise, when I arrived in Canada about 15 years ago, I found that the design base for the Pickering nuclear power plant is only 3 per cent force of gravity compared to the rest of the power plants; for example across the border on the southern side of Lake Ontario the plant design base is at least five to six times more stringent. It was intriguing for me to understand and digest the assumptions behind such a low design base. The International Atomic Energy Agency, under the auspices of the United Nations, recommends no less than 10 per cent g acceleration anywhere in the world.

The basic assumption was that the Toronto area and the Pickering site, compared with the rest of eastern North America, is a safe haven because we did not have many big earthquakes in the past 200 years or so. Most of the larger earthquakes have occurred along the St. Lawrence River valley. We have experienced five major earthquakes, of magnitude 6 to 7, in the last 250 years, mostly occurring around Quebec City and Montreal. There is a gap in earthquake activity and it picks up again on the south and west sides of Lake Ontario.

Is this picture real? There is the assumption that, because we do not have the earthquakes here, or nearby, this holds for the long-term future, but does it? That is the issue at hand. No one knows the final answer. However, we have been able to raise certain questions through the research that we have done in support of Ontario Hydro to start with, in the early 1990s.

As a scientist at the University of Toronto, the first result that I came up with was that this picture may not be real. The reason is that the return period for the big earthquakes elsewhere in the world could be two, three or four centuries. Not having a big earthquake here, to fill up the gap, would be very strange. One reason is the short history of settlement in this part of world. That would be one answer, but it is not a convincing one for utility companies. Hence, they gave me a project -- to reinvestigate the whole situation here.

As a result of two years of active work, they found a break in the earth's crust directly under a nuclear power plant. I do not know if it was an accident or if it was based on the data that were generated in 1987, which were not available in the 1960s when they were doing the site selection, so, of course, no one is to blame. These data are based on aeromagnetic information and form what we call a chest X-ray of the earth, because, by flying over the area, you pick up the magnetic signal, which is different from this side of the line to the other.

I have a presentation there on the wall. We took that to California to the Seismological Society of America to show all the stories that we have. They were very impressed. They wondered why we had not done anything with respect to this kind of information in the last 10 years.

I am trying to argue here that finding a discontinuity in the crust right under a nuclear power plant is a burning issue. All the focus of attention and resources should be on that to verify whether it is dead or dormant or active. If it is active, even by a slight chance of 1 in 10,000, as compared to other risks that engineers take, then we do not have a viable operation there. If it is dead or dormant, then we can continue our operation. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years, the attitude about the scientific investigation has been that we do not want to know whether it is active or dormant.

Because the question with regard to the faulting is a licensing issue, I was referred to the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is the authority for licensing, to discuss the matter with them, which I did. As a result of another five or six years of study, we found more and more evidence that pointed to a problem: not only under the nuclear plant but also in the Rouge River, which is a few kilometres to the west of Pickering, we found indication of young faulting close to the surface again.

Another issue that I raised, with the help of colleagues in Atomic Energy Control Board and in the university environment, was that not all the big earthquakes necessarily happen in California -- or on the West Coast of Canada and the U.S. We have had big surprises in the past, right in the middle of eastern North America, along the Mississippi River valley, in an area called New Madrid, Missouri, which experienced three of the largest earthquakes ever reported in North America, back in 1811 and 1812, which registered at about 8.5. Because they are from the distant past and we all have short memories about disasters, which is fortunate, we have forgotten them. However, that threat of earthquake will repeat in the future. We do not know when. It could be next year. It could be 100 years from now.

That uncertainty put a damper on the ambitious plans of our U.S. neighbours to put up 250 nuclear reactors in the long term. They started in the 1960s and 1970s and they planned for 250 sites, but, fortunately, they stopped at about 110. They did not want to continue because earthquakes are "Enemy No. 1" for nuclear safety. Originally they thought that California was always at risk but that the rest of the country could accommodate these plants. Gradually, through time, they shut down 10 reactors, and right now they are operating only 100 out of 250 planned plants.

According to the zoning map of the U.S., they designate this red area as the major hazard zone or zone of high risk. It comes into our neighbourhood at the south side of Lake Ontario. When we come to the comparable zoning map for Canada, Lake Ontario is designated as a low-risk zone. I do not know whether natural disasters recognize any political boundaries. That is another question that was raised in the last few years.

A cartoon put out by one of the American scientific publications suggested that, sooner or later, we will all be faced with California's revenge. In other words, all the major earthquakes will not be expected in California, and sometime in the future, we do not know when, New York City and other major metropolitan areas in eastern North America may one day experience disasters and destruction like that.

The fault that we found crossing Lake Ontario right under the nuclear power plant is not a small feature that can be ignored. Unfortunately, we wasted a lot of time not dealing with this as expeditiously as possible. However, colleagues in the U.S. picked up the idea of aeromagnetic lineaments and extended it across right into the American Midwest. It is not a small feature; it is a prominent feature that has been extensively published about and discussed in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, our active research is very limited. What we have been doing in terms of OPG programs, and recently AECB programs, is addressing issues that are not directly relevant to the question at hand. There have been a lot of funds and a lot of research and consultation with various groups on both sides of the border, but all of it more or less targets things that are increasing the uncertainty, because they are dealing only with statistical manipulation of limited seismic information in this area.

The issue at hand is with respect to all the fault lines that cross Lake Ontario. One of them, which is very prominent and which appears to be a reflection of the St. Lawrence fault zone -- which is proven active; no one has debate and discussion about that -- projects right across Lake Ontario, right here in the middle. We have other faults here. One is the site of a big earthquake in Attica, New York, back in 1929. We also have had two magnitude 5 earthquakes in the Niagara Falls area in the last century, and we had two magnitude 5 earthquakes in Ohio, just south of Lake Erie, back in 1986 and also last year. There were also two recent earthquakes that happened right here, one 15 kilometres south of Oshawa on November 26, 1999, and another just this past week, on May 24, 2000, which was a magnitude 3 earthquake three kilometres west of Pickering, more or less within the same fault zones about which we have our doubts and reservations.

Recently, seismographic stations, which have been upgraded and increased in number, are picking up a pattern of dense, small-magnitude earthquakes. Those are indications that there is something happening in the crust under our feet, that there is definitely stress being built up and released in the form of fault movements. Usually we do not see it on the surface. Fortunately, they are not strong enough to destroy anything, but they are still indicating that the stress is building up in our crust.

Another thing we did after our limited funding dried up was to go out and use the existing data on the water wells across Ontario. Fortunately, there are 300,000 water wells, and we measured the depth to the bedrock in each of them, using the data to construct some profiles to determine the depth of the bedrock under our soft soil. We found out that the bedrock hits at different elevations, meaning that it is not a smooth surface, that the bedrock depth moves up and down, whether through erosion or fault displacement. That is what we have been following.

We also use a technique called seismic reflection survey. We simply create a blast and, as a result of the reflection of the shock waves that are created by the blast, we get a sort of picture of various layers under the ground. Based on that, near the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo we found a huge displacement of about 15 metres offset, which reflects up to near the surface. We observed something like four metres of offset within the metro zoo property itself. Again, all of that information has been ignored thus far.

To continue to prove beyond any shred of doubt that these features are important to OPG and AECB, we went to the Canadian navy and asked them for the loan of a submersible to dive to the bottom of Lake Ontario to see what disturbances we could find. There are some pictures of the diving submersible and the broken rocks under there. It should normally cover all the bedrock, but there are broken rocks that are sitting up like as shown in the picture. It is sort of a rendering based on the information we collected and the slides and pictures that Canadian Geographic put together in an article that was published two years ago. It shows that the bottom of Lake Ontario has been disturbed, broken up, and it is standing like tombstones in certain areas close to Pickering and south of Toronto Island.

We put together all the information that we have compiled on the location of nuclear power plants at Pickering and Darlington and the recent earthquakes of magnitude 3.8 and 3.1 that happened just last year and this year and all the fault lines that we suspect that may be active again. We do not claim beyond any shred of doubt that they are active, but since no one has dealt with them in a thorough manner, we must assume them to be active unless someone can prove that they are dormant. There is enough evidence based on the earthquake occurrences and the Rouge River displacement in the soft soil, which is near the surface and fairly young, put together with the disturbance at the bottom of Lake Ontario and many other offsets and displacements we have observed at the bottom of Lake Ontario, to say that all the stories point to one direction: there is a possibility of activity in a fault right under the nuclear power plant.

On whom is the onus? Is it on academics and universities with no resources to follow up? Or is it on the utility company and authorities who have access to all these resources to invite people from both camps and parties to debate, discuss and resolve issues? Unfortunately, we have not seen such a gesture or positive attitude to resolve this question. There have been many fantastic, fascinating and expensive studies done, but none addressing the issues of the fault under the nuclear power plant. If you want to follow a journal and study, you do not get a lens or binoculars. You need the proper tools to address the issue.

We are saying that there have been old faults in the basement under our feet. Some are billions of years old and dormant, but some have been reactivated as a result of this push and pull in the North American continent. The Atlantic Ocean is opening and pushing everything to the west, and there is resistance from the west at the bottom of Pacific Ocean, so there is stress being built up within the crust. Some of these old faults have been reactivated and have found their way through the younger limestone and ultimately through this sediment left behind by ice. The soft sediment is a hazard on its own because it amplifies seismic waves.

If the plants are not properly designed, they may collapse. Another question is whether we are prepared for the eventuality of an earthquake -- not tomorrow, but 10 years or 20 years or 100 years from now. Are we prepared? Are we thinking in that direction at all?

We can take all the information that we have recorded based on the seismographic record of small to large earthquakes and plot it on what we call a typical recurrence curve to determine the chances of repeating a different magnitude earthquake based on the past and projected into the future. That is the backbone of all the statistical estimates of future earthquakes. Engineers love to see the habits of past earthquakes, whether small or large. They say that the largest in this area was of magnitude 5, so they stop it here on the chart. We are arguing that if you project it into the future, then there are chances that we would experience a larger magnitude earthquake in this area, and that is a credible scenario.

We can put all this back into a sort of probabilistic graph that is fashionable, although I do not put much faith in it. It is based on the limited data available, and we think that it has to be combined with a probabilistic and deterministic approach, which means we have to go out in the field and make observations based on geology and other information, geophysical information, and then use these statistics. However, based on these statistics, we feel that in the next 50 years there is more than a 57 per cent chance of experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 5. A magnitude of 5 sits within the design base just at the borderline of the initial assumptions for the design of Pickering. For a quake of magnitude 6, the probability drops to about 6 per cent to 10 per cent, but that is a high risk for a nuclear facility, because nowhere else in the world would you allow one chance per 10,000 or even 100,000 for any nuclear facility.

Again, it is comparable to the risk you take by flying an aircraft. If it is one chance more than a million for the aircraft to crash, no one is prepared to take it. In a similar way, that is how they decide about the design of a nuclear facility. It must be less than one chance in 100,000 or 10,000, but in Pickering we have one chance in 1,000. That means we are taking 10 times to 100 times more risk, and we are exposing our rapidly growing population around Pickering to this undue risk.

The present status shows that, with our accomplishment in research, we have to be dealing with this fault situation as a site-specific problem. We cannot address the whole problem of seismicity across Canada or Eastern Canada or talk about the very deep crust situation. We have to focus our attention in the immediate vicinity of Pickering and on a shallow depth to be able to resolve this issue of activity or dormancy for these faults. We believe that all other measures that have been taken currently by OPG and AECB are irrelevant and confusing and delay the due process of understanding what is happening.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor Mohajer.

Senator Christensen: You say Pickering is built to withstand a magnitude of 3.

Mr. Mohajer: No, 3 per cent g, which is force of gravity.

Senator Christensen: What is it built to withstand?

Mr. Mohajer: It is difficult to convert it into magnitude, because a magnitude of 5 that is 100 kilometres away does not generate much ground shaking. If it is closer, it creates more energy. If it is right under or very close to the power plant, it could generate three per cent g. In terms of shaking we are measuring the force of gravity applied in a horizontal direction. If people are telling you that it is designed for magnitude 6 or 6.5, that is only a claim. They have to demonstrate at what distance. If you put a magnitude of 6 at 100 kilometres away, it does not affect the plant at all. It is a dangerous trap if they discuss only the magnitude. They have to talk about the acceleration of the shaking under the site, which is a function of distance, of course.

Senator Christensen: Are there any stations in the area that measure the stress of those faults at the present time, or is it just the seismic work that has been done?

Mr. Mohajer: About 10 years ago, one of our colleagues who used to work at the Atomic Energy Control Board initiated some thorough investigation into a directed stress measurement and also into monitoring of small magnitude right around the nuclear power plant, but as the information was coming in, for some reason he was fired, and they did not like to continue that type of study.

Senator Christensen: So those studies are not ongoing?

Mr. Mohajer: No, those studies have all been stopped. We are dealing now with the regional picture they are investigating rather than the local features. That is the point of concern.

Senator Buchanan: In what areas of the world over the last 20 to 30 years have there been earthquakes under or very near to nuclear plants and what were the results?

Mr. Mohajer: The one close to us, back in 1986, was at the Perry nuclear power plant in Ohio. Fortunately the plant was under construction and not fuelled at the time. That small magnitude earthquake, only rated as 5 on the Richter scale, generated enough ground acceleration to exceed the design base of that power plant. The power plant was designed for 15 per cent g acceleration. A few peaks of the acceleration exceeded that and generated something like 19 per cent. Compare that with 3 per cent g acceleration in Pickering. The Perry power plant was delayed in operation for another year for retrofit and upgrade. That is one example that is close to us.

Senator Buchanan: Are there any examples of earthquakes occurring where there is a nuclear power plant? If so, what happened to the power plant as a result of the earthquake?

Mr. Mohajer: Again, in California and in some other places they took the precaution and at least 10 nuclear sites have been shut down already.

Senator Buchanan: To your knowledge, have there been any instances of earthquakes of a magnitude of 5, 6, 7 or whatever where there have been earthquakes under or close to nuclear power plants? Have there been actual earthquakes resulting in the destruction of a plant or a leak from a nuclear power plant? What has happened where there have been earthquakes, or have there been any?

Mr. Mohajer: As I said, the site selection criteria for a nuclear facility are such that they have to avoid the seismic zones or under-plate boundaries and where the major faults are. Of course, that precaution, which was practised religiously a few decades ago, when it was fashionable, avoided dangerous places for nuclear power plants.

Senator Buchanan: There have been no earthquakes at or near nuclear sites of which you are aware?

Mr. Mohajer: There is no surprise that there have not been any major accidents as such, because they were not supposed to experience one, not because they are immune.

Senator Banks: Given the answer to Senator Buchanan's question, would it be fair to characterize what you are saying today as raising an alarm?

Mr. Mohajer: The alarm was raised more than 10 years ago. It has been ignored thus far.

Senator Banks: Continuing that alarm, is it the case that, in light of what Senator Buchanan asked, there is information that has come to light subsequent to the building of these plants?

Mr. Mohajer: Yes.

Senator Banks: You said that there was a convention that one would not build plants where there was a likelihood of seismic activity. Having now built the plants, we find that there may be a likelihood of seismic activity.

Mr. Mohajer: That was the best site possible in southern Ontario when they selected it back in the 1960s. This information came to light in the late 1980s. This is new information.

Senator Banks: I was amused to hear that there is western resistance to tectonic moves as well as political ones.

You mentioned that there was a resistance to resolving the issue, which suggests that there is a resolution to the issue. I cannot imagine what it would be, if there were such a thing. Short of shutting down, tearing down and moving, is there anything that can be done to make the existing plants safe so that they are removed from the area of alarm? Do you have any idea what the cost of that would be?

Mr. Mohajer: First, no one suggested that the power plants should be shut down, aborted or dismantled. We always said that we would like to know more to be sure whether there is a real risk here or what is the level of risk and what should be done about it.

We suggested some trenching across this fault and seismic reflection shooting to get a better picture of it. We said put more seismic stations recording around the fault. The first steps have been delayed and ignored so far in the last 10 years. Thus, we really do not know where we stand. Those are less extensive measures than upgrading the power plants or doing other measures that would be more costly but that could be done.

Senator Banks: I will now ask a hypothetical question. If the trenching were done and if more seismic monitoring were undertaken over a long enough period to answer the question, would it then be possible to structurally reinforce the power plants so that they could be made safe, notwithstanding a risk that might be found?

Mr. Mohajer: If it is a matter of severe ground shaking, definitely the plant can be retrofitted and upgraded. Particular components are more sensitive than the huge concrete structure. I am sure that if the seismic margins are so conservative that the huge concrete structure may not collapse, that is true, except that the pressure relief dock that joins the buildings is more susceptible to a collapse. In addition to those sensitive concrete structures, the components and control systems sitting inside the power plant should be qualified for seismic shaking. However, if it is a fault, if it is definitely a huge fault with known displacement right under the foundation, there is not much that one can do.

Senator Banks: That is what I was getting at. If a magnitude 7 earthquake took place in very close proximity to a nuclear power plant, all the reinforcement in the world would not do any good; is that correct?

Mr. Mohajer: If we are talking only about ground shaking, the plant can be designed for that, although it might add up to 10 per cent to 15 per cent more on the cost. However, no one can do anything about it if the fault displacement is right under the foundation of the power plant.

Senator Banks: Who ought to undertake the trenching and seismic evaluation?

Mr. Mohajer: Normally a utility company should do the job by hiring appropriate consultant workers, whatever they decide. The final report must be accessible to the community at large for scientists, academics, the AECB and others to come and read, debate and discuss. So far, the cards are being held very close to the chest and no one is allowed to see the reports. We only read in the newspapers that they have done further study and investigation to satisfy them that everything is perfect. We have not seen any of those reports and we are surprised that they are not accessible to the scientific community.

The Chairman: There are reports that have not been made public; is that what you are saying?

Mr. Mohajer: I have heard indirectly that there were other investigations carried out by OPG that are not yet available to the scientific community or to people from the different views. It is done through a specific selection, a specific group of people who normally support the position of the utility company. What is the main objective and what is the process of selecting consultants and workers who do this kind of study? If it is an internal report done by the staff, why is it not accessible to outsiders to examine and evaluate?

The Chairman: This committee has powers, I believe, to ensure that we get all that sort of information. If you have details, it would be helpful to us if you provided them to our clerk so that we can access those studies.

Senator Banks: That was my next question, Madam Chair. It would allow us to assist in finding out whether we can call witnesses and ask direct questions with certain prerogatives that we have, which might be in order.

Pardon my ignorance, I come from a part of the world in which there are no nuclear power plants, I am happy to say. What is OPG?

Mr. Mohajer: Ontario Power Generation. It is the new name for Ontario Hydro.

Senator Banks: Is OPG subject to regulation and reporting to something like a public utilities commission or board?

Mr. Mohajer: Yes. Atomic Energy Control Board should issue licences for them at every stage of the work, in theory.

Senator Banks: Are they subject to the regulation and scrutiny of a provincial commission or board?

Mr. Mohajer: No.

Senator Banks: They are not?

Mr. Mohajer: No.

Senator Banks: What? Why not?

Mr. Mohajer: I do not know. I am not aware of it so I cannot comment on the background and history, but the practice here is different from many other parts of the world, as I have witnessed.

Senator Adams: The committee went to Pickering last May, although Senator Buchanan did not come along. That plant has been operating for over 30 years. We learned about the heavy water system and the generating plant and the waste storage system. Some of the waste apparently takes ten years to cool down. We heard about the concrete storage tanks built 500 feet underground. However, we saw no equipment to deal with earthquakes. What would an earthquake do to those buried storage sites?

Mr. Mohajer: The shaking of the ground damages the superstructure. That means that everything above the ground would be more susceptible to damage. Anything that is inside the ground and moves with the ground would not be as damaged. In the fault displacement, though, the displacement comes from the very depth of the crust all the way to the surface. Anything that is buried along the fault propagation or fault movement could be sheered off and displaced. Otherwise, the shaking itself would not damage anything that is within the ground.

There is also a percolation of groundwater deep in the ground. There is probably a concern about the flow of groundwater into the area that has been damaged or that may become leaky. A waste depository could leak radioactive material into groundwater that rises to the surface at distant places.

Senator Adams: If an earthquake were to happen right underneath Pickering, what would happen? Would the whole power plant collapse or would it just be shaken?

Mr. Mohajer: It is hard to predict what would happen. We are afraid of an accidental loss of coolant as a result of an earthquake. If the coolant system is lost, then the heart of the reactor could heat up. If that heat cannot be controlled, it could lead to another disaster. Extensive fire is normally associated with big earthquakes because of the collapse of transmission lines and gas pipelines and water mains. That secondary effect of fire could do more damage than the shaking of the earthquake itself. There is an aftermath to the ground shaking.

Senator Adams: I know this happened twice in Turkey. Does Turkey have any nuclear power plants around the affected cities?

Mr. Mohajer: Turkey has no nuclear power plant, but Canada is bidding to construct a nuclear power plant in southern Turkey. Building plants in that part of the world may be a relatively risky undertaking unless they have precautions and a better design base. A lot of detailed investigation is required to find out what level of ground shaking must be resisted by the design.

Senator Adams: Must power plants be built close to lakes because of the heavy water requirements?

Mr. Mohajer: The new cooling system needs a lot of water. That is why most power plants are built close to oceans or bodies of water.

The Chairman: Have you had a chance to look at the retrofit at Pickering? Is anything in that retrofit addressing the possibility of an earthquake? Does the environmental assessment now being conducted look at the issues you are discussing?

Mr. Mohajer: No, unfortunately not. The retrofit program is something totally different. They have not looked at the particular issue of faulting under the power plant yet. They may say there is not enough time to do it or, as I said, they may have dragged their feet for almost 10 years. Maybe they have addressed other issues.

The recent information I have on the new work is that they have flown over the area to generate new aeromagnetic maps that could resolve some of these issues, but no one has seen the results yet. They are drilling in the Rouge River near the site to see whether there is any indication of faulting there, but, again, no one has seen that data and we do not know whether it is relevant to the retrofit.

The Chairman: When you say "they," are you talking about OPG?

Mr. Mohajer: Yes.

The Chairman: Did you say that Darlington is also affected?

Mr. Mohajer: Darlington is at less risk because it was designed for a higher level of ground shaking. It is further away to the east. It is a newer power plant with better design provisions and precautions. We are mostly worried about Pickering, because it is right at the centre of the population.

The Chairman: If they were looking at overcoming perhaps an inadequacy of the original design, would it be possible through this retrofit to make the design better to withstand any sort of shock of that sort?

Mr. Mohajer: Yes.

The Chairman: They are all linked together. There are four there.

Mr. Mohajer: I have heard that OPG have done an internal study and have satisfied themselves that because of the original conservatism built into that power plant in 1960, it may withstand higher levels of shaking than its original design. That margin of safety could be in the order of about a magnitude 6 earthquake rather than a magnitude 5. Again, however, they do not specify magnitude 5 at what distance. No one has seen that report -- at least we have not been able to see it.

The Chairman: You are saying that you think there is such a report?

Mr. Mohajer: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you know that there is or do you think that there is?

Mr. Mohajer: We know there is, because they have been referring to it in various meetings and in interviews and here and there. However, no one has gone through the review process and scrutinized those reports to ensure that what they say is actually correct.

The Chairman: You have not looked at that report?

Mr. Mohajer: No.

The Chairman: That is because no one has seen it. If I am not putting words in your mouth, you would suggest that such a report, which people like us would be able to evaluate, should be evaluated by independent experts who are expert in that particular field.

Mr. Mohajer: Exactly. It should be evaluated by experts not chosen or hand-picked by OPG. That is to say, they should be unbiased and from different camps and from a different school of thinking.

The Chairman: We are talking about evaluation that is done by people who have not produced the report. I think that is common sense.

Mr. Mohajer: Exactly. Unfortunately, when I was working with OPG or Ontario Hydro in the 1980s, they said that they were not experts in seismic issues and earthquakes and geology, so they were asking for help from the Geological Survey of Canada, the federal government agency here, to give them a report and advice. They got the report and then they sent it to AECB for evaluation. AECB was arguing the same thing, namely, "We are not experts in this area." They then sent the report back for the Geological Survey of Canada to evaluate. Consequently, the people who produced the report ended up receiving the report and evaluating it themselves.

The Chairman: You seem to indicate -- although perhaps this is not what you meant -- that the standards of care or the precaution regarding seismic activity is more pronounced in the United States than here in Canada. Is that a correct assumption?

Mr. Mohajer: When it comes to the design of nuclear power plants and other critical facilities, it is more stringent.

The Chairman: Is that because they have had more experience with earthquakes than we have had?

Mr. Mohajer: Possibly, yes.

The Chairman: Are the standards for design in the United States more stringent than ours or different from ours? They have the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Do they have standards for this? Do we meet those standards?

Mr. Mohajer: There is a group called Electrical Power Research Institute, which was put together by the support of utility companies in the United States and Canada. Ontario Hydro made contributions to that institution. They make certain recommendations from the study. Independent from that group, there is a nuclear regulatory commission in the U.S. that has its own criteria and standards. Compared to those standards -- at least in the 1980s when I was doing this evaluation -- I thought that our side would not meet those criteria. If we have a fault in hand and we do not know the level of activity within that fault, we cannot operate before answering the question concerning the fault at the immediate vicinity of the property.

The Chairman: We were told by the OPG representatives that they rank themselves with the other nuclear operations. I am not sure whether among the elements within that ranking there are also design structures that would prevent some sort of catastrophic event that would result in the lack of coolant or fire. We did not ask questions about that. I do not know whether that is part of the elements or not. Do you have information about that?

Mr. Mohajer: The research institute that was created by utility companies to protect their interests mostly applies to the new size and new facilities. There is no clear-cut situation as to how they will handle the older power plant whose structural or design lifetime has already finished when they want to get more juice out of it by extending its life for 10 or 12 years. This is new technology. That is why OPG has invited some American colleagues to come here to take over the plant. They fired the previous management and they are hiring Americans who are more experienced in retrofit and upgrade of the nuclear facilities. However, in the last two to three years we have not heard or seen anything in practice.

The Chairman: Professor Mohajer, I thank you for coming here this evening. If we have further questions, I hope that we can call on you and that you can help us by responding to those questions.

Mr. Mohajer: It would be my pleasure.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. You have given us some interesting information.

The committee adjourned.