Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 23 - Evidence - February 3, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 3, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 5:02 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate, and I am chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers across the country, who are watching on television. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under Senate Committees.
I would like to ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu from the province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Today we continue our hearings on Bill C-22, the Energy Safety and Security Bill, which was read a first time in the Senate on November 18, 2014.
I'm pleased to welcome from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Michael Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Robert Power, Senior Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs Branch.
Welcome, gentlemen, to the committee. I understand you have some opening remarks, after which we'll go to questions. We have only one panel, and the meeting will be for one hour because everybody has another meeting to get to. The floor is yours, gentlemen.
Michael Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
[Translation]
My name is Michael Binder and I am the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
[English]
I'm joined today by Robert Power, Senior Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs Branch. It's indeed a pleasure to be here today accepting your invitation to speak.
The CNSC is Canada's nuclear regulator. Under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, NSCA, the CNSC carries out its three-fold mandate: regulating the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and the environment; implementing Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy; and disseminating objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public. The CNSC is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative tribunal. It regulates all things nuclear in Canada, including uranium mining, nuclear fuel fabrication, nuclear reactors and power plants, the production and use of medical isotopes, the decommissioning and remediation of nuclear sites, and the safe management of nuclear waste.
[Translation]
The association therefore participates directly in regulating nuclear facilities covered by the Nuclear Liability Act.
[English]
As you know, the government is responsible for setting policy and legislation, such as the proposed nuclear liability and compensation act, and the CNSC's role is to carry out its responsibilities under the act. We welcome the proposed nuclear liability and compensation act as it will modernize and clarify the various roles and responsibilities of those involved in the aftermath of a nuclear accident. However, the CNSC's job is to make sure that no claim is ever filed under the NLC act. We will not license a facility unless we are convinced it is safe.
[Translation]
The association is a regulatory body with a rigorous regulatory framework. This guarantees that our licence holders operate their facilities safely in compliance with the terms and conditions of their licence.
[English]
Furthermore, we also undertake various studies designed to improve safety. For example, we undertake probabilistic safety analysis, simulate large accident consequences, look at physical protection measures to ensure security, and do research to determine the life of pressure tubes.
[Translation]
The purpose of all those studies is to eliminate any weaknesses in nuclear safety and to establish new measures to address the identified shortcomings.
[English]
You have heard references to the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan in 2011. I can assure you that this unfortunate accident spurred a global effort to raise standards to guard against events that previously were considered to be improbable.
For our part, the CNSC ordered a review of the safety case for all Canadian operators. The result has been increased safety measures in the design and operation of our nuclear facilities.
For example, there is now added capacity to ensure the redundancy in emergency mitigation equipment to maintain safe shutdown of one or multiple reactors simultaneously. This added capacity includes 21 portable and mobile diesel generators to provide energy power, 20 cooling water pumps on site with municipal fire trucks acting as offsite support, and enough fuel to operate for days without offsite refuelling. And additional hydrogen mitigation equipment, such as passive recombiners, has been installed to ensure protection of containment, hence reducing the likelihood of releases.
Furthermore, the NPP licensees have established an memorandum of understanding to provide each other with offsite support in case of an accident.
Those enhancements in the on-site energy mitigation capabilities, as well as offsite energy response readiness, have been procured, installed and designed so that the potential for this kind of accident ever happening in Canada is practically eliminated.
The CNSC also expects operators to be vigilant against and prepared for other possible threats to their operations, such as cyber or insider or terrorist attacks. I have recently asked our power plant operators to review their processes in place to identify and respond to these types of threats. I have every confidence in our operators' abilities to respond accordingly, but it is never too early or too often to consider these types of issues in the interests of the public's health and safety.
Canada enjoys an enviable safety record with no claims ever having been made under the Nuclear Liability Act. Our role is to ensure this does not change under the new act.
Our role under the proposed act is to provide advice to the minister on the designation of facilities containing nuclear material as nuclear installations that will be covered by the act. We will also verify on an ongoing basis that licensees who are required to carry liability coverage under the proposed act are in full compliance with this obligation.
In closing, the CNSC is actively involved in overseeing all of Canada's nuclear licensees. As such, we are fully familiar with the facilities that exist in Canada and the nature of nuclear materials contained on those sites.
[Translation]
We are prepared to provide all the assistance the minister requires to implement this new legislation.
[English]
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We will start with our first questioner, Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I'm asking a question that many probably underlined in your presentation. Could you explain for us what a passive recombiner is in lay terms?
Mr. Binder: If you recall in Fukushima, the one thing caught on TV was you saw this plume coming out of the operation and you saw this explosion of hydrogen. This type of equipment eliminates, as much as you can, hydrogen inside the container so it doesn't ignite and explode. That has now been implemented in all our nuclear facilities.
Senator Mitchell: Okay. The question of terrorism, of course, is top of mind these days, and you mention that you've asked the operators to review their processes in that context, and maybe some of this you can't really say, but are you working with authorities — CSIS, the RCMP and defence authorities — in this respect?
Mr. Binder: Absolutely. We have a very close relationship with CSIS and the RCMP. They vet employees. They get security checks. They provide advice on facilities. They give us intelligence on probable acts.
As you know, nuclear facilities are part of the critical infrastructure; therefore, our law enforcement agencies are keeping a close eye on any eventuality of terrorism. We are also in close dialogue with our American friends and the international community, so there's a lot of renewed interest in how to protect against terrorism.
Senator Mitchell: One of the focuses of this act is the question of insured liability. I think maybe one of your commission's roles is to assess the insurance companies and their qualifications and that there is an effort to get more that might be in the market to create a more competitive market.
Could you give us an idea of, one, do you do that? Two, if not you, who? And, three, what kind of criteria go into the assessment of that?
Mr. Binder: Easy answer, no, we don't do that.
Senator Mitchell: Okay. Who does that?
Mr. Binder: NRCan, the department itself.
Senator Mitchell: Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: My thanks to our witnesses for their presentations. I would like to talk about Gentilly. The Parti Québécois, the party that was in power in Quebec, announced the closure of the Gentilly nuclear power plant more than 18 months ago, almost two years ago. I think the closure work is already in progress. After reading the bill, I think it will do a good job of addressing accidents or incidents whose effects are felt in the short or medium term. Clearly, cases such as British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico or Exxon Valdez are excluded, because in those cases, it has taken years, almost decades, to remedy the very harmful effects on the environment.
In terms of the risks associated with nuclear power, we know that it is no longer a question of decades, but rather of hundreds of years because of the radiation from radioactive waste. Do you think this bill will do a good job of addressing these practically permanent issues, such as the nuclear waste in Gentilly, compared to addressing other incidents or accidents whose impact on the environment is measured in the short term, in which case we can really force companies to invest millions of dollars? When we are faced with problems such as nuclear energy, will the bill be able to properly identify the long-term risks?
Mr. Binder: The risk is there every day. We have people on site making sure that the risks are being managed properly. Gentilly-2 requires only very little supervision. The waste is placed in the pool and then directed to a permanent location. We are making sure that this is done safely.
Senator Boisvenu: However, there are different levels of danger because of the duration of the risk.
Mr. Binder: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: In the event of an oil or natural gas spill, we know the risks. They are short-term risks. It is quite easy to correct the situation. It often has to do with soil extraction, the anaerobic treatment of soil or other technologies. However, nuclear energy poses different risks that require different remedies.
Mr. Binder: The risk is not as high when nuclear power is managed in the facilities that are available.
[English]
I will move back into English because we're getting into technical terminology now.
The nuclear facility right now is in safe shutdown, so the risk is quite a bit different than operating a nuclear facility. So that will be reflected in the liability that goes with it. But all the safety cases continue to be exercised like any other nuclear facility. It's a different class, different risk.
[Translation]
It is lower than other risks, but the risk is there and our officer should monitor it like a piece of dangerous equipment.
Senator Boisvenu: Did you follow the Fukushima nuclear incident quite closely?
Mr. Binder: Absolutely.
Senator Boisvenu: Were the Japanese regulations in that case entirely inappropriate when compared with Canadian regulations?
Mr. Binder: They did an in-depth study, a parliamentary study and an expert study, and they noticed many problems with the management, the culture, and so on. That gave us an opportunity to understand what we could improve in our country, and that is exactly what we did.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Mr. Binder, you used the word "licensees" many times in your presentation, so if you could help me be clear. I think I understand who you're referring to, what group you're referring to, but could you please clear that up for me?
Mr. Binder: Anybody who operates with nuclear material in Canada requires a licence from us. We have something in the order of almost 2,000 licensees ranging from nuclear power plants to medical isotopes in hospitals, and they all have their own kind of safety requirements, and we have inspectors that make sure they're compliant with those licence requirements.
Senator Seidman: Are they operators? Would you call them operators, the licensees? Do they fall into that category? It's a term we use often in this study. I guess my question is, are those the nuclear operators?
Mr. Binder: Yes. Some of them are operators under the act, but some of them, like nuclear medicine in a hospital, are not part of that.
Senator Seidman: That's fine. So my question is, then, are there practical implications of the enactment of this bill that will move these nuclear operators to behave differently?
Mr. Binder: Not according to us. We absolutely insist that the safety protocol will remain the same under the old act and the new act. In fact, part of the nuclear DNA is the safety culture. Whenever there's an incident of any kind anywhere in the world, we have the habit of asking what can we learn from that, and then we reinforce. In fact, after Fukushima, we put in a whole action plan to continuously improve the safety case, and we do this all the time.
To answer your question, this is a financial insurance scheme. It is not a safety item.
Senator Seidman: That's why I'm asking you the question, because there are the operators, but there are also contractors and suppliers. The liabilities, if I understand correctly, apply to the operators but not to the contractors and suppliers. Will this change the relationship and the dynamics between the operators and their contractors and suppliers?
Mr. Binder: Not from a safety perspective. If I understand correctly, what this act will do, together with the convention, is clarify that the operator is the holder of the liability, and, in fact, it allows for clarification that the suppliers are not liable in this thing.
Robert Power, Senior Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission: In fact, nothing will actually change in terms of the relationship between the operators and the suppliers and contractors from the current act. It's already the case today.
Senator Seidman: So this act will enable Canada to sign on to the convention. That's my understanding. The passage of this act facilitates that.
Mr. Binder: Correct.
Senator Seidman: And then the convention oversees the issues related to liabilities, but for the operators only. So there are outstanding issues related to suppliers and contractors.
Mr. Binder: Let me try it, and Bob will jump right in.
There is always a concern that you can be sued. If we're a Canadian company going to the U.S. to work, we have to make sure they understand who is responsible for what. If you watch the press, that's one of the big issues between the U.S. and India.
If everybody signs on to the convention, the convention is very clear that it's the operator, not the supplier. That's one of the benefits of this new legislation and the convention; it clarifies who is responsible for a particular accident. It allows a Canadian company to work in the U.S. and elsewhere, at least for those who are part of the convention.
Senator Seidman: So it doesn't further complicate the issue between operators and their contractors?
Mr. Binder: No, not as far as we're concerned, in particular in a safety aspect.
Senator Seidman: Right. As a result, it makes Canadians and facilities safer. Is that the bottom-line takeaway that we can be assured by?
Mr. Binder: It clarifies. I don't like the word "safer," because we believe that we are now maximizing the safety on an ongoing basis.
The act itself does not deal with safety aspects.
Senator Seidman: No, but it clarifies.
Mr. Binder: It clarifies responsibilities.
Senator Seidman: Clarifies responsibilities. That's very helpful. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I think I'll take a somewhat different approach and get more of a practical feel for the day-to- day work you do.
Between 2008 and 2012, the Government of New Brunswick, or the power authority there, refurbished Point Lepreau the only nuclear reactor in Atlantic Canada. I'm just curious, what does refurbishment of this type entail? It was about a $750 million refurbishment, I believe. What does it entail? What are the most dangerous aspects of a refurbishment like that? What role would your organization play in monitoring or giving oversight to a refurbishment of that nature?
Mr. Binder: Well, the licensee has to come to us with a plan as to what they're going to do and how they're going to do it and the safety of operations. The most risky thing about that is, remember, this is nuclear, and you have to replace the tubes. It's all done remotely. You can't walk into a vault with a little wrench and take it out. You have to do everything remotely, and those are big tubes. If it gets jammed, which happened at Point Lepreau — because it was the first one that was done.
The Koreans also have a very CANDU-like plant, and they were trying to learn from each other. By and large, they did learn from each other, but they ran into some fitting of very intricate engineering that all has to be done remotely. There was a particular flaw in fitting, which caused a delay, and delay is money, as you know. That was the issue in the plant.
Moving forward, however, the plant is operating very well, at 100 per cent. So far, there have been no serious incidents. We monitor all serious incidents, and we have staff on site that walk up and down on a daily basis and keep monitoring that everything is safe.
Senator MacDonald: Your organization was part of the entire process when they were refurbishing the reactor?
Mr. Binder: Only from a safety perspective. We have to make sure that they have the ability to measure dose to the workers and dose to the public. We do not get involved in actually how you yank the thing out and replace it. That is engineering. They have to hire a lot of contractors. We have to make sure that everyone coming to the plant is secure and safe and follows our safety procedures.
Senator MacDonald: One more question: Obviously, refurbishing a plant of this nature is going to be an expensive proposition, whether it's 18 months, as it was supposed to be, or four years, which it ended up being. I'm curious what the cost of replacing a plant like Point Lepreau would be as opposed to $750 million. What would a new Point Lepreau cost?
Mr. Binder: You're now into speculation. I can quote what you read in the press, anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion. As you know, in the United States, they are now building five. In China, they are building 27. In Korea and the U.K., they are all building. To get a fix on actual costs has been very difficult. Again, we're looking at safety, not economics. The battle cry in the nuclear industry right now is, "Let's get one of those things on time and on budget." As I think you know, Darlington and Bruce in the Ontario energy plan were thinking about refurbishment, and that's the number one issue facing them, to be on time.
Senator Ringuette: To follow up on Senator Seidman's question in regard to supplier and manager and the new insurance requirement, you said that, for instance, if a Canadian company works in the U.S., if Canada is part of this agreement, then that Canadian company cannot be sued as a supplier. How many suppliers do we have in Canada that you would be licensing? I am supposing for safety measures that you would also have supplier licensing schemes. How many Canadian suppliers do we have in Canada that would be operating in the U.S., for instance, as per your example?
Mr. Binder: Just to clarify, we do not license suppliers. We only license facilities, if you like, that have nuclear material in them.
Senator Ringuette: What was the type of Canadian company you mentioned that would be doing work in the U.S. and not being sued?
Mr. Binder: Just as an example, in Fukushima, the design of the Japanese nuclear plant was Westinghouse, so there was a whole question of whether Westinghouse had any responsibility for what happened. It was a debate internationally. But it didn't. It's the operator. Now, internationally, it's going to be clarified that it is the operator alone.
Senator Ringuette: Who is the owner of the Canadian technology that would act as a foreign supplier?
Mr. Binder: The old AECL and Candu Energy had the intellectual property, and SNC-Lavalin has it now, but they are an engineering company.
Senator Ringuette: But they have the CANDU patent.
Mr. Binder: They have the CANDU patent, and they can operate in an area where we allow them to export Canadian patents. That's a whole different licensing scheme. This is just protecting Canadian technology. It's not in the Nuclear Liability Act here. This is about export and import. When you export Canadian technology, you need to have a licence for that.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I understand. But your example was a Canadian company working in the U.S. that, with this new agreement, would not be sued. For instance, in Canada, we have one company, one nuclear product, which is CANDU, and the CANDU reactor technology and patent have been owned by SNC-Lavalin for four or five years now.
Do you licence university labs doing research with nuclear equipment?
Mr. Binder: Absolutely. Many universities have what we call slow pokes. Those are small nuclear facilities. McMaster University has a relatively large one. Edmonton has one, and Saskatchewan has one. Yes, they are all licensed.
Senator Ringuette: Individually. Universities are still an entity by a province, but in regard to costs related to this insurance scheme, are they licensed individually or via a nuclear reactor in operation as a subset of a subset?
Mr. Binder: We always have to identify who the licence holder is. Under the act, it's the licensee who is the licence holder who is covered under the act.
Senator Ringuette: So it would be the university per se?
Mr. Binder: Some universities have holding companies or research facilities of their own, and they are licensed on their own. All of this will be clarified in the regulations, if I understand correctly.
Senator Ringuette: You license Chalk River because they have quite a nuclear facility. You will have to supervise these provisions for compliance.
Mr. Binder: Correct.
Senator Ringuette: In regard to Chalk River, there is new legislation proposing a new management scheme. Is it the Government of Canada that will get your licence and have to pay for the new insurance premium, or is it the new manager of Chalk River that will have to do that?
Mr. Binder: This is something that we'll have to clarify in regulations. Right now, the licence holder is an entity called Canadian Nuclear Laboratory, CNL, and they're the licensee, the operators. To us, right now, they are the licensee.
Senator Ringuette: Which is the Government of Canada. It's a Crown corporation.
Mr. Binder: Right now, but what will happen later on? They are talking about transitioning it to a government- owned company operator.
Senator Ringuette: It's not an operator, it's a manager. This is important because it will certainly influence the relationship between this government-owned entity and the costs of the new manager.
Mr. Binder: Our responsibility will be to designate the facility that has nuclear material in it.
Senator Ringuette: Yes.
Mr. Binder: And then we will say, "Who is the operator?" Then the government has to decide how the insurance scheme will work with them, not us.
Senator Ringuette: Okay. But you have to supervise this.
Mr. Binder: Once it is decided who holds the liability, we will confirm that they're actually doing it on an ongoing basis.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Power, do you want to say something?
Mr. Power: I will say the same thing as Dr. Binder but maybe in a different way. Right now, the licence is held by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories. Right now, CNL is publically owned. I think the plan down the road is that it will be privately owned. In that case, it might be a privately owned operator similar to, say, Bruce Power.
Senator Ringuette: Under the current legislative proposal, which we looked at before Christmas, not an operator but a manager for an indeterminate time, but a minimum of three years, will be tendered for. Will the Crown or public ownership be responsible for this insurance scheme, or will these under-contract managers of these laboratories be responsible for this insurance scheme?
Mr. Binder: I will try to answer it this way: I understand that in the process there is something called government- owned company operators. The company will be sector; and in fact bidding is on now.
Senator Ringuette: It's bidding for a contract manager.
Mr. Binder: They will operate the nuclear material — the site, the facility, the waste. They will manage it. Above them, there will be a holding Crown corporation, AECL. Under the current legislation, we would label the operator "private sector." That's like Bruce Power, which is a private company under licence with the Government of Ontario.
Senator Ringuette: It's not the same management scheme. Could you clarify this situation with regard to who will be responsible for the liability insurance required under this bill? At the end of the day, for Chalk River we're looking at anything between $8 million and $10 million more per year in operating costs just because of this bill.
Mr. Binder: We'll clarify it.
Senator Patterson: I would like to acknowledge and thank the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission because your officials are in Nunavut this week, as we speak, touring communities in my territory to educate them on the commission's role in regulating a uranium mine proposed by AREVA Resources Canada Inc. in the Kiggavik region. Not everyone travels to Nunavut in the dark, cold seasons, but it's a good time to go because everyone's home; and so I commend you for that.
In this committee, we're studying the proposed nuclear liability and compensation act, which you said your organization welcomes. Could you tell the committee what if any involvement the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had in the development of Bill C-22?
Mr. Binder: We're purely technical advisers to the government on how to set up this insurance scheme. Our role is to try to delineate the kinds of sites and risks that each site has. The government then decides what kind of insurance scheme will meet that particular risk. They are consulting with us on technical issues. Remember that there are all kinds of nuclear materials, nuclear isotopes and nuclear facilities ranging from very small to intermediate, et cetera. They always seek our advice on how to relate to one another.
There is a site with one plant and there is a site with four plants and a site with eight plants. Each one requires different kinds of calculations.
Senator Patterson: I take it then that you're satisfied that your advice was considered by the government in drafting this bill and you can work with it. In fact, you said you welcome it.
Mr. Binder: Absolutely. Right.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much once again, Mr. Binder. You are very well versed in the matter and are going to benefit from your knowledge. I would like us to briefly talk about the CANDU technology, which I feel is a great success for Canada; it has been sold in several countries. Could you compare this energy system today to how it was when it first started in the 1960s, I believe? Where are CANDU technologies at today compared to other systems sold around the world?
Mr. Binder: I personally think the performance of the CANDU system has been outstanding. There have been no accidents. I find it interesting that countries such as Romania, Korea and China are using the very beneficial CANDU technology. They are using natural uranium instead of enriched uranium. I feel it is easier to build a CANDU system than any other technology. I even find it surprising that more countries are not using this technology.
Senator Boisvenu: Canada is still a major producer of uranium today, correct?
Mr. Binder: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: Does Canada mainly sell enriched uranium or natural uranium?
Mr. Binder: That is no longer permitted based on a policy of the Canadian government.
Senator Boisvenu: So those countries import our uranium and then eventually enrich it. I think that is what Iraq is doing. We have seen some very hot issues. Does the production of uranium pose a risk similar to other types of resources such as oil and natural gas?
Mr. Binder: I don't think so, because the industry is well regulated and is subject to a lot of specific requirements. We have inspectors who live with those companies. We have experience with uranium in Canada and, thanks to CNSC, this experience is excellent.
Senator Boisvenu: I come from a mining region, Abitibi, where there has been a lot of copper and gold mining. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has been caused by the tailing ponds. Does uranium have the same impact on the environment as copper or gold mines?
Mr. Binder: As you know, uranium in Quebec is a whole different story. There is a public hearing before the BAPE.
Senator Boisvenu: On the north shore, among other places.
Mr. Binder: I think it is everywhere. They are still against uranium plants. Each mine needs to have a tailing.
[English]
Not a single mine in this country is as tightly regulated as a uranium mine. If I were to live near any mine, I would live near a uranium mine because we have people in there all the time.
The history is not that great, historically, for a variety of reasons; but right now, a uranium mine has to not only be safe but has to put money in during the operation so that when they finish their work they return the mine to nature as much as they can. So in Saskatchewan, for example, after they mine, they have to clean and plant trees there to the point that the Saskatchewan government, the provincial government, feels comfortable in taking it in as an institution control. It doesn't exist in many other mines.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Will you be invited to participate in the hearings in Quebec?
Mr. Binder: Our people will be there to explain what I am saying, but it is difficult to sell.
Senator Boisvenu: You are doing a great job of explaining it. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I think we're at the end of questioners, but I have a few questions.
Your reference to mining, I know in my home province that mines have to contribute to a fund so that whatever takes place when they dig the hole, they need to return that to what it was, exactly as you said about uranium mines. I think you kind of left it that no other mine does this, but I think that is pretty standard across Canada. I can only speak for British Columbia. It has been that way since the 1970s, so those funds are put in place to return back to normal, putting all the trees and everything on, so I just wanted to put that on the record.
In your notes, you talk about how there is now added capacity to ensure redundancy and emergency mitigation equipment to maintain safe shutdown of one or multiple reactors simultaneously. In this legislation, is there anything you have to change in what you have already done to add to it? You talk about portable generators and those kinds of things. Is there anything in this legislation that says you have to do more?
Mr. Binder: No, absolutely not. Any improvement is driven by a safety requirement, not by any financial or economic issues.
The Chair: You said 21 portable and mobile diesel generators to provide emergency power. There are a number of sites around Ontario. Are those generators at each one of those sites now, or are they stored some place to go to that site in case something happens? I would ask the same about the cooling water pumps and that kind of thing that you talk about.
Mr. Binder: They are in each facility in Pickering, Darlington and Bruce. What we have insisted they do after Fukushima was they had to create new entry into the core so they can pump in water. The problem with Fukushima was that they couldn't get water into the core fast enough to cool it off. In our scenario, we hope that whatever happens, with enough diesel power and on-site water, that you can actually connect the core to a water source — at the end of the day it could be the lake — and cool it off.
Our role is not to preserve the facility; it's to shut it down. So whatever doomsday scenario one keeps asking about, we believe that with those modifications we took enough measures that the doomsday scenario will never happen.
The Chair: Those items that you spoke about here, the 21 portable generators and the cooling pumps, they are distributed amongst those three, Pickering, Darlington and Bruce; is that correct?
Mr. Binder: Yes.
The Chair: They are on standby right now. Okay.
Thank you for that, and I know this is getting off topic a bit, and it's been pretty wide ranging. I have allowed that to happen, and we appreciate that you're here. That's why we're asking you those questions, not for any other reason. It's nice to have you here to be able to speak with you. It has been a while since we've been able to speak to you. In fact, it was when we did our first report that we spoke to the Nuclear Safety Commission, so it's good to have you here.
Mr. Binder: Thank you.
The Chair: Your knowledge is great.
Perhaps I should know this, but you say you have staff on site at Point Lepreau walking the floor all the time. Is that for a period of time since it's come back on stream, or are those people there all the time?
Mr. Binder: They're there all the time. We have staff in Point Lepreau. We had staff for Gentilly-2, we have staff in Darlington, we have staff in Pickering, and we have staff in Bruce, and we have staff in Saskatchewan that go to the mines, and every mine gets inspected something like five times a year.
The Chair: How are those people paid for? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is a Crown corporation. Are there charges to Point Lepreau or Gentilly, to Darlington, Bruce and Pickering that pay for the commission? Just how does that take place?
Mr. Binder: The commission recovers those regulatory costs from the licensees.
The Chair: It's just a charge to the licensees, okay.
Mr. Binder: Right. Some licensees are being supported by the government. For example, for universities and hospitals, the government pays for that; nevertheless, we charge the government for those regulatory efforts.
The Chair: That's good. I don't have any other questions, and no one else did, so I want to thank both of you very much for being here. We appreciate it, so thank you very much for your presentation and your answers.
Mr. Binder: It was a pleasure.
(The committee adjourned.)