Wrong signals over Chalk River
MADELAINE DROHAN
Globe and Mail Update
December 14, 2007 at 5:54 AM EST
OTTAWA — The shutdown for safety reasons of the nuclear research reactor owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. at Chalk River is being viewed as a health issue first, and a political issue second. That's too narrow a focus.
The decision by Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week to overrule the nuclear safety regulator and restart the reactor will have serious international consequences for AECL and for Canada, consequences that so far have been ignored.
In making his decision, the Prime Minister made clear that he had his eye on the supply of medical isotopes the reactor produces that are used in hospitals around the world to treat and diagnose illnesses such as heart disease and cancer. Canada is an important supplier, although far from the only one.
Nevertheless, Mr. Harper decided the reactor shutdown was a threat to human health, as did those members of Parliament who helped pass the emergency legislation to restart the Chalk River facility despite the regulator's concerns about safety.
Related Articles
From the archives
* Jatin Nathwani: Ottawa calls it right on Chalk River row
* Globe editorial: Bashing the watchdog
* Lunn knew of reactor problems
* Backlogs will mire some hospitals for more than a month
The Globe and Mail
If I were waiting for a potentially life-saving test, I'm quite sure I would think this was absolutely the right move. Still, in resolving this short-term problem, the government has created several new ones that have long-term consequences, both nationally and internationally. Any assessment of the government's actions must take all of this into account.
The issue here is not about the potential for a catastrophe at Chalk River, although the question poses itself how the Prime Minister can state so emphatically: “There will be no nuclear accident.”
Presumably his independent experts and the leadership at AECL have assured him that the earthquakes, which Natural Resources Canada says occur every five days on average in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone, will never pose a threat, that accidental fires will never break out, and that the specialists at the nuclear safety regulator are just a bunch of nervous Nellies.
Rather, at issue is how this affair reflects on AECL at a time when the Crown corporation is both flirting with potential suitors and trying to sell its reactors around the world. Another question is what sort of precedent Canada is setting for countries with nuclear capabilities everywhere when it muzzles its safety regulator because the government doesn't like what the regulator is saying.
There is a global nuclear renaissance going on, with governments everywhere searching to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. China is planning a five-fold increase in its nuclear generating capacity, India wants to add 20 to 30 reactors in the next decade and a half, and the United States is considering 19 new units. And those are just the big players.
AECL wants a piece of that action and has been promoting its Candu technology around the world, heavily backed by the Canadian government. The Crown corporation signed a memorandum of understanding with Argentina, which it hopes will lead to a contract for a new reactor. Gary Lunn, the Minister of Natural Resources, has been pressing the government of Ontario to use Candu technology when and if it expands its nuclear generating capability.
The problems at Chalk River, with AECL operating its research reactor while in breach of its licence, hardly cast the company in a good light as far as potential buyers are concerned. They would be right to wonder whether the Crown corporation takes a similarly cavalier attitude in other aspects of its operations.
The federal government has undermined the value of its support for AECL by demonstrating that safety is not its highest priority. Accusing the regulator of making political decisions sounds rather lame at this point. If the Prime Minister was worried about that, he should have sacked the commissioners much earlier in his mandate. This is not the first time the regulator and AECL have been at loggerheads.
AECL's international image will suffer as a result of this imbroglio. But so, too, will Canada's image. What message is the government sending to would-be nuclear powers when it countermands the instructions of the nuclear safety commission? That politicians know better than experts appointed to safeguard public safety whether a reactor should be operating?
The strength of the regulatory process is absolutely critical in the admission of new members to the nuclear club. The events of the last week have shown our regulatory process to be open to political manipulation. This is a terrible signal to be sending the world. If it happened anywhere else, we would be aghast.
There has been tremendous damage done in this whole affair, starting with the patients whose tests have been put on hold because of the initial shutdown at Chalk River, and extending beyond that to the now tarnished image of AECL and that of Canada as a responsible member of the nuclear club.