The hell with safety, when you're smarter than...well, everyone

I have been meaning to write about the Chalk River Nuclear plant opening despite safety concerns for a few days now, and it keeps getting scarier. I am shocked that not more Canadians are expressing not only concern, but outrage at the process by which the Bill to reopen the plant was passed.

There is the obvious - that this is a plant that has not passed safety standards, a plant run by Atomic Energy (AECL) - which does not have a great track record for being open with its safety reports - and that opening it without safety clearance from an oversight agency poses a danger to countless people, our environment, and generations to come.

Interwoven with the obvious is the power and will of the current government to override CNSC - the commission appointed to assure canadians that safety standards are being met by such as AECL and a commission Harper would rather see sidelined considering his under-the-radar deal with the US. Also troubling is the mentality - which won out in both the House and Senate - that the immediate need outweighs long term safety issues that could result in immeasurable damage.

Finally, there is the fundamental ideology, once more demonstrated in this incident, of the CONs that it is fine to deceive, misrepresent, and ignore serious reports to pass through an agenda they have already decided upon regardless of public safety.

That this decision to re-open the chalk River plant occurred so quickly, with so little effort put into finding alternatives, and with so much concerning the risks still unknown and strong testimony expressing dangers is absolutely terrifying. The interviews of witnesses by MPs in the House (Hansard, Dec. 11) is worth reading. The specific language used, the tone, the focus of the questions and who they are coming from are very telling and chilling. I will only post a few, here.

Ms. Linda J. Keen (President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission): The commission had serious concerns regarding the safety of this 50 year old nuclear reactor when its licence was ready to expire...If AECL wants to do one pump only, it must have a licence amendment. It must do this, and all it has to do is request a licence amendment and have a completed safety case. If it does not have a completed safety case, in our view as nuclear experts this facility is not within the licence, is in a violation of the licence, and in our view is not safe enough.

In case some readers think Ms. Keen is just a hard assed cretin who hates isotopes:

Ms. Linda J. Keen: Mr. Chair, I would also like to add that what we are talking about is an industry standard that we would require of any research reactor in Canada. I talked today with my colleague from the United States, Chairman Klein of the NRC in the United States, and he said that he is fully in agreement with us requiring the two pumps for the safety and for licensing in the United States as well.

Keen expressed further concern that AECL would be self-regulating for the 120 days it would re-open. There would be no expert oversight agency looking to the safety of the plant, and the welfare of Canadians.

Ms. Linda J. Keen: Mr. Chair, the view of the commission is that, as Mr. Howden has said, if AECL supplied a complete safety case and a licence amendment, and the licence amendment is very straightforward, had the staff review it, and called the commission together on an emergency basis, all of which we are prepared to do to help out in this crisis, it would take, if the safety case were complete, approximately a week. I think this is partly asking AECL where it is on the safety case because we have not received it yet. However, we believe that all facilities in Canada should be regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act because that is what we are paid to do. That is what we are paid to do as nuclear experts, to look at this oversight. We really do believe that this would set an unfortunate circumstance in this case.

"Set an unfortunate circumstance in this case..." No kidding. Ignoring safety reports for expediency, for short term solutions would be a bad precedent to set.

Then the suspicious stuff - reports that should have gone to CNSC but ended up...where? Ordered by who? Smacks of interference. A safety report was sent to CNSC, but it was not complete, contrary to what some have been trying to portray.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: the representatives of Atomic Energy of Canada say that they submitted a safety case. To whom did they submit it? The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says that it did not receive it and that it cannot proceed with hearings...Why then are they telling us that there is an entire case that explains the context in which it would be safe?

while everyone else is asking safety questions...

Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): I would like to lead my questioning toward Ms. Keen. In your opening comments you described yourself as an expert in nuclear safety. As I have said, we are talking about safety. You also stated in your opening comments that yours is a non-partisan position. I would like to follow up a little bit on that. Your appointment to the CNSC was in the year 2000, I understand, is that correct?...And you were a career public servant before that time? Is that correct?...Until your appointment at CNSC my understanding is that you were assistant deputy minister at the Department of Natural Resources when the now opposition House leader was the minister of natural resources. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael Ignatieff : Mr. Chair, on a point of order. This line of questioning is essentially insinuating that political considerations are affecting the professional judgment of a public servant. We are here, Mr. Chair, to adjudicate a dispute that AECL quite properly said was a difference of professional opinion. This commissioner is entitled to the respect of the House and she is not receiving it.

Ted Menzies: Mr. Chair, I think we have established what we need to know so far.

Menzies sounds like a slime-ball lawyer at this point, with the old "I think we've heard all we need to from this witness," adding a sneer for good measure.

Tony Clement eventually explains this line of questioning by admitting the CONs were maing partisan attacks:

At one point, the Conservative government accused Linda Keen, the "Liberal-appointed" head of the nuclear regulator, of being responsible for the unnecessarily long closure that led to the international shortage of medical isotopes. Clement said the Conservatives singled out Keen's actions because they thought the Liberals were going to turn the shortage into a partisan issue and delay the reactor's restart.

That makes it very clear that the CONs had already decided to open the plant, regardless of what the testimony of witnesses exposed about safety issues. Safety of the nuclear plant was not at all a concern to Harper and Co. and the interviews were just for show, on their part.

A particularly scary bit came out after this as the CONs tried to say that Keen was somehow failing in her duties by not taking into account the seriousness of not having isotopes available.

There are two problems with this accusation:

It suggests that by following her mandate to assure the safety of the plant, she was failing the patients who need isotopes - so what was she supposed to do? ease up on the safety requirements, violate the terms of CNSC's mandate? Put Canadians at risk as a direct result of her violating standards?

Second - it places a responsibility on Ms. Keen that she is not qualified for, nor does she have the authority to act upon - that she should decide whether or not the pplant should stay open, weighing one risk against another, then deciding on her own to ignore or falsify safety reports.

Outright lies and ommission of inconvenient testimony:
Scary CON talk -

They don't realize how scary their words are sometimes, because they don't think they are saying or doing anything odd, frightening, inhuman, or undemocratic. That makes them even more scary:

Gary Lunn: as I have stated previously, we were very concerned. We went to great lengths to resume the production of medical isotopes. I approached my deputy minister and I advised her that we would like to have independent experts. The deputy minister provided those names.

Nothing about plant safety. "We went to great lengths to resume production..." There is the key phrase that shows the CONs ideology, their priorities, their lack of concern for long term effect on Canadians and Canada.

This decision to re-open the plant should not have been made the way it was. Yes, there is an emergency need for isotopes - with some doubt as to how critical it actually is - but lowering safety standards isn't the answer, nor is bullying people who are sincerely trying to do their job and protect Canadians in the process.

The weirdness just keeps growing -

What looks like a sacrifice to the cause of harper bull-shit raises a few eyebrows since Clement can't seem to get his story straight -

Mr. Burns left his position late Friday, and Health Minister Tony Clement said in a television interview Monday the departure was related to the shutdown of an AECL reactor that created a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes.“I think it's fair to say it confirmed our impression that there has to be new management, there has to be better management, at AECL,” Mr. Clement said.

then, whoops!

Clement said Burns had been hired as a part-time chairman and that his resignation was just an "interesting coincidence."Some times coincidences happen in politics," Clement said. "There was some indication that this might be coming up down the road."

Is Burns really the one responsible for the plant problems, lack of planning, and the isotope "crisis?" Not according to testimony given to the Senate:

Hansard, December 13, 2007
Brian McGee, Senior Vice-president and Chief Nuclear Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited: As the site licence holder and the person ultimately accountable for the operation of the site and the licence facilities on that site, I am ultimately the person accountable for safety at all levels.

Mr. McGee: I cannot say specifically when I notified people, but the notification of an event on my site of any sort is my responsibility. The shortcomings and the notifications to people are my responsibility.

Mr. McGee: I did not contact the minister, and communications of that sort is my responsibility; that is a shortcoming on my part.

McGee, to his credit, took responsibility for his actions, and defended Ms. Keene, saying she was doing her job, as she should.

This can make one wonder if Burns’ resignation was made only to appease an unifirmed public.

The isotope shortage -

Efforts at determining how bad the isotope shortage was, and if they would be delivered on a greatest-need basis were also unsuccessful, adding suspicion to whether or not this is another case of the CONs not wanting to lose sales.

Hansard, December 12, 2007
When asked if isotopes would be delivered on a greatest need basis:

Tony Clement: of course, this is not our decision. The decision is made by the hospitals, doctors and specialists. If a patient needs treatment, they have the responsibility to get that isotope. There is no national triage system in place.

later that day...

Clement: As supplies run out, even the provinces that were facing no shortage are starting to face shortages, and except for a couple of exceptions, like Alberta, that is true across the entire country. We are in a state of triage right now in the system, but that state of triage cannot continue if there is no supply.

It was amid this mess of lies, coaching of witnesses, partisanship, and denial of safety issues that the emergency bill was passed to open a nuclear power plant that does not meet safety standards.