Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

The Chalk River Isotopocalypse Now – and Then

by kadyomalley on Friday, June 5, 2009 1:59pm - 20 Comments

From the directive issued to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, following a unanimous vote in the House of Commons (December 10, 2007):

1. In regulating the production, possession and use of nuclear substances in order to prevent unreasonable risk to the health of persons, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission shall take into account the health of Canadians who, for medical purposes, depend on nuclear substances produced by nuclear reactors.

2. This Directive comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

From Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission chair Michael Binder’s testimony before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources (June 4, 2009):

It is important to understand that the CNSC is not responsible for making sure that there is a sufficient supply of isotopes. The CNSC is, however, responsible for making sure that whatever isotope is being produced, it is done in a safe way.

Tags: aecl, canadian nuclear safety commission, chalk river, does this mean linda keen is retroactively unoverruled?, isotopocalyspe now, michael binder is not the boss of isotopes

More by kadyomalley

Wascally Wabbit

From this correspondent's point of view – the June 4th statement appears to be a much more accurate definition of what I understood the mandate of the CNSC to be.
Of course a) the statement on June 4th was not made by a politician and b) this comment is being written by some-one who was once hauled over the coals by the then Chief Nuclear Officer of Ontario Hydro's Nuclear Division for reporting to the representative of the corporation's audit committee that project status reports from that division were more optimistic than accurate!

http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

I'm quite sure it is — or at least, it *was* until that directive was added to the CNSC mandate; as far as I know, it's still in force. Note: I don't think it *should* be there — but since that was the pretext on which the government's decision – backed up, it's always worth noting, by every opposition party – to overrule Linda Keen was made, you'd think *someone* at committee would have asked Binder whether the treatment meted out to his predecessor was justified — or at least ask whether he is concerned that he'll come under similar pressure in future.

Dot

The Dec 10th directive says nothing more than do not operate in a vaccuum, and in most cases would not have even been necessary to put in writing. It has no weight on the mandate of the CNSC which is to ensure nuclear facilities are operated safely.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

That would make it superfluous. That's no way to run a shop.

Dot

Hence why she was removed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

For not following a superfluous directive that didn't exist until she couldn't act on it?

tough crowd.

oddly enough, if it DID come down to justification issuing that directive would be interpretted by the courts as proof that before that the health of Canadians was NOT her office's concern. Its a governance thing.
Dot

She was toast for all intents and purposes when parliament overruled her – they overruled her based upon expert testimony that said her concerns over safety were unfounded (or in other words, she didn't understand how to properly calculate risks). As mentioned elsewhere, if you don't believe me, go read Hansard.

I'm sure the subsequent directive was well reviewed by the Dept of Justice before being issued to ensure it was benign.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

They didn't overrule her. They overruled the decision-making body over which she presided. She not only lacked the delegated authority to do what was being demanded of her she didn't even have a vote.

If her dismissal was justified then there was just cause to fire the lot of them and that makes the Governor-in-Council derelict in its duty by not doing so.
Dot

Yeah, whatever.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

No, Kady. That's not your deja viewer acting up. I'm sure that's what she told them, too.

man. speaking of one in a million
http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

The Federal Court has spoken. Justification has nothing to do with it.

Dot

Justification was not argued by the government in defense to the law suit- which the judge apparently agreed with.

Had the issue been over justification, the gov't would have brought in a slew of expert witnesses to refute Keen's claims and decisions. That would have been interesting and perhaps informative to some journalists.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

Indeed.

Turns out Ottawa IS able to fire its regulatory head when it damn well pleases.

This should end well.

Dot

The key, therefore, is to hire suitably qualified individuals, properly vetted to begin with.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

Performance is irrelevant so what's that got to do with it?
Dot

I guess now "the lame" is implied.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

Sometimes it's obvious but everybody's human.

Not in this case, though.

It doesn't matter if Binder builds the reactor himself and it's flawless. The Crown is only a whim and some PR on the taxpayer's dime away from firing him at all times.

IntenseDebate doesn't take blanks. I'll assume that's what you were asking.

M.A.N

It would appear that changing definitions in midstream may lead to damp backpacks…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

They didn't overrule her. They overruled the decision-making body over which she presided. She not only lacked the delegated authority to do what was being demanded of her she didn't even have a vote.

If her dismissal was justified then there was just cause to fire the lot of them and the Govenor-in-Council was derelict in its duty by not doing so.
JoeM

"regulating the production"

does not mean the same thing as

"making sure that there is a sufficient supply of isotopes"

I don't see what the issue is.

And besides some of those House of Commons ninnies don't have a clue what they're voting on half-the-time anyway. Thats why things are so screwed up in this country.