Inspection of Nuclear Power Plants—Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Inspection of Nuclear Power Plants—Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

(Report 1—2016 Fall Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development)

24 November 2016

Julie Gelfand
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to participate on your panel to discuss the nuclear sector. This panel is timely in light of my recent audit report on the inspection of nuclear power plants, which was tabled in Parliament as part of my 2016 Fall Reports. Joining me at the table is John Affleck, the Principal responsible for the audit.

My role as Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development includes conducting performance audits to independently assess how well the federal government is fulfilling its commitments to protect the environment and to foster sustainable development.

Within my seven-year mandate, one thing that I have been doing, which may be of interest to your Committee, is a series of audits relating to Canada’s natural resource sectors. In addition to my audit of the inspection of nuclear power plants, which I will talk about today, I completed an audit last year on the regulation of oil and gas pipelines. I also intend to examine in the future more resource sectors, which may include mining and aquaculture.

As you know, nuclear power generation in Canada, produced through the country’s four operating nuclear power plants, is an important source of electricity for Canadians. However, unfortunate events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are constant reminders that this industry is not without risks and needs to be well managed.

This is why I undertook an audit of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The Commission regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials under the 1997 Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The Commission does this so that the environment and the health, safety, and security of Canadians are protected, and Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy are implemented.

Verifying that the industry is complying with all laws, regulations, and conditions is a core part of what regulators have to do. My audit focused on site inspections, which are one of the key verification tools used by the Commission to assure Canadians that nuclear power plants perform safely and comply with regulatory requirements and licence conditions.

At this juncture, I think it is worth mentioning that this was an audit of the Commission, and not of the operators of nuclear power plants, who are responsible for their safe operation. Also, the audit did not cover inspections of nuclear waste facilities.

We found that the Commission conducted 226 site inspections of nuclear power plants that it planned over the two-year period that we looked at. We examined a sample of 42 site inspections, the majority of which reported compliance issues. We found that the Commission followed up with licensees 100 percent of the time to ensure that these issues were being addressed.

However, we found that it was unclear whether the Commission was conducting the appropriate number and type of inspections, because its planning process was not well documented. The Commission could not show that planning was rigorous, systematic, and risk-based to verify that nuclear facilities were complying with all requirements. For example, the Commission had a five-year plan intended to set out the minimum number of inspections required to verify compliance, but this plan changed into more of a list of all possible inspections. And we found that the Commission carried out only 48 percent of the inspections set out in the plan. The Commission also could not show that it had allocated the appropriate number of staff to carry out inspections.

Furthermore, we found that three quarters of site inspections were conducted without an approved inspection guide. An inspection guide is essentially a checklist that an inspector uses during an inspection. The checklists are intended to set out what needs to be checked to verify compliance.

We also found that the Commission did not provide clear guidance to its inspectors on which information to retain. Because some information was not retained, the Commission could not show that its inspectors looked at everything that was supposed to be verified. It could not assure us that inspection reports fully and accurately reflected the observations made during inspections.

In addition, we found that the Commission had a standard time for issuing inspection reports of 50 business days after on-site inspection activities. The Commission’s target was to meet this standard 80 percent of the time, but it did so only 64 percent of the time. This is important because licensees have a certain number of days to respond with an action plan addressing compliance issues, but this time period only starts once the operator receives a final inspection report.

Overall, our audit concluded that the Commission could not show that it adequately managed its site inspections of nuclear power plants. We made a number of recommendations to the Commission, including to implement a well-documented, systematic, and risk-based planning process and to ensure that inspections follow the Commission’s own procedures.

The Commission agreed with our recommendations and its responses are published in our audit report. I also understand that the Commission has posted an action plan on its web site indicating that it has already started to address our recommendations. However, we have not audited these actions.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We look forward to answering the Committee’s questions posed to the panel. Thank you.