CTV News | Critics blast Lunn for firing head of nuclear watchdog

Top Stories -   

Critics blast Lunn for firing head of nuclear watchdog

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reports
Mike Duffy Live: Committee members debate what should be done in the nuclear dispute
CTV Newsnet: Green Party Leader Elizabeth May comments on the Chalk River fiasco
CTV Newsnet: Gary Lunn appears before committee
CTV Newsnet: Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn testifies before the Commons committee on natural resources, part two
CTV Newsnet: Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn testifies before the Commons committee on natural resources, part three
CTV Newsnet: Graham Richard simplifies the issue following Lunn's appearance at the committee
Linda Keen, then president of the Nuclear Safety Commission, is questioned in House of Commons last year

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(138)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Wed. Jan. 16 2008 6:31 PM ET

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Wednesday he fired the president of Canada's nuclear watchdog because she showed a "lack of leadership," but critics slammed the government for interfering in an independent agency.

Lunn told a Commons committee that Linda Keen, head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, did not act quickly enough following the shutdown of the Chalk River nuclear reactor in Ontario late last year.

Keen was fired late Tuesday night, 12 hours before she was scheduled to speak before the committee.

Liberal MP David McGuinty accused the Conservatives of using U.S.-style partisan attacks to intimidate independent agencies.

"Anybody who tries to do their job around this town these days seems to lose it," he told Lunn. "These are the kinds of Republican tactics this town has never seen before."

Bernard Shapiro, the former head of McGill University, resigned as the federal ethics commissioner last year after run-ins with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. And Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand was publicly criticized by Harper for allowing veiled women to vote without showing their faces.

The natural resources committee has been set up to probe the circumstances surrounding the Chalk River closure -- which led to a worldwide medical isotope shortage.

The reactor, operated by the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), a Crown corporation, stopped production for scheduled repairs on Nov. 18 and was expected to restart within five days.

But the CNSC -- responsible for setting licensing, health and safety rules for the country's nuclear facilities -- refused to allow the reactor to restart after finding it had been operating without a backup emergency power system for cooling pumps for 17 months.

"The obvious culprit here is the Crown corporation," Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told CTV Newsnet.

She said the AECL was operating in violation of its licence and had failed to anticipate that a shutdown would imperil the supply of medical isotopes, while Keen was simply doing her job.

"Keen was fired because they're making her a scapegoat; she was fired because she did not knuckle-under to a minister," said May.

New Democrat MP Paul Dewar, the party's deputy critic for Crown corporations, said Lunn should not have put pressure on Keen because of her position as a quasi-judicial official.

"The wrong person got fired yesterday, in my opinion," Dewar told CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "The person who should have been fired was Mr. Lunn, who crossed over a line. These are boundaries that are sacrosanct in terms of good governance. For public servants to do their job, they have to do it without this kind of interference."

In December, emergency legislation passed by Parliament side-stepped the CNSC's objections and allowed AECL to restart the reactor for 120 days in order to alleviate the isotope shortage.

Since then, Keen and Lunn have been engaged in a very public dispute over the shutdown of the nuclear reactor.

"The president of the CNSC is a chief executive officer and is responsible for supervision over the direction of the work of the members, officers and employees of the commission," Lunn told the committee on Wednesday.

"At issue was the president's failure to manage the work in order to bring the matter for hearing before the commission in an appropriately urgent fashion."

Lunn said Keen failed to "consider fully, in a timely fashion, the serious consequences of the growing shortage of medical isotopes."

Quick Facts

Linda J. Keen is an Albertan. She received her B.Sc. (honours in chemistry) and M.Sc. (agriculture sciences) from the University of Alberta. After working as a chemist, she continued her career in three science-related fields: agriculture and agri-food, mining and currently, in the nuclear area.

--Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

He said her actions were troubling and that she didn't meet the high standards of the government or the Canadian people.

Keen fired

Opposition leaders have called on Lunn to resign, accusing him of improperly interfering with an arm's-length nuclear regulator.

Following Lunn's statement Wednesday, Liberal MP Omar Alghabra accused the minister of "blatant political interference.''

"I think the prime minister fired the wrong person today,'' he said.

Bloc Quebecois MP Claude DeBellefeuille said Lunn's behaviour "undermined the credibility of the commission.''

The Tories informed Keen that she was fired in a letter sent late Tuesday.

A press released posted on the CNSC website said Keen "received a letter from the Privy Council Office indicating that the government adopted an Order in Council terminating her designation as President of the Commission, effective immediately."

The letter further indicates that she remains a full-time permanent member of the Commission.

In a letter dated Dec. 27, which was later leaked to the media and then posted on the CNSC website, Lunn threatened to fire Keen for her role.

Keen responded with a scathing letter, telling Lunn that "the allegations which have been made, coupled with your threat to have me removed as President, seriously undermine the independence of the CNSC."

With a report from CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife and files from The Canadian Press

Please Add Comments( )

Stephen
said
0 0

It's about time!!


Bob
said
0 0

She put us all at risk. Time to go.


J. Fletcher
said
0 0

What cowards! How dare the government fire an official whose job it is to protect us from nuclear accidents. She was doing her job. AECL was not in compliance and if anyone is at fault here, other than the Conservative government, it is AECL. Mr. Lunn should have been working on the problems at AECL long before the shutdown occurred, but where was he? Interesting that they fired her just ahead of the Commons Committee session. I'll be surprised if Mr. Lunn shows up. Steven Harper carps all the time about "accountability", but we don't see any of it in his government. I hope Ms. Keen sues them.

nosty
said
0 0

I am appalled and dismayed that a LAWYER (Lunn) is making decisions that should clearly be in the hands of someone who is an expert in nuclear technology (Keen). You can rest assured that IF a problem occurs, the minister will take none of the blame. Apparently, the minister was informed of the problem last September. I truly hope that this sinks the minister.

David
said
0 0

If I were one of the people needing diagnostic tests and my life was jeopardized by Ms. Keen, I would be pretty upset. Her job was about balancing risk. She didn't. She needs to go.


Greg
said
0 0

The Harper government is scared right now. They fired her hoping she wouldn't show her face to the committee after being fired. Well, they were wrong. They thought they could end the controversy by firing Keen, thereby saving one of their own. What about public safety and accountabiliy? If I'm going to trust anyone regarding nuclear safety, it's definitely not a government who forced the opening of the Chalk River site over objections from the CNSC!


David
said
0 0

The regulator's job was to manage risk.
She didn't. She still doesn't understand that. She needs to be fired.


James
said
0 0

She put lives at risk. She should have been fired weeks ago.


Tim
said
0 0

My way Or the Highway - the "NEW GOVERMNENT'S" way. She was doing her job.

Bob
said
0 0

Minister "LUNN" doesn't show good "LEADERSHIP"!


Ian
said
0 0

great now our government fires paople for doing there job and makes legislation to get around safety measures that were put in place to protect us from nuclear meltdown . And everytime there is a problem of sorts they can do nothing but name calling and finger pointing to anybody but themselves. the house of commons is like a unruled grade 3 class and then they wonder why people don't like to vote at all. I just wish they would do there job and get on with it properly !!!


Robert, Montreal
said
0 0

As if Mr. Lunn's heavy handed letter to Ms. Keen wasn't enough, his most recent actions in terminating Ms. Keen show his preference for sheer bullying when faced with truths he doesn't like. I took the time to read both Ms. Keen's response to Mr. Lunn's letter and the timeline of events and justifications for CNSC's actions on the CNSC website (so should everyone reading here). I believe that her actions were not only appropriate but well within her obligations as CNSC President.
It is clear that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of AECL management who knew they weren't in compliance with their licence. AECL made the decision to shut down to correct a potentially dangerous equipment non-conformance. When the shut down needed to be extended to complete the work and threatened supplies AECL did not submit the documentation required by law for the CNSC to act.
So for doing her job Ms. Keen gets brow beaten in a letter. For responding in a professional manner to what was a very distasteful example of ministerial penmanship and showing us all that the Minister of Natural Resources had clearly overstepped his bounds in his mishandling of the situation, Ms. Keen gets fired. Clearly, this is so wrong. She deserves better and so do Canadians. I for one have no confidence in Mr. Lunn's suitability to hold higher office. Canadians need leaders not messenger shooters. Mr. Lunn should atleast have the moral courage to resign, but that's probably asking too much of the man.


JE
said
0 0

This is a risk management issue...weigh the risk of lives-lost in a nuclear accident versus the lives-lost from cancelled radiotherapy. Both Ministers (Health & Nuclear Safety) were doing their jobs, advising on that risk, but the decision as to where to take the risk is that of their common boss.


Thomas from Halifax
said
0 0

Wow. You ask a watchdog to do her job, she reports that the reactor is in violation of several key safety regulations, you cry to the public about how she isn't right, then you fire her. Harper and the Conservatives have absolutely lost it. What's next, Martial Law?


Get it straight
said
0 0

If you had read any of the stories on this issue over the past month or two, you would realize that Keen acted appropriately. When Lunn tried to interfere, she went public and got fired for it. Here's a question for you: who do you want controlling Canada's oldest nuclear plant with no backup safety system; someone with over 5 years experience in the top job, or an elected lawyer without a science background?

It's painfully clear that the government fired the wrong person, but that's not surprising. After badgering the Liberals for punishing those that don't toe the party line, Harper continues to get rid of those who question his authority. Can you say 'democracy'? Not if you're a Conservative.


Mark Fort Erie ON
said
0 0

SHE CHOSE to put millions of cancer patients at risk, rather than manage the risk factors. Bad mistake, and she should be fired. Not the gov'ts fault. However, this infrastucture must be brought up to date, and it is a shame on all governments for letting it get this far. It makes you wonder what else has been neglected for the last 15 years?


d
said
0 0

let's remember that there was a unanimous consent in the house of commons by ALL parties to put the reactor back on line! so all you conservative haters better look at your own parties too...


Frunk36
said
0 0

Tim (here) and some others are forgetting the salary this lady received for making sound decisions. Her decision to close the plant was taken to lightly and without consideration of risks to millions who battle cancer.


GATES
said
0 0

She is qualified, she did her job and now she gets fired. Let me say, that if politicians are allowed ro make decisions on atomic energy it will be in everyones best interest and safety to immediately shut down all nuclear reactors.


Mario
said
0 0

The point of the power plant is to supply power, the fact she shut it down based on the Auditor General's recommendation due to the fact it DIDN'T HAVE A EMERGENCY BACK UP SYSTEM!!!! So we would have all accepted a meltdown??? She acted within her mandate and that is to keep a nuclear plant safe. Did we want another Chernobyl? Come on people, wake up!!!


Paul
said
0 0

People, do some research before you go posting. Of course she should be fired. Knowing full well the shortage the shutdown would create worldwide she should have chose to keep the reactor open because the risk is of anything happening was very sery small. Alittle common sense would have helped....seems people have less and less of that these days.


Matt
said
0 0

OK, first off, she is a career bureaucrat, NOT an expert in Nuclear Safety. Secondly, she was fired, not because she closed the reactor down, but because she failed to put into place any sort of plan to have or allow the reactor to start up in a timely fasion. Before you go around insulting the government or the opposition...take the time re read the article...make sure you understand what you are commenting on.


I
said
0 0

I have to say that this whole thing is getting way out of hand. Linda Keen and the CNSC did not put anyone's safety at risk. AECL entered into a voluntary shutdown which they then extended voluntarily. These delays were the direct result of poor management decisions at AECL. They were spared the blame because: (a)the president of AECL was a conservative appointee, and (b) Harper wants to sell AECL, and it will likely happen within the next few years. What is really needed here is a public inquiry.

DANIEL
said
0 0

Another example of stupidity in action. If the reactor is unsafe, it should not be running. It's obvious that our elected government is only interested in keeping their own jobs by looking good. When we have a serious nuclear incident, where will the government point fingers.


Victor
said
0 0

The sad reality is that the project to get the new reactor up and on system is many years behind and several dollars over budget. It should have never come to this with an old reactor and for that alone the leadership in this matter from all sides is in question.

These are not political battles, and to make it so speaks to the integrity of governments and oppositions.

Do things right and stop wasting tax payer money and putting people at risk, is what the electorate want.

What do you have to do to get good public servants around here ?


Nuclear Norm
said
0 0

First of all she is not a nuclear expert she is an agricultural expert. Unfortunately she did not get good advice from her advisors. When she lost the confidence of the government she should have resigned. Not being seismically qualified is not a severe enough risk to shut down the reactor. According to the Nuclear Control Act decisions like this have to be rationally justified. However AECL is still in violation of their operating licence. The CNSC could have allowed reactor operation for medical reasons but fined AECL $100000 or more a day for violating the licence. This would keep the medical community happy and sent a message to AECL to get their act together. Money still talks. The conservatives understand that anyway.


Hassan
said
0 0

Are you kidding me !! This women was going infront of the commons to bring up the reason why the Conservative government has not put in place a safety plan for the nuclear site which they have been in charge of for over 6 months. All this women did was bring up the issue and now the conservative government is firing her before she can bring up the issue. Sounds alot like the Bush admin. Cause we all know that the conservatives have a background in nuclear energy. We appointed her to this because she is the head of atomic and nuclear energy in canada because she knows something. Now she has found an issue and now the conservative government is firing her to hide the issue. P.S the liberals hired her :) , at least one smart move


Chri
said
0 0

She should have been fired months ago. Glad it's done now though.


Phil
said
0 0

Of all the examples of blatant incompetence by the Conservative Party of Canada, this is the one that most clearly shows ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY. Get them out of office now!!!


Robert, Montreal
said
0 0

To all you who talk about risk management. Its not Keen's job to manage risk. CNSC did not shut down the reactor, AECL did. Keen and CNSC waited while AECL management crumbled under pressure and couldn't get the paperwork in place to allow CNSC to do their part which they were ready to expedite as the record clearly shows. There are strict laws governing nuclear reactor safety that Keen and CNSC are obliged to obey.
The regulator's job is to abide by existing law and not to find creative ways to flout it. Lunn fired Keen simply because she wouldn't break the law and he and AECL management ended up looking like idiots. Well if the shoe fits.....


Paul in B.C.
said
0 0

Shame on Harper and Lunn. Let's call an election and get rid of these hacks once and for all before they completely destroy this country and our reputation. I'm so ashamed of Canada now thanks to the Conservatives.


David B.
said
0 0

Just one more example of politicians scapegoating civil servants. It's Minister Lunn that should go.


Henry Wysmulek
said
0 0

Finally!

Now maybe these arrogant self-serving Civil Servants will realize that the ELECTED Government runs the country.



Frank
said
0 0

Given my 30+ years in manufacturing tells me there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. Given that The AECL allowed those pumps to deteriorate to the point they were not functional tells me there was pure unadulterated negligence on their part. Someone should be held accountable in that organization. The questions remaining are when did the CNSC find out about the problems? Did they issue orders at the time that they found out about the problem? Did the AECL ignore the orders? The questions go on and on. Does the Minister have the right to fire even though I don't agree with him? Yes he does, it is his job to oversee in conflict or negligence. Again I reiterate in this case I do not agree with his decision as there has to be a more extensive investigation and a lot more questions answered. Ms. Keen strikes me according to what I have read as someone who dots her i's and crosses her t's. I see a large lawsuit coming out of this and I believe she will win. But the more pressing issue is the AECL being run by a bunch of incompetents? When it comes right down to it at the end of the day those pumps should never have been neglected. I would first start firing people their before I look at the CNSC.


Ellis
said
0 0

Anyone who operates large industrial complexes will gladly tell you that one of the most unsafe things you can do is operate w/o a back up safety system.

It has been my experience tha even insurance companies will raise a loud cry in this situation.

Certainly the chances are that nothing will happen - but if something does (if you run that way long enough something will) the disaster will be horrendous.


N. Rieck
said
0 0

This reactor was ordered off-line by CNSC because of missing and poor documentation by AECL. There was never a world-wide shortage of medical isotopes; Canada just didn't want to import istopes from other countries so in the end this all comes down to money. It was bad enough when ALL of parliament ordered the reactor back on line but firing this woman is just politically motivated dirty tricks by the Conservatives. Time for a new federal election.


larry
said
0 0

I'm glad she is gone; she was standing in the way of the only solution for a fairly major issue of not having the necessary medical material on hand.

As far as the reactor is concerned; it seems its been below par for a number of years. Usual situation when government (past and present) run anything.

Its also my understanding that the cooling system that is referred in the article is the 2nd back-up, not the primary back-up.


Steve from Gatineau
said
0 0

Linda Keen didn't cause this problem. The nuclear facility is below safety standards. I'm sure she understood the risks from both sides and made a difficult decision. To do so, is her job.That's leadership.

If the ramifications from both options (running the facility and shutting it down)are do dire...then Lunn should be fired, and Harper should be called to the committee for questioning. The government sets priorities and this wasn't on their Conservatives radar until Keen decided to shut it down.

Shelia Fraser for Prime Minister.




sarahk
said
0 0

"Her job was about balancing risk. She didn't. She needs to go."

Ditto!



Tom
said
0 0

Knowing there'll be a great hue and cry from the anti-conservatives and as evidenced by some of the as usuall, meaningless left wing, screaming comments trotted out here, I suspect she needed firing.

She must have if the government was willing to risk the reaction.

And two good points made: 1 She's a bureaucrat not a nuke scientist and 2 the Libs voted to start the reactor up again too.

She needed firing.




J. d'Entremont
said
0 0

How long are they going to keep it running? Until there is a nuclear meltdown, and we have a Chernobyl on our hands. The children in the Ukraine and nearby countries are still suffering.
The isotopes do not cure anyone, they detect problems. How long would the reactor need to be shut down to fix the problem?



Vic
said
0 0

The fact is that AECL put millions of people around the world at risk of not receiving their product as well putting the local community at risk if thier reactors failed and the 'new' government says/does nothing. Keen blows the whistle on them and she gets fired. AECL gets away with flaunting the law. The 'new' government should be turfed on their ear for their incompetence and bumbling!


K. Blake
said
0 0

This kind of action WILL damage the independence of all at arms length commissions who are supposed to operate without political interference. Linda Keen has been fired for doing her job. Mr. Lunn should be fired for NOT doing his job!


Bob Smith
said
0 0

The conservatives are unbelievably petty. I hope she sues their pants off for both wrongful dismissal and slander.

She did her job. The reactor did NOT have a working back-up system.

Harper kicked-and-screamed like a little nanny since the private company running the reactor could not make more profit and that installing a back-up system would hurt their bottom line and bother the share-holders...

The conservatives are incompetent and should not be running this country.


Earl Robert
said
0 0

The House of Commons agreed and voted to start up the reactor. That proves that she demonstrated poor leadership. She is a typical bureaucrat that lacks common sense.


bluenoser123
said
0 0

If she was doing her job, the situation wouldn't have gotten to the point where she closed the plant down. She should have been taking steps much sooner to make the necessary improvements.

I'm sure all people who needed those Isotopes will be supporting this decision.


Davis
said
0 0

She was invisible during the crisis; She took no action months ago upon recieving the auditor generals report; she was called on her inaction and failure to provide leadership - and now she's mad. Get over it folks, its done. Left, right, centre - don't waste any more time or resources on this matter.


Nick J Boragina
said
0 0

All of that is fine and dandy, but why is no one asking the real question here? Why is it up to us to supply the world with all of these isotopes? I say other countries should make thier own - and hence we would not be in this mess in the first place. It's time for them to step up. Surly the great and mighty USA has the technology to do this; if not, Russia will.


J Philippi
said
0 0

Shame on the government.

The president of CNSC was looking out for the nuclear safety of this country.

I hope Lunn is fired over this, and the government falls for blatant incompetence and political interference in the safety of every Canadian


Bob
said
0 0

This is typical Tory heavy handedness. I hope people are starting to learn what the Harper government truely represents. They are totally unaccountable and will scapegoat anyone if they think it will deflect criticm away from their own screw-ups. We have never had such an arrogant bunch of boobs in Ottawa since the days of Mulroney. I hope the Canadian electorate fires all these losers in the next election.


Ted
said
0 0

A few facts would help here. For example:

Fact 1. The qualifications of Ms Keen are highly relevant. She is a career bureaucrat and not an expert on radioactivity. According to previous reports she has an undergraduate degree in biology and has no university specialist training in radioactivity or nuclear safety.

Fact 2. Why was she appointed to the position if she lacked background expertise?


Grim Reaper
said
0 0

Muzzle the messenger. A typical Harper tactic. Must be another "noble necessary endeavour" right Stevie??


John
said
0 0

One can certainly see an anti-conservative bias in many of the posts. I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination and can say she should have been fired a long time of go. She clearly over stepped her bounds and authority and has placed people over the globe at risk. Problems at Chalk River, not a doubt, put in this case the "cure" was much worse than the illness!


Ray Jacques
said
0 0

Many have called it a risk management issue. IT IS NOT. It is squarely a nuclear safety issue. It is very simple, AECL should have complied with the safety directive. People writing-in about this, including Lunn, do not understand that back-up cooling pumps are not just nice to have, they cool the reactor. IF the cooling system fails, meltdown !
A beeter solution might have been to extend the licence just long enought to cover the time it would have taken to instal back-up cooling pumps WITH MONITORING &VERIFICATION that it is being done. Firing someone so qulaified is absurd. HArpwer and his incompetent gang have to go. If they were honourable, realizing that the job is beyond their competence, they would all resign - starting with Harper !


James
said
0 0

I agree that its an ugly situation, with the risk of a meltdown verse the consequences of not keeping the isotopes flowing in to the medical community.

Personally, I think she should have raised the alarms years ago, when underfunding started to create the problems that there is now with the facility. The heavy handed tactics involved in her firing will go against Harper in the next election - if Dion is brave enough to make the point - but the Liberals are also at fault here, because they clearly didn't provide the funding needed to keep the facility in top condition.


Karen in the Peg!
said
0 0

So other than all the political stuff.... Is it fixed now?!? Pardon me for coming across to simply but isn't that the biggest concern we should have?!?

Is it fixed?
If not - when will it be?
Are we in danger if it's running and we don't have it fixed?

I don't care what party you're from or support - or who's fighting and firing...

Is it fixed?!?


Gladis
said
0 0

The Auditor General informed Lunn long time ago about the risk, and he did nothing, Keen is doing her job. Fire Clement and Lunn


andré bérubé
said
0 0

Do you anti-conservative critics seriously believe that the problem began under the Harper government? Time to get real and face facts: it was under a Liberal government that the problem began. The lady had to go.


Mike
said
0 0

Good Fact checking Ted
A few facts would help here. For example:

Fact 2. She was not appointed to the position She had to apply for it.


FreakAlert
said
0 0

In an ideal world, maybe, Parliament should have been located at Chalk River, in one of the nuclear facilities - politicians always work best when self-interest is at stake first and foremost.




Justin McLeod
said
0 0

Hey Stephen and Bob: So I guess the Harper government did us all a favour by ignoring the Safety Commission's insistance that Chalk River install a back-up safety system. How ridiculous for the Safety Commission to insist on a back-up safety system for a nuclear facility...the nerve.


John T
said
0 0

All the Conservative syncophants applauding Keen's dismissal as though she were a crossing guard are ignoring the point.

The work remains to be done. When will be a good time? Later? That sounds safe, doesn't it. I think that is what they said at Chernobyl.

Leave science to scientists. Leave blaming and avoidance of responsibility to the Harper government.


George
said
0 0

The AECL should be the ones accountable for not being able to fix the problem in the required time. It would interesting to see the AECL's reasons that it could not fix the problem, given over a year to do it. Just imagine that an emergency did exist and the backup was not in place, Keen would have been seen as not doing her job. Focus on AECL on why they didn't fix the problem, and that if they knew they could not fix it, that they did not notify the goverment, and their clients of the situation


Stephen M
said
0 0

So are the people who are saying she should be fired believe that it is accepted that if anything goes wrong with the reactor, it will not have the equipment to prevent a nuclear dieaster??!!!! She shut that place down for good reason. And if this "NEW" Government believes that public safety is needed, how about FIXING THE REACTOR and not firing the person that tired to prevent the a melt down!!!!!


Pat_Pending
said
0 0

Let me point out that Keen DID NOT SHUT DOWN THE REACTOR. AECL voluntarily shut down because they could not meet safety requirements. KEEN DID HER JOB, AND DID IT WELL. She did not stop the flow of isotopes. The CONservatives and their incompetence shut down the flow of isotopes.


S. A. Forrest
said
0 0

Ms. Keen's job was NOT to balance the risk of nuclear catastrophe against the risk of an isotope shortage.

Her job has nothing to to with isotopes at all! If AECL wants to sell isotopes, that's their business, not hers.

To use another example: if a car is up for a safety inspection, do we really want the inspector thinking about how badly the driver needs it (e.g. is a taxi driver) while evaluating safety?

Keen's mandate had nothing to do with isotopes, so if isotopes had to be weighed against safety, this had to be done by someone higher up. And it was, by Parliament.

That's fine, but let's not pretend it was somehow Keen's job to have agreed earlier. Especially when there was a history of misrepresentation on the part of AECL here.


JF
said
0 0

This is very clearcut... Harper's Govt. is using Keen as a scapegoat and as a distraction from their own incompetence. They knew about the situation at the Chalk River reactor for many months and did nothing and then were taken completely by surprise by the health crisis that followed after it was shut down. The CNSC is there for a reason,.. to maintain the safety of all nuclear reactors free of political interference and the level of opposition of Canadians to this intrusion by the Harper Govt. will largely determine how far the erosion of democracy will proceed in this country.

In general, this blatent interference by the conservatives of an independent regulartory body used to protect society is symptomatic of the undemocratic leanings of the far right in this country. Harper's cronies are no different from their current masters, the Bush Administration in the US, which will do anything, including ignoring existing laws, to enhance their own executive powers at the expense of democracy. As promoters of unhindered and unregulated capitalism the ultra right wing needs to keep democratic forces, that would restrain and restrict it through regulation and social action, in check. That has always been the case and always will be.




Some Canadian
said
0 0

Most people here aren't separating the CNSC and AECL. The CNSC doesn't run the reactors, AECL does. If anyone should be fired, it's the head of AECL for letting the Chalk River facility become so dilapitated that it HAD to be shutdown so we wouldn't have a meltdown. Ms. Keen and the CNSC did their job trying to protect Canadians from a meltdown (how would have we been able to get isotopes with a reactor meltdown, let alone a temporary shutdown?).
The fact that the PCO (through orders by Mr. Lunn and the PMO, I'm sure) fired Ms. Keen prior to her appearance before the Commons committee is just disgusting and shows a lack of accountability on the part of the gov't and AECL. Heads are rolling, unfortunately, they are the wrong ones. Mr. Lunn and the head of AECL should be fired immediately for their screw-ups. We're just damn lucky that the Chalk River reactor didn't go into meltdown after the reactivation.
Keep fighting the fight Ms. Keen!


Michael
said
0 0

Stopping the reactor immediately put people's lives at risk around the world. In the meantime, the reactor's safety issues have been there for some time and should have been addressed by escalating the issue up the channels and to the media if need be. It appears Ms. Keen's judgment was very poor. She did not put safety first.


BOB from Caledonia
said
0 0

Ms. Keen did her job and did it well. She did not put the lives of those awaiting scans at risk the operators of the Reactor did when they did not bring the Reactor up to safe operating standards. Mr. Lunn and Mr. harper have fired the wrong person. Mr. Lunn should resign today and admit his errors. Mr. harper shoudl accept Mr. Lunn's resignation and tell the Canadian Public that he values their lives and that he will not allow nurclear facilities to operate in an unsafe manner.
Chalk River has been a jewel in Canada's nuclear crown for several decades why has it been alowed to be degraded to the point where it was not safe to be operating. Both Conservtaive and Liberal governments are to blame.
Ms. Keen I thank you for doing your job. I have relatives who live near that reactor and I want them safe.


JP Levesque
said
0 0

I live in Victoria and Lunn is my MP-
I think he shoudl been a man and honest and step down as minister-. He has DONE NOTHING for the people who elected him-
FIRE THEM - this is a HARPER THING !!! SILENCE THEM and they cannot tell the truth ?
SHMAE ON YOU LUNN


Vincent
said
0 0

It is unbelievable that the facts of this case have been so twisted when it is really clear cut. Keen did her job and upheld the regulations and got fired for it. It is not her job to keep on top of the AECL. Thats Lunns job which he failed to do. There is no other way about it.

What was Keen supposed to do? Ignore the fact that Chalk River is a mess and let the continue to operate? And what would happen if there was a nuclear accident that contaminated the area? I don't even think it was in her mandate. If you were Keen, would you ever SUGGEST running the plant against regulations to the government?

Maybe some of you who are saying the risks of keeping the reactor open outweigh the possibility of an accident. I suggest you look into Chernobyl first. Is the risk of generating medical isotopes worth it when it might contaminate the Ottawa valley including our capital? Especially when we could have got isotopes from the EU. If your answer is yes you need to give your head a shake. Would YOU want to live near Chalk River knowing that the plant is running essentially in override mode with no backup cooling?

Stop twisting the facts for partisan reasons for once and lets come together on this issue and do whats nessessary of the safety of Canadians. Ya, it sucks to have to bring in isotopes but we can bring them in from other places until this issue is fixed instead of opening Canada up to a nuclear disaster.

Is that not reasonable?


Jess D
said
0 0

The question that has not been asked is why didn't the former Liberal government inform the public and global medical community back in 2002 when this reactor was due to be decommissioned, and then again in 2005 when they knew that the commissioning of the replacement reactor had been delayed until 2008. It looks like the Liberals have known about this problem for years but didn't tell anyone about it. It should be the Liberals doing the explaining, not the Conservatives.


Gramma
said
0 0

I understand that the Auditor General reported these same problems to the previous Liberal government in 1905. They chose to ignore them so now the present government is expected to take the fall. Wake up!


Al
said
0 0

Let's face it - there are immediately 4 parties to blame here for this terrible situation:

1) AECL - they had known about this problem for a long time and chose the 11th hour to make a regular risk management decision and turn it into an 11th hour political and health crisis debacle.

2) CNSC - again they had known for months that this situation was bubbling and brewing and refused to actually take conscientious step and do something proactive about this situation. Instead, they also waited until there was public outcry and lives were being jeopardized before they did anything, and then chose to take a policital and partisan side on this.

3) The previous Liberal Government and the current Conservative Government - Both these administrations knew for years about the aging facilities at Chalk River and the work needed to get it into a state that doesn't threaten people's lives and chose to do nothing about it. Again all they did was take sides and blame the other instead of stepping-up, taking ownership and doing something that mitigates risk and prevents both a health and nuclear crisis.

All in all, this level of incompetence on the parts of AECL, CNSC, the Liberals and Conservatives is best suited to the type of behaviour you would expect from a special-needs group home!

I say fire them all and clean the slate. If this type of stupidity happened in the private sector, we would all be living in the dark ages!


Jeff
said
0 0

This is pure politics. Both sides likely erred. When errors occur, there seems to be no room for make mistakes. Glad I don't work for these guys.


Darlene
said
0 0

I take exception to all the people insisting she should have 'balanced the risk' and that they think she didn't or was unqualified to decide.

What makes any of YOU qualified to decide that starting up that reactor when it was deemed to be operating unsafely by the nuclear experts is a justifiable risk? Are YOU all nuclear experts? I don't think so. And guess what? Those cancer patients who were at such great risk when isotopes were in short supply - they are still at risk, but now ALL of our family and friends are at tremendous risk, too, if the unthinkable does happen and a nuclear accident occurs. Will you think the risk was so acceptable then?

I agree with the previous poster - "IS IT FIXED YET???"


Sonny in Ontario
said
0 0

Keen got what she deserved and was warned by the Conservatives...

They already fired the head of the AECL, someone they appointed.

NOW it's time for Gary Lunn to get the axe.


V>Sinnott
said
0 0

They both should be fired. Lunn for failure to act as the Minister responsible and Keen for the same failure to act. She's in a political job & should be able to navigate the political waters to accomplish what needs to be done. But Keen deserves thanks for bringing the problem to media attention even if it was a grandstand way.


Matt
said
0 0

Keen should be fired.

She was right to apply pressure to get the changes made, initially.

However when the situation started putting lives at risk, she had to make a decision, and she made the wrong one.


The Minister told her to reconsider. She refused and complained about political interference.

Then Parliament (including the Liberals) overruled her decision, because she was wrong.

If an act of parliament isn't "political interference" what is?

If her judgement was so flawed that parliment was forced to overrule her decision, why would we keep her in that position?

Our elected representatives need to be the ultimate authority on issues affecting our country, not some appointed official. Appointed can't mean unaccountable.


-Brian, in Brantford, ON
said
0 0

For disputes like this one, Lunn and Keen would be better to fight it out in a wrestling match. We are heading back to "caveman culture" with all the wild accusations going on these days, even when it comes to nuclear safety...


DM
said
0 0

I think some people are forgetting a small detail here... AECL's license renewal for Chalk River was issued on August 1, 2006 (Yes, 2006!), with specific assurances that the backup system be operational. Over a year later, CNSC learned that this indeed was NOT the case and the reactor had been operating without the backup system. CNSC did their job by formalizing the requirements prior to re-issuing the license. If AECL hid the fact from CNSC that the systems were not operating, how can we blame CNSC? I think due diligence was followed by CNSC and their decision to shut down the reactor was appropriate under the circumstances. As for a lack of medical isotopes, if the reactor had indeed had a meltdown in the interim, all the isotopes in the world wouldn't cover the increase in cancer cases this would have caused. Did Chernobyl happen so long ago that we have all forgotten the consequences?


J-F (Ottawa)
said
0 0

It's amazing to me how many people post comments withought having read the whole story.

She did exactly what she was supposed to do and what she was asked to do. And for this, she gets fired?!

Wake up people, she is the only one who made the "right" decisions since the very beginning.


PH
said
0 0

The head of AECL already resigned at the end of December.

AECL shut the reactor down for repairs/upgrades. CNSC wouldn't issue the permit to allow it to restart.

There are 8 functional coolant pumps. There are 2 functional emergency backup generators. Only one backup generator was seismically protected. CNSC wanted the second backup generator seismically protected.

Even if all the pumps fail there are other ways to shut down the reactor (inserting control rods to absorb the neutrons and stop the fission). Chance of meltdown - incredibly slim and the presence or absence of a seismically protected backup generator won't change probabilities of a 'meltdown' (because of the emergency shutdown procedures).

Keen (or her people) failed to properly evaluate the risks of a problem vs risks of lost isotope production.

She should have resigned. She should be fired.


don
said
0 0

The taxpayers paid her good money to oversee the agency/plant and she should have fixed the problem before she made it an issue. She shouldn't play stupid and blame the problem on her boss!


Bob from Caledonia
said
0 0

She showed leadership in not allowing an unsafe reactor to operate. Of course she showed leadership and she was fully aware of the work done by that reactor.
Lunn did not, has not and apparently cannot show leadership.
Shame on Mr. Harper for allowing Ms. Keen to fired for doing her job.
Shame on Mr. Lunn for not doing his and ensuring that the Chalk River recator was operating safe.
Shame on both Conservative and Liberal governments for allowing the Chalk River reactor to have fallen behind in safe nuclear operations.


Jesse C
said
0 0

There is always a discrepancy between the facts in the case and what is public knowledge. What does concern me is that Keen did show 'leadership' though it wasn't what the government wanted. So it's not really about leadership, it's that Keen didn't do as she was told. I wonder, would Harper have fired Marc Mayrand over the veil issue if he could have? I guess the firings will continue until the morale improves. Interesting 'leadership'!


Gail
said
0 0

These us against them comments are ridiculous. Heads of crown corporations being appointed/hired by political parties will always be a cause for concern. Why did AECL have to wait to be told what to do? Why did the CNSC take action now? Both failed to do their jobs much earlier. I have to believe there must be someone in the nuclear industry that could do these important jobs better than political appointees/candidates. Blaming politicians when they do take corrective action is typical hype.


Keith
said
0 0

It was a backup to the backup for the cooling pumps that was not there.
Why and for what reason was this not noticed for 17 months.
Was anyone at the CNSC doing there job?
It ran for 17 months without any problems then on a whim it has to shut down completly!


Vic
said
0 0

Lund said Keen's actions were troubling and that she didn't meet the high standards of the government or the Canadian people. I say Lund's comments are troubling because they don't meet the high standards that this government SHOULD HAVE and most certainly don't meet the standards that the Canadian people have a right to expect of this government!! Mr. Lund, do the honourable thing and resign...




David A. Cooke
said
0 0

Anyone who knows anything about Ottawa will tell you that Ms. Keen was chosen for the position because she was one of the most competent members of the civil service. She was uniquely qualified to fullfill her duties and did so with integrity and honour.
Once again we see a far too partisan, extremely heavy-handed government dragging the good name of a top bureaucrat through the mud. This firing, public and shameful as it was should serve as a message to all public servants that no job is safe if they interfere with the reputations of their incompetent political overlords in this wretched and mean spirited conservative government.


Wendy
said
0 0

People. Stop and think about what you are saying.

You are saying that producing radioisotopes to assist in diagnosing cancer is more important than the health and safety of the population and environment. Did Chernobyl not teach us anything? You are saying that we should be reactive instead of proactive. OOOPPS. Meltdown occurs and you think that that will be the time to fix the problem. There won't be anything left to fix. You are saying that we should worry more about not having radioisotypes for a month than the needless deaths of thousands and the desecration of our environment.

I know a lot of you who have commented have no idea what each of these organizations - AECL and CNSC do. Do your homework.

AECL is a crown corporation whose sole mandate is profits. Go onto their website at www.sps05.aecl.ca and read their mission, vision and values statements. Talk about conflict. AECL's 2nd Value statement reads...Obsessed by Quality, Excellence and Safety. Their 3rd value statement is....personally responsible and accountable. It is time they are forced to live up to these statements.


CNSC is a regulatory body who regulates Nuclear Safety in Canada. ...regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety and security and the environment... They did what they are supposed to do and look what happened. It is not up to them to get the funds to fix facilities. It is up to them to ensure that the regulations set in place are being carried out. Visit their website at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca.

You all seem to think that you must be an expert in the field in order to hold positions like Linda's. Common sense dictates that Nuclear Reactors are dangerous and common sense dictates that if your reactor or facility is substandard, then it must be brought up to snuff.

As for Linda Keen's qualifications, she has more qualifications to hold her position than Mr. Lunn does to hold his.........look at Mr. Lunn's. He is a lawyer. What does he know about Natural Resources. How does being a lawyer qualify him to head the country's natural resources.

Amy
said
0 0

To everyone who is upset that Keen put people's life at risk due to the isotope shortage - are none of you concerned that the reactor had been operating for 17 months with out a backup power system for cooling pumps? Does that not put even more people's lives at risk? And aren't you concerned that no one seems to know if it's been fixed?


S. Sutherland
said
0 0

AECL's job is to operate plants safely.

The regulator's job is to force AECL to recognize international safety standards, taking into account human error and environmental risks.

The job of the Government is to fund the mandate that has been given to nuclear plants run and regulated under the jurisdiction of the Federal Crown.
AECL suffers what is called an "unfunded mandate" that comes to public attention only when safety needs conflict with production requirements. Linda Keen does AECL a service in bringing this to the attention of Canadians and Americans whose lives would be endangered by a nuclear accident. If goverments operate nuclear facilities, they have a duty to maintain them - to fund them properly.

Linda Keen has no purse where she can find the billions that should have been spent on mantaining the plant over the last many years. If not now, when can the plant be updated? Politicians do not serve citizens well when they start a bar-room fight instead of examining long-term weaknesses in safety provisions that only money and attention can correct. They seem to believe we in Ontario would prefer a nuclear accident or to push an accident onto future generations than pay one percent more in GST. Calling the various actors of the time "twits" would not change the sequels of the Chernobyl accident. And it serves no purpose here.


Kevin Dallaire
said
0 0

Reading what I can it goes like this:
1)Chalk River's safety systems were not allowed to disintegrate, rather in 2005 they were required to be modernized to international standards.
2)CNSC renews the license on the conditions that Chalk River make 7 safety upgrades.
3)Chalk River informs CNSC that all 7 upgrades are complete.
4)During ROUTINE site audits during a scheduled regualar maintenance, CNSC discovers one of the 7 systems is not actually completed.
5)Chalk River's Chief Nuclear Officer is informed by CNSC that it is operating outside its license.
6)Chalk River's CNO keeps the reactor shutdown because to operate outside the license is an indictable offense. He has no choice but to follow the law.

Then we get into who knew what, and when, etc.

Leave politics out of it. Linda Keen may have been appointed during a Liberal government, however, she had to apply for the position through the PSC with all of the procedures (job competition, interviews, etc). She was deemed the best candidate at the time. One does not need to be an expert in every subject matter in order to effectively run an organization. Management skills are a different set of skills than technical ones. Managers need to rely on the technical advise of their staff who do have the expertise.

Nor do I believe that the AECL Chief Nuclear Office deliberately misled the CNSC about the status of its Emergency backups.

Somewhere along the line the breakdown is in the VERIFICATION PROCESS on the actions required under the license. Someone would have informed the CNO at Chalk River that all was good, probably a lower level employee.

Looks to me like all the big players are really not to blame. The real issue is a CORRECTIVE ACTION system that doesn't do adequate verification.

Finally, if one reads the Hansard transcripts from the emergency debate you will see that Chalk River is still safer than it was before the shutdown. Maybe not where it needs to be. Risk is low, but not zero. I think all members of all parties were in agreement and the debate was responsible and for the most part non-partisan.

Keen shouldn't have been fired over this particular issue. Perhaps other performance indicators maybe, but this one will probably stand up if it goes to court as it probably will. As someone said, she dots her "i's" and crosses her "t's". And I'm sure she has a great case. Should be interesting to watch that one.


Doug Rutherford
said
0 0

This has, or shouldn't have, anything to do with production of isotopes. The CSNC's job is to ensure the safe operation of the reactors within Canada.

The reactor at Chalk River was running without a second backup pump required as one of the conditions of its license. This is the only item of any relevance in the manner and the CNSC did its job by not overriding the license requirements.

Nuclear safety is of far more importance than isotope production, and this is true even if there were deaths from the failure the produce them. A loss of coolant accident at Chalk River would be the equivalent of Chernobyl in soutern Ontario. Sadly, our elected representatives have no appreciation of junior high school physics and are more willing to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to millions of Canadians to sell isotopes abroad.

Could we please collectively agree to elect people whose IQ is greater than their shoe size next time?


Jim Lad
said
0 0

Boy! She kept going at this one until firing her was the only sensible option.
This woman played politics with her position.
She took a passive aggressive course and showed absolutely no understanding or compassion towards those who rely on nuclear medicine as a last hope.
Once in a while, an individual with a serious character flaw manages to make it all the way to the top before the flaw is discovered.
Now that the cat is out of the bag, I think you will find, Ms. Keen has ruffled more than a few feathers on her way up.


Eric
said
0 0

I read alot of posts on this website and this has got to be the least informed group of posters that I have seen yet. A couple of things, (1) the reactor was shut down for regular maintenance, it was supposed to be closed for 1 week. The the CNSC would not let it restart until the SECONDARY BACK-UPS ,set to activate during earthquakes, were installed. This system could run on only one pump and one pump already had that SECONDARY BACK-UP in place. The other 2 pumps do need the SECONDARY BACK-UP but that was no reason to shut the reactor down indefintly. The regulations requiring this SECONDARY BACK-UP is a rather new one and so the reasons they were not there wasn't because they were broken or neglected but because the CNSC did say that they needed them until recently. (2)Ms. Keen was fired for going public with the letter from Mr. Lunn and using the CNSC website to fight a public realtions war with the minister. Yes Mr. Lunn sent her a letter telling her to get her act togather, but he didn't send it to all the media outlets. (3) Chernobyl ... REALLY? fearmongering at its best. The Chernobyl accident was caused by human error not the lack of seismic activated back-up.
If you want to conservative bash you should probably bark up another tree because there is nothing up this one.


bob
said
0 0

You can't argue the fact that the lack of isotopes put people at risk. However it is not Keen's job to take that into account. Her concern is the facility meeting the legal requirements to operate.

If a water treatment plant is not operating to standards the engineer in charge does not take into account to inconvenience caused to the population when they make a decision to post a boil water advisory.

I would like to hear what the plan is to get the facility to meet operating standards.

In my opinion the blame rests on governments past and present, and on AESL.

By ordering the plant shut down the CNSC washed their hands of any possible liability. By allowing the plant to operate the government has accepted it.


JJ
said
0 0

The House committee should invite the opposition leaders and ask them why they vote with the Conservative to re-open the reactor


David from NS
said
0 0

I agree with firing this person, she certainly did put lives at risk and in my opinion showed a severe lack of leadership. I would also like to know who is responsible for this plant running without the backup cooling system it needed for 17 months?


Rob St. Onge
said
0 0

Do we honestly think any government controlled agency would be competent enough to handle something as dangerous as Nuclear Power?
Tories, Liberals or even the Rhino Party - only a matter of time before a disaster strikes and then we can start some REAL endless finger pointing with no accountability.


Richard
said
0 0

Lunn said that the closure was for parts that are needed for a once-in-50,000 years seismic incident. I don't know much about nuclear reactors, but I do know that if your cooling system goes down due to a power failure from any cause, you can be just minutes or even seconds away from a catastrophic disaster (read meltdown). The plant has already operated without an emergency backup cooling system for 17 months. (That thought really scares me.)That is why Keen shut the plant down. It is the non-nuclear expert Mr. Lunn who is clearly the unqualified party here. He is the one who should lose his job.


Len of Calgary
said
0 0

I personally believe we need to have a nuclear north american counsel to oversee and operate all nuclear power plants in north america period. That all governments in north america support the north american nuclear counsel for any legislation and goverance the north american counsel requires etc. No more of this independant do what you want crap, far to many safe guards need to be controlled and maintained for all nuclear power plants north american wide.


Nobody
said
0 0

For those who keep referring to Chernobyl, (although a terrible accident), as the reason for not restarting the Chalk River nuclear plant: I would suggest that you do some research on the actual events that lead up to that nuclear accident, as well as the differences in the RBMK (Chernobyl), and NRU (Chalk River) reactor designs.

Fact: The flaw in the RBMK reactor that lead to the Chernobyl accident does not exist in any other reactor design in the world.

Now on to politics...

As far as blame goes, this has been an issue in the making over the last decade (at the least), and at the fault of both the Liberals and Conservatives. The writing was on the wall, and *both* governments chose to ignore it.

As a side note - Perhaps if the AECL hadn't been so underfunded, the Maple 1 and Maple 2 reactors could have been online by now, and this entire debacle could have been a non issue as the NRU reactor would have been decomissioned already.



Austin
said
0 0

Sorry, there was no health crisis averted. That is complete and utter rubbish. No one was going to die from the lack of isotopes (which are used primarily for diagnostics and not treatment).

Lies all of it. Propaganda by the CPC to justify their complete incompetence. And the Liberals under Ignatieff's watch didn't want to drop the perceived political hot-potato.

And everyone falls for it. Pathetic. Ever wonder why the USSR lasted as long as it did? Because the population did not question the propaganda issued through the media.


Sarah C.
said
0 0

Let's look at exactly what happened here: The Government of Canada fired someone for doing their job properly, because it made them look bad. That is the government in power in this country. All they care about is propagating their own power. They certainly don't care about cancer patients any more than they care about the thousand and thousands of people who would be affected if Chalk River had a nuclear meltdown. Is it going to take a disaster on the level of Chernobyl to make people see that nuclear safety can't be flouted because the government - who were informed about the problems at Chalk River long before the incident got to the point of being a crisis - are a bunch of self-serving weasels? The only thing that makes me more sick than watching Steve Harper's government at work is finding out that there are people in this country who actually believe ANYTHING he tells us. He doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about cancer patients. Harper cares about Harper and - more specifically - about Harper getting a majority government, regardless of which competent public officials he has to fire and regardless of how much that puts the Canadian public at risk.


Denis P
said
0 0

Keen should have been fired weeks ago. She just didn't take this seriously enough. She should have brought this to the attention of the Commission in a timely manner.
Typical bureaucratic foot dragging, leading to parliament having to pass emergency legislation to re-start the reactor.
That pretty much says it all.


Canadian Eh!
said
0 0

I am not going to make a comment about the decisions that were made as we seem to run in circles on these topics...i just have one question...

Since when did the worlds health issues become Canada's responsiblitly????

Personally Canadian Safety comes first..no matter how minor...a meltdown is serious enough that the shutdown should CONTINUE until the safety issues are resolved....


Gerald
said
0 0

When faced with creating a shortage of isotopes for cancer treatment and a nuclear meltdown, which one would any reasonable person choose? It’s easy to sympathize with all the unfortunate cancer victims, because they are a real people. However, if you knew that reactivating the reactor would absolutely cause a meltdown, would you still do it? I believe that when you’re dealing with nuclear safety, even a small chance of a meltdown should be taken extremely seriously. I think Keen should be applauded for her decision; most people would cower under the pressure of a tyrannical government. Meanwhile, I’ll keep my fingers crossed and pray that nothing happens in Chalk River.


Peter
said
0 0

I find the reactor's management at fault for not providing the necessary backup cooling system for the pumps, and for not advising the CNSC about it. The CNSC in turn should have reacted urgently to the problem.


Swine Warrior
said
0 0

Thanks to Kevin Dallaire for his factual writings and corresponding comments on this article. This is the type of stuff that this article should have focused on. Thanks again for the comprehensive and correct facts (plus editorial comment) that you have added. Cheers!


Andre
said
0 0

Kevin Dallaire, you should be a journalist, what a clear, concise an non partisan piece...I agree with you 100%



Mike Potter
said
0 0

Lunn should be fired. This problem took time to develop and it was his job to know that Chalk River was breaking safety rules


MHR
said
0 0

Have anyone noticed that current Harper government tends to call everybody else who doesn't fit into their agenda lacking of leadership. Hmmm? Anyone remember their football halftime attack ads?

Hmm?


ance
said
0 0

she was the head of the body whose responsibility it is to oversee nuclear safety...

when the reactor in question proved unsafe this body ordered it to remain shut down...

where in this did she fail?



GG
said
0 0

I dont know all the information and I am sure not any of us who have commented on here do as well.. but it appears that many are at fault. First of all why would AECL put people at risk by not having their reactors back ups ready, as per the regulations. The regulator only enforces the regulations. I would say that AECL has a lot of answering to do about their actions or lack thereof. We hear about lack of finances as a reason. Well AECL are the operators and are fully responsible for the safe operation of that facility. I am very uneasy about any nuclear facilities in Canada including any new reactors that are being considered. I would like to know more about what communications the regulator had with AECL regarding the deficiencies and what the options were. The government had a duty to step in and resolve any conflicts between the regulator and the operator. That being said, I think Lunn's actions are appalling. Furthermore he was privy to the problems months before and chose to ignore the conflict. I can see why Harper has to keep his people in check. They are all incompetent.

Evan R
said
0 0

Hi All,

This was bad business practice, the reactor shut down was due to back, to the back up systems. None of the hardware for the system was onsite, ready for connection, so construction was not even started yet for the backup system meaning that upgrades would have taken 6 months to complete. This equals 8 months of reactor shut down (taking into account for construction delays) for a system designed for earthquake zones which the ground has never moved in Ontario. So in my expert opinion restart reactor, build backup system have in place, test it, then shut the reactor down again for a 'Shorter' period of time connect the lines, then boot the system back up. How simple and less intrusive is this procedure for every one that relies on that reactor? Does any one see this?


Dan Rudka
said
0 0

Dismissing Lynda Keen maybe the right thing to do, but presently for the wrong reasons. However to keep her on, obviously disgruntled, as a full- time permanent member of the Commission? This may be a decision causing more problems within the CNSC. Something the people can do without.
Dan
Port Hope, Ontario


Ottawa Valley resident.
said
0 0

The NRU reactor at AECL, Chalk River has been refurbished and maintained over its 50 year life. It continues to perform its function and is a safe reactor. The medical isotope production is just one of the jobs it performs. Industry uses this reactor for metal research as well. The CNSC knew the additional cooling pump was not installed when they renewed the NRU license. The reactor has safety functions over safety functions and this cooling pump is supposed to cool the reactor in the event of the 100 year earthquake in this area. It is obvious a lot of the posters here haven't a clue about AECL or have been anywhere near the facility. Visit it when next you pass through our Ottawa Valley. It would be a learning experience for you.


Glenn from kelowna
said
0 0

This kind of firing is going to be a great thing for Keen. By the time she is done with the wrongful dismissal suit, we the tax payer will keep her cash happy for years to come. Smoth move Lunn.


Wendy
said
0 0

When I mentioned Chernobyl, it was not about what caused the incident but that there was an incident. An incident that killed and injured and is still killing and injuring.

I should have clarified my statement. Chernobyl comes to mind because that is the most recent one.

We are dealing with Nuclear Energy here and a situation that could become very dangerous if actions aren't taken.


M.E. Archer
said
0 0

I'm registering my support for Keen. My understanding is that her agency alerted the government and the company running the reactor about the problem long before they were shut down. Why didn't the appropriate parties take the appropriate action back when they should have. Who is really responsible for this fiasco? The buck should stop at Lunn's desk!


Chris - Pickering
said
0 0

Keen' job is to ensure that nuclear activities in Canada abide by the regulations set out by the CNSC. AECL knew the requirements for operating the reactor and chose to ignore them. The CNSC and Lina Keen would have been negligent had they let the reactor start up. The fact is that the government overstepped its bounds when it superceded the decision of the CNSC to not allow the Chalk River reactor to start up. I work in the nuclear industry and it is an industry best practice to make conversative decisions regarding our use of nuclear technology. The CNSC has no responsibility whatsoever to ensure production of medical isotopes but to ensure Canadians safety. I applaud Linda Keen and thank her for doing such a good job; shame on the politicians who went over her head and endangered us all!


DW
said
0 0

Look the Liberals stalled on this exact issue for YEARS!
It seems like the Liberal-appointee Keen was trying to damage the present government in what seems to be another case of a politically partisan Liberal putting the Liberal Party's interests ahead of the lives of not only Canadians but in this case people from around the world!
There are TWO backups emergency systems present ...the debate and stalling was about having a THIRD backup system balanced against the desperate needs od the sick and dying globally.
THAT is a no brainer...MAKE THE ISOTOPES.


tony
said
0 0

Linda J. Keen was fired for doing her job.


Carrie
said
0 0

Sorry if this has already been stated, but there *IS* a backup system. Of course there is. The issue is a backup power system to a backup pump. A backup to a backup, you could call it. The only time this system would be called into action would be in the event of all of the following:
1) an earthquake, centred under or appropriately near Chalk river
2) backup power fails to the cooling pumps
3) secondary backup pumps fail,
and most importantly 4) there would be a Loss Of Coolant Accident within the reactor.
Looking at these options most people would agree, the risk and probability of this happening is extrememly low.

Keen did not fully appreciate her role in evaluating the full risk in shutting down the reactor. She put the lives of thousands of people at risk in favour of paperwork, and doing things "by the book", which she is infamous for.
That being said, Lunn completely overstepped his bounds by firing Keen. He completely overstepped his bounds by even writing a letter to Keen. Both parties are at fault. These people should grow up and keep politics out of medicine and science.


Deb
said
0 0

Gary Lunn's handling of this is an embarrassment and I don't think calls for his resignation are out of line. However, that raises the question of who would replace him, as this is the weakest cabinet in memory.


Élie
said
0 0

Is there something deeper than political interference here? Conservatives hate government regulation. Even more do they hate government-run business.

Is there a scheme here to bring about the privatization of the nuclear industry by confusing the regulatory framework to the point they can justify a total reorganization along the ideological lines they favour, in a period when climate change factors will become increasingly important?

Surely they must understand the risks to their image, just before a possible election, of interfering with such vindictiveness in a situation where convention demands governments accept the rulings of independent tribunals, however inexpedient. The minister got a parliamentary over-rule. He did not need to follow up with a vendetta against Ms. Keen, and I find it hard to see the PMO allowing such a transparent example of government intimidation going ahead, without some calculation of eventual political advantage accruing to the Conservatives.


mario
said
0 0

People seem to forget that it's not her job to worry about isotopes being used for medical diagnosis. Her job is to ensure that the AECL is compliant with the rules and reg. Everything else is someone else's job not hers. We don't tell the Police to put out fires we shouldn't be telling her to do someone else's job.


Pat_Pending
said
0 0

Lund is in charge of this show and as such did the only reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.

Keen doesn't have the luxury to do as she pleases and must be held accountable.


Ken
said
0 0

First of all the reactor at Chalk River is NOT a power reactor it is a research reactor that also produces medical Isotopes. The reason why many countries do not produce their own is because they do not have the technology. The producing of medical Isotopes started at Chalk River in the NRU reactor. The half-life of the Isotope makes a big difference in were they are produced before they are processed.

I would wish people would understand to whole topic before commenting but I guess that impossible. The system in question on two of the eight cooling pumps was a back up to a back up emergency power supply in case of an earthquake. This system has not been in place for the life of the reactor till know, there can not be an Chernobyl accident with this style of reactor, that is just fear mongering and stupid comment by someone that doesn’t have any knowledge!

She (Mrs. Keen) had to go, she was willing to risk the lives of people who needed this Isotopes to survive. How would you feel if you or you new someone that needed this isotopes but could get them because of her decision? I agree someone at A.E.C.L. should also be held accountable for dragging this on. I’m sure they will. This problem did not start with the Harper government, look at the Auditor General report date 2002, oh yes that was a Liberal government. The Harper government has ordered a review of the company. Lets wait and see what comes of that people. I’m sure past Liberal Prime Minister’s would have acted the same, well maybe not Martin (Mr. Dithers).



Mark
said
0 0

I think the record of what transpired regarding this event will show that both the AECL was operating illegally without a backup power capability and that Lunn and the rest of his cronies in government were aware of it and did nothing. At some point the Commission had to issue a shut down order to get their attention. It's both the government and the Crown Corps fault for not complying with the government's own rules and putting Canadian's health and well being at risk. Lunn should have provided funds so AECL could get the work done and he should have insisted that they do it. AECL failed to follow the rules and that is why they couldn't produce the medical isotopes. It was never Keen's responsibility, so to both blame and fire her casts a pall over every federal quasi-judicial tribunal in the country. The same tribunals that are there to protect the interests of Canadians. Shame on the Conservative hypocrites and cowards. Lunn should resign if he had any kind of integrity as an honourable man.


Matt
said
0 0

Richard,
It was't a backup cooling system, it was the second backup earthquake resistant cooling system.
Pretty unlikely.


Bob Robertson
said
0 0

Typical of this government's high-handed behaviour.


DougD
said
0 0

Linda Keen took a private letter and turned it into a very public dispute with her boss...and got fired for it.

What Ms. Keen did is commonly called suicide by cop.







Andrew
said
0 0

She didn't put anybody's lives or health at risk but shutting down the reactor, she was following her mandate to protect Canadians from nuclear accidents. The management of the reactor put lives at risk by not following the rules. They risked a nuclear accident and having the reactor shut down. The fact that the house of commons reversed her order doesn't mean she was wrong, the only option she had was to shut it down. A higher level of authority (the house of commons) was required to overrule the guidelines she operated by.
As far as I understand her agency is not allowed to look at what the reactor is producing, just if it is safe or not, which it wasn't.
Lunn should be fired and she should be re-instated.


Brett
said
0 0

Did anyone bother to read the Government press release? She was demoted, not fired. She still works as part of CNSC.

http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372379&categoryid=1&category=News+Releases


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz