Nuclear Regulation - The Canadian Approach

INTRODUCTION "Most people would probably agree that some degree of government control and regulation is essential in modern society, and it will likely continue as an important part of our social organization for the foreseeable future. But most of us tend to be ambivalent about it. In one situation or another we are likely to see government commitment to social benefit programs or regulatory devices either as an expanding encroachment on the freedom of the individual or as an undue interference with private enterprise or with the rules of the market place. But even where there is agreement as to the desirability of government initiatives, either in general or in a particular context, it by no means follows that there will be approval of the mechanisms or procedures used or the means of carrying them out." The above statement is taken from a 1980 Working Paper of the Law Reform Commission of Canada prepared in connection with its study of the exercise of administrative law in Canada and the practices and procedures of administrative tribunals. The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) is one such administrative tribunal, and as the federal nuclear regulatory authority, it is responsible for licensing the production, possession and use of nuclear materials, equipment and facilities and enforcing compliance with licence conditions governing the health, safety, security and environmental aspects of the activities involved. Although the AECB was established 35 years ago with the passage in August 1946 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, like many administrative tribunals its role and functions and the regulatory process which it applies have evolved significantly during this period. The changes which have taken place over the years reflect not only the vast scientific and technological developments which have occurred but also the marked differences between contemporary society and the social milieu of the mid-1940s. However, the basic philosophy of nuclear regulation in Canada and the underlying principles of the regulatory process have changed very little. Certainly, the process is far more open in terms of the general public, it has become appreciably more comprehensive and systematic in terms of the depth and extent of both the pre- and post-licensing technical evaluations which are conducted and the ensuing compliance program. Furthermore, it now applies to the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as the industrial, agricultural and medical applications of radionuclides. Nevertheless the following fundamental principles remain unchanged: a. primary responsibility for achieving high standards of nuclear safety and environmental protection in the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear facilities resides with the licensee; b. the credibility of the nuclear regulatory process depends not only upon its technical correctness and practicability, but also upon acceptance by the public-at-large of its perceived effectiveness and efficiency; c. regulatory criteria and principles should be concise, clearly stated and understandable; d. regulatory decision-making should be based upon stated criteria and principles taking into account pertinent scientific and technical facts only; e. fairness and impartiality must characterize all regulatory decision-making; f. the regulatory process should be subject to a comprehensive periodic review and evaluation to ensure that it continues to produce the desired results at justified costs. EXPLANATORY NOTES The mere statement of a set of principles is a relatively simple task. Far more difficult is the explanation of what these principles mean in practical terms. To stipulate that a licensee bears the primary responsibility for achieving and maintaining high standards of nuclear safety and environmental protection may be regarded by some as an attempt by the regulatory agency to evade the responsibilities assigned to it. However, this is not the case. It is unrealistic for anyone to claim that a licensee only complies with accepted norms of public and occupational health and safety and of environmental protection because of the fear of prosecution. The vast majority of citizens conduct their affairs in a proper manner not because there