Report AECL-10768
1993 February
2.1 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1976 (Sir Brian Flowers)
2.2 The Windscale Inquiry, 1978 (Mr. Justice Parker)
2.3 The Sizewell Inquiry, 1983 (Sir Frank Layfield, Q.C.)
3.1 Ford-MITRE's Issues and Choices, 1977 (Dr. S.M. Keeny)
3.2 Workshop on Alternative Energy Systems, 1977 (Dr. C.L. Wilson)
3.3 Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems, 1979 (Drs. H. Brooks and E.L. Ginzton)
4.1 The Ranger Uranium Mining Environmental Inquiry, 1976 (Mr. Justice Fox)
4.2 Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, 1984 (Professor R.O. Slayter)
5.1 Nuclear Power Generation in New Zealand, 1978 (Sir Thaddeus McCarthy)
6.1 International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, 1980
6.2 World Energy Council,1989
7.1 Parliamentary Committee on Operations of the Atomic Energy Control Board, 1949 (Mr. G.J. McIlraith, M.P.)
7.2 Parliamentary Committee on the Operations of the Government in the Field of Atomic Energy, 1953 (Mr. G.J. McIlraith, M.P.)
7.3 Parliamentary Committee on Research, 1956 (Mr. G.J. McIlraith, M.P.)
7.4 Parliamentary Committee on Research, 1960 (Mr. J.W. Murphy, M.P.)
7.5 Parliamentary Committee on Research, 1961 (Mn J.W. Murphy, M.P.)
7.6 Ontario Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in the Mines, 1976 (Dr. J.M. Ham)
7.7 The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes, 1977 (Dr. F.K. Hare)
7.8 Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry, 1978 (Mr. Justice Bayda)
7.9 Parliamentary Inquiry into Radioactive Waste, 1978 (Mr. F. Leblanc, M.P.)
7.10 Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, 1978/80 (Dr. A. Porter)
7.11 Quebec Legislature Hearings into Les Politiques Energetiques du Quebec, 1978 (M. Patrie Laplante)
7.12 Ontario Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, 1980 (Mr. D.C. McDonald, M.P.P.)
7.13 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Health and Environmental Protection in Uranium Mining in British Columbia, 1980 (Dr. D.V. Bates)
7.14 Nova Scotia Uranium Inquiry, 1985 (Mr. Justice McLeave)
7.15 Interfaith Program for Public Awareness of Nuclear Issues, 1985 (Ms. C. Hosek, Mr. L. Henderson, Dr. H. Adelman)
7.16 Ontario Select Committee on Energy (Darlington), 1985 (Mr. P.W. Andrewes, M.P.P.)
7.17 Ontario Nuclear Safety Review, 1988 (Dr. F.K. Hare)
7.18 High-Level Radioactive Waste in Canada: The Eleventh Hour, 1988 (Mr. R. Brisco, M.P.)
7.19 Nuclear Energy: Unmasking the Mystery, 1988 (Mrs. B. Sparrow, M.P.)
7.20 Energy and Canadians into the 21st Century, 1988 (Mr. T.E. Kierans)
7.21 Ontario Nuclear Cost Inquiry, 1989 (Mr. R.F. Brooks)
The first and most obvious conclusion from this review is that nationally and internationally there have been many - more than thirty - inquires relevant to nuclear energy. The second is that, while some inquiries have been broad in scope and others have treated only a single topic, between them all conceivable topics have been covered. These include not only technical topics such as reactor safety, but also ethics.
Several of the resulting reports make recommendations to improve the current situation, often with regard to maintaining or improving the safety record; some conclude that nuclear energy is not yet needed in a national energy program; and one recommended a moratorium on new nuclear power plants in Canada pending agreement on waste disposal. However, the most striking observation is that none rejects nuclear energy, when needed and under stipulated conditions.
The inquiries reviewed cover a wide spectrum of styles, from parliamentary committees, through royal commissions and a self-appointed religious organization, to major international studies. A comparison produces some interesting conclusions, subject to the usual reservations regarding generalizations. An inquiry presided over by a jurist is judicial in style, with the jurist making a clear judgment of the issue based on the evidence presented. An inquiry composed largely of academics tends to be more "two-handed (on the one hand this, on the other hand that)", providing many statements to be quoted selectively by proponents and critics. The more individuals that are involved in the inquiry, the less clear-cut are the conclusions. An international inquiry, representing many diverse national policies, can only reach general conclusions to achieve political consensus. The most useful reports, and those of longest lasting value, are those that analyze the arguments, render judgments and provide reasons for the judgments.
The duration of the inquiries varied widely. Here the conclusion is simply that there is no free lunch. To do justice to these topics takes many months, up to a few years, even for the approval of a specific plant.
The review provides illustrations of some useful techniques for conducting an inquiry. Several inquiries have held preliminary, relatively informal, hearings to help them establish the scope of the review. Some have at the start translated their general terms of reference into precise questions that were later answered in the conclusions of the final report. Mr. Justice Parker (Windscale Inquiry, Section 2.2) required participants to conduct specific tests to resolve differences of fact that arose during the inquiry. The integrity of the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review (Section 7.17) was enhanced by two independent review panels, appointed by the Royal Society of Canada. Some of the international and U.S. inquiries with very large membership have used the technique of multiple scenarios to avoid the necessity of achieving consensus in predicting supply and demand, or in recommending politically divisive policies.
A final conclusion is that, contrary to critics' claims, nuclear energy in Canada has been subject to Parliamentary review from the start. It has received some criticism from time to time, but has benefited from consistent government support for over four decades.
| Go to Contents of Publications |