Media Centre

News Flash

The Globe and Mail

December 19, 2007

ALAN FREEMAN

Nuclear chief blasts 'clumsy' management of isotope crisis

OTTAWA The former chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. lashed out yesterday at attempts to blame him for the Chalk River nuclear reactor controversy, calling the Harper government's handling of his resignation "a clumsy piece of political opportunism." Michael Burns told The Globe and Mail he submitted his resignation as chair of the Crown corporation on Nov. 29, before the medical isotope crisis stemming from the Chalk River shutdown became public.

His departure was announced last Friday with no explanation, but was soon linked by a key cabinet minister to the Chalk River situation.

"I was quite taken aback two weeks later when I heard my resignation had been accepted by the Prime Minister in the midst of the crisis," Mr. Burns said.

Health Minister Tony Clement has since connected leadership changes at AECL, including the replacement of Mr. Burns, a Vancouver energy executive and onetime Tory fundraiser, as well as the appointment of a new CEO, with the need to give the organization better management.

"Well, maybe they do [need better management]," Mr. Burns shot back. "But this is a clumsy piece of political opportunism. If they're going to do it, they could do it with a little more skill." Asked whether he felt treated unfairly, he responded: "What's unfair in politics? I just know that the facts won't support it.

I was gone for a totally different set of reasons. They dragged this resignation out and attached it to the isotope situation. .

. . They could have taken more care." Mr. Burns said he submitted his resignation, which becomes effective on Dec. 31, after a little over a year in the job because of delays in getting a series of proposed reforms instituted at the Crown corporation. He would not elaborate on the nature of the reforms.

He also acknowledges he had become "a bit of a burr under the saddle." "There were a number of initiatives that I got started and was waiting [for them] to happen," he said. "And next year looked as if there was just going to be more waiting. Anybody who knows me knows that I don't wait well. My view was that I had done all I could. . . . Nobody asked me to leave but nobody begged me to stay, either.

"When I resigned, there was no isotope crisis," Mr. Burns said.

He submitted his resignation on Nov. 29 and said that it was accepted by Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn on Dec. 7.

In a wide-ranging interview, Mr. Burns, who heads a Vancouver wind-energy firm, said the "dysfunctional relationship" between AECL and the nuclear regulator was "an accident waiting to happen" but he insisted that at no time was there a risk to public safety requiring the reactor to shut down for a prolonged period.

Mr. Burns also took issue with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attack on Linda Keen, chair of the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which ordered the Chalk River reactor to extend a routine maintenance shutdown in order to install additional safety equipment, provoking the isotope shortage. Emergency legislation was passed by Parliament last week overriding the regulator and forcing the reactor to restart.

Mr. Harper labelled Ms. Keen, a career public servant, as a Liberal appointee who put the lives of Canadians in danger by cutting off the supply of isotopes.

Asked whether he thought Ms. Keen had acted in a partisan manner, Mr. Burns responded: "I think not. There's no politics in that.

There may be administrative politics but there are no party politics in that dispute." Yet he also criticized Ms. Keen for being "too rigid for the good of the whole system. A regulator plays an important part in the system but there is some give and take. And rigid positions on either side usually cause trouble." Mr. Burns said that the AECL and the regulator were at each other's throats over safety issues for months. Theirs was "a dysfunctional relationship that had to be fixed," he said.

"I gave the government a plan and I predicted that it could possibly cause fatal damage to AECL if it wasn't fixed. I don't like to say I told you so, but it was an accident waiting to happen.

"The two teams just came to an impasse, a compromise wasn't reached and a major problem arose. . . . There was no safety issue here.

This was a battle of wills." He said the Chalk River facility is regularly shut down every month for several days of maintenance.

But in November, something clearly went wrong. The reactor went down for maintenance on Nov. 18 and was supposed to come back up on Nov. 24.

However, on Nov. 22, Mr. Burns said, he and Mr. Lunn were advised that the reactor was not going to return to service as expected.

"There were regular briefings on the status and it got worse and worse. There was an expectation we were going to get it up any day and it just kept on extending." Mr. Burns said the regulator insisted that some parts be changed that AECL did not have available. "It was basically undoable and the government did what it had to do, which was bypass it." He insists that there was never any "imminent safety concern." He said there were two pumps even though one could do the job on its own. Each pump has two power supplies, one from the power grid and the other from a diesel generator. And one of the pumps has a full battery backup as well.

"So having the sixth element wasn't something that was going to cause a disaster tomorrow. The Prime Minister was right about this.

There won't be a nuclear accident." Mr. Burns, a onetime fundraiser for the Alliance and Conservative parties, said he was named to the job for his expertise in the energy industry and not for his Tory connections. "I ended my political work federally in 2000." Asked about the process that led to his selection as chair, he said he was interviewed by a headhunter in 2006 and by a selection committee too. Mr. Burns said he did not know at the time that Jean-Pierre Soubliere, who was acting chair, was running for the post as well.

"It was Greek to me." Mr. Soubliere has said he was passed over in favour of Mr. Burns even though an independent panel recommended that he be appointed to the job.