Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Tonks. Your time is up.

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Alexander, I wanted to ask you about the typical model for construction risk. If it would take five to seven years to put in an isotope-producing reactor, I would assume that for a power reactor over 1,000 megawatts we'd be talking about seven to ten years, what with siting, environmental permits, and everything else.

What is the typical model these days for completion and financial risk? Are these units being turned over to the customer, or are you doing it on a build, own, and maintain basis?

[Roger Alexander]

It depends on the jurisdiction. In some cases, we work very closely with a utility. For example, the week before last I visited our facility in Flamanville, France, where we're working closely in partnership with EDF. That facility will be turned on in 2012 and, based on their on-schedule and on-cost performance so far, I was very impressed, in terms of a personal sort of confidence in looking at it, that it will be on time for delivery there.

It varies by jurisdiction. For example, in Olkiluoto, Finland, where we had a less mature nuclear jurisdiction and a variety of local subcontractors that were first of a kind in the nuclear business, there were different issues associated with that. That tends to take on a little longer perspective.

It entirely depends. There is the merchant plant model, whereby a utility will go in and produce a plant in a non-regulated market and sell the power into a regulated market on a different sort of basis. There are all sorts of different models that exist, depending on where you are in the world.

Currently, there are projects being discussed in the UAE. These would be constructed on a merchant model basis, with a consortium of utilities and manufacturers going in and providing the complete package to the end user.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Did I hear you correctly? I just want to confirm for the record that the $1.2 billion you spent on R and D last year was all from internally generated cashflow and that none of it came from the Government of France.

[Roger Alexander]

Yes, that's my understanding.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

If you could confirm that, it would be great.

[Roger Alexander]

Sure.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Being from New Brunswick, I'm more familiar with heavy water reactors and CANDU technology. How does the safety record of the AREVA reactors compare with that of the CANDU reactors? Has the safety record been good? What do you see as the major safety issues with your technology? I'm thinking of this from a liability and insurance point of view.

[Roger Alexander]

Safety and security is the key area that differentiates the generation III+ reactors from the generation II reactors. So technology base aside, I think there's been a lot of progress.

I sometimes like to use the analogy of being in a DC-3 aircraft designed and built many decades ago versus going into a modern aircraft that has all of the electronic suite in it. This is kind of a good analogy for thinking about how the new design of nuclear plants is being handled. I mean, you can go into a new aircraft and the thing practically flies itself. There are many time-redundant safety systems involved.

To me that's the major difference in safety between these generation III+ reactors and the older ones. I thin the nuclear industry generally has a very good track record for safety. Whether it's CANDU or any of the AREVA reactors, I don't think there's a difference in the safety record. In terms of crash resistance, generation III+ reactors, our new reactors, can withstand a crash of any known aircraft that exists today, with no radiation release into the atmosphere.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I'm interested in your reprocessing facility, because this also has implications with respect to Bill C-20, on the liability insurance. As is proposed in this bill, if I understand it correctly, in Canada the owner-operator would have that liability.

What are the transportation issues? You're talking about fuel coming from Japan to this facility. Who bears the liability and who bears the insurance on the nuclear fuel being transported?

[Roger Alexander]

I don't have the answer to that question. I know that transporting it is a significant part of the planning that they do there.

Ken, I don't know if you understand the liability issues between countries, but I know that certainly the country of origin generally has to take back the vitrified waste and the constituents of the recycling process. They have to patriate that back to the original country, so I know that it's being shipped back to Japan, for example. I would presume that the host country takes the risk associated with such shipments, but I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Your time is up.

We'll go to the Bloc Québécois now, with Monsieur André, for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please, Monsieur André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good morning.

I am not a regular member of the Committee, but I represent the Berthier—Maskinongé riding, which includes part of the Trois-Rivières area. We are looking into the refurbishment of Gentilly. It is a source of concern for the population in my riding as well as that of Ms. Brunelle. I shall mention some of those concerns.

On the one hand, people say that the CANDU system is outdated, obsolete, not adapted to future requirements and that it should be replaced by a better nuclear reactor. On the other hand, there is the whole issue of nuclear waste management which has been raised publicly. The Quebec National Assembly, for instance, has passed a resolution stating that the province of Quebec will not accept the nuclear waste of other provinces. We shall manage our own which represents about 5.44% of the waste we are producing now. This is a source of concern.

On a third level, that of public health, substances like nitrium are infiltrating the water table causing health problems such as cancer in young children and so on.

There are also some concerns related to the cost of nuclear energy. As you are aware, we produce mainly hydroelectric energy. The Gentilly system would only supply about 3% of our electricity. Alternatively, other people suggest that we should keep our expertise in the nuclear field.

Mr. Nash, you are saying that each province will have something to say about nuclear management and that each will have to agree with the federal government on the issue of nuclear waste management. What do you think of the Quebec National Assembly's decision of refusing to take part in nuclear waste management, in the burial of nuclear waste? Will it cause you to automatically exclude the province of Quebec from your nuclear waste management plan?

[Kenneth Nash]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps I will make two points up front and try to get to a detailed answer there.

First, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is absolutely committed to locating a deep geologic repository in an informed and willing community, and that includes the region. We will not move ahead unless that is in place.

Secondly, there are very strict safety criteria around this. A repository would not be constructed until we were absolutely sure it would be safe and the fuel would be located in a place that could not release radioactivity into potable groundwater. That will not happen.

With regard to provincial governments, when this investment is made it will be a long-term partnership between the NWMO and the community, and the wider community. There will be billions of dollars invested. I can't imagine a set of circumstances where such a project would move ahead without the consent or willingness of the provincial government involved.

Having said that, we have conducted dialogues, and we continue to do so in all the provinces that have nuclear fuel, because we believe that in Quebec, like anywhere else, people should be heard on how we should move ahead with this. I'm not sure if that sufficiently answers your question, but I'm fully prepared to deal with any follow-up questions.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

There is a concern among the population about some substances derived from nuclear energy production such as nitrium which would be present in water and would cause cancer. Have you studied this matter further?

I see that Mr. Alexander's corporation has developed new technologies. Do you have concerns here? Has research been done on those issues?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Who is your question directed to, Monsieur André?

Mr. Alexander, a short answer, please.

[Roger Alexander]

I think the safety of the existing nuclear facilities in Canada is well monitored and controlled on an existing basis. I don't think there's any danger of contamination to groundwater. I think agencies of the respective organizations such as Hydro-Québec would be in a better position to address any specific concerns you might have with respect to studies that have been made in the local area. I know that significant monitoring happens on a regular basis.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

How do you explain people's worries? Do you think that it is due to a lack of information? People are worried. Some studies have shown that nitrium is produced and could cause illnesses such as cancer in children. These stories are circulating among the public and have been documented. Is it due to a lack of information? What do you think, Mr. Florizone?

[Dr. Richard Florizone]

It's a very good and complex question.

You're absolutely right about the local support that's required. We could talk about the example in Yucca Mountain in the U.S. versus, say, the repository in Finland, and how local support is incredibly important to success in these.

On the safety question, there is different data out there, but it's very important to note that some of the more positive data gets talked about less. Maybe I'll just come to a couple of studies that have been done, that is, when you compare the overall safety record of the nuclear industry--including Chernobyl, which was a very drastic accident--and when you look at the total fatalities per unit of energy produced, nuclear is shown to have at least 10 times fewer deaths versus gas, coal, or any of the fossil fuel alternatives.

So there are these examples, and the perceptions of risk are very high, but in aggregate I think people remember Chernobyl but forget that there are 400 reactors that have been operating quite safely around the world. That's not to minimize these people's concerns. Concerns are very, very important. How you deal with them, I'm not quite sure, and there I'd turn more to the industry members for advice. It's a very difficult set of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Florizone.

We'll go finally to Madam Gallant for maybe five minutes. We'll see how much time there is before the bells start.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through you to Mr. Nash, when you refer to nuclear fuel waste management, are you referring to spent fuel rods?

[Kenneth Nash]

Yes, that's correct.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

As you know, raw natural uranium is used with CANDU technology. During the cycle of a fuel rod in a power reactor, just 1% of the potential energy from CANDU fuel rods is used, and the natural uranium aspect is one of the reasons why CANDU technology enjoys the superior level of proliferation resistance.

Given that only 1% is used, which means that 99% of the natural uranium in a rod is not utilized, why is deep geological storage preferable to the above ground storage, which is now in place in some areas? Because in the future when the price of uranium is significantly higher, it may be cost effective to retrieve the spent fuel rods and use some of that 99% of potential energy that's untapped. Do you not see any benefit in perhaps looking at above ground storage and also in being able to monitor more closely the decay of the radioactivity?

[Kenneth Nash]

Thank you for the question.

This very question was significantly dealt with during the three-year study we conducted between 2002 and 2005. In that study, we were required by our federal mandate to look at the options you describe there.

But when we consulted with Canadians and with experts, we felt that the plan we put forward for the adaptive phased management best met the values and expectations of Canadians for, number one, long-term safety and security. A deep geological repository would best meet that. Even in a scenario where recycling takes place and some economic decision is made in the future to retrieve that and reprocess, you would still be left with high-level waste.

Secondly, the idea that we leave this material here in the hope that in some future time there will be a technology that somehow deals with this in a more elegant way was not something Canadians were willing to wait for. They believe that we have an obligation to take action now, but the plan we have is such that if that technology came along, we would be able to adapt to that technology. So this is a take action now approach, with the ability to adapt as and when such technologies did become economically viable or environmentally preferable.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

With respect to security, are requirements such that it would be preferable to situate long-term storage near a military base?