Evidence of meeting #4 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I am sorry, but it is easier for me to answer in English.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
When all is said and done, I believe, we are looking to ensure that the NRU reactor is fully capable of producing isotopes beyond its licence renewal date of October 2011. We have done a very significant amount of detailed evaluation to understand what is necessary for us to achieve that.
We have also entered into a protocol with the CNSC with respect to the management of that regulatory review process so that there are no surprises at the end of the road. As part of that, we've identified a number of areas we need to invest in, in the reactor and in the various ancillary support infrastructure, to ensure we do that. It's our intention to move forward with that program. Included in the $351 million is, indeed, roughly $47 million that is dedicated specifically to what we call the isotope supply reliability program.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Finally, you are mainly intending to repair them. Have you thought of buying a reactor from abroad or of any other possibility?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
For the repair of the...?
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Yes. We note that the reactor is often shut down. It does not seem to be working well. This is why the safety of isotope production is not guaranteed. To say the least, this reactor has aged to the point of maturity.
Are you finally going to refurbish the installations, or are you taking steps to purchase new reactors from abroad, from France or from somewhere else? Is this conceivable?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
We believe the most cost-effective solution for isotope production continuity is extending the life of the NRU. In fact, it is the only really practical alternative available to us, given the licence renewal timing of 2011.
The long-term solution is one that has yet to be decided in any serious way. Anything is conceivable, but right now we believe that the NRU, because of the robustness of that design, does provide us with the most cost-effective solution to provide reliable isotope production within the foreseeable future.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Perhaps you will find my next question strange. From Quebec's point of view, given that hydro-electric power in Quebec is more important than nuclear power, we are wondering whether we really need to build so many new nuclear plants in Canada. Should we not develop parallel programs to promote energy efficiency and to move toward other energy sources? It seems to me that Canada is investing large sums of public money in nuclear energy.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
The energy policy extends well beyond my domain, but as a part of the overall puzzle, I'm certainly happy to comment.
We believe that diversity is appropriate in your energy supply mix—you should not become overly dependent on any one mode—and therefore we see nuclear as being complementary to many other technologies and other ways of generating electricity. We also support any and all programs that will reduce consumption, because their use simply reduces the amount of capacity that must be put in place.
Having said that, I'm clearly a proponent of nuclear. I believe that nuclear should play an equally large and likely a larger role in the future supply mix, because it is emissions-friendly, it is reliable, it is safe, and it is economical. We are of the view that nuclear has a role to play, and a bigger one.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Some people have doubts about safety. This is why we are here today to try to get some answers.
I have one final question. I read in the newspapers that some people were raising questions about uranium reserves. What can you tell us about these reserves, both in Canada and elsewhere in the world?
5 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
We are blessed with one of the largest uranium supplies in the world, and it's a great national asset for us. We can look to it to provide us with security of supply for many years to come. At the same time, to the extent that the global demand for uranium grows as quickly as many forecast it will, it's certainly possible that uranium will come to be in shorter supply. That, of course, will be wonderful news for the Saskatchewan uranium industry, because their prices will likely go up.
At the same time, we at Atomic Energy feel that our technology should be flexible and should accommodate a number of different scenarios of future fuel supply. One of the great strengths, frankly, of the CANDU design is that it has fuel flexibility to burn alternative fissile elements, such as thorium, or to burn recovered uranium, so that we're part of lessening the creation of nuclear wastes and of creating more economic power generation using CANDU. We're certainly part of the program that will in effect keep our options open and will be able to take full advantage of the strengths we have in Canada in uranium, but also provide for the day when globally uranium is perhaps a scarcer commodity.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, Madame Brunelle. Your time is up.
But, Mr. Elston, you would like to reply to that as well. Please go ahead.
5 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association
Yes, I have just a brief comment.
First of all, there are a couple of places where uranium exploration and development have grown quite quickly. Canada used to be the largest known reserve area. It has been surpassed by Australia. Australia has taken off moratoria on some of their mining and expansion. At the same time, Kazakhstan both has been opened up to exploration and has seen developments for the finding of uranium. Until about 2011, we will also see the use of MOX fuels from the conversion of Russian military material into civilian fuels. So in the immediate future and for several decades to come, there is no expectation that there will be the kind of shortage that would cause a huge problem for the industry.
Secondly, in the operation of nuclear plants, the fuel costs are a relatively small amount, less than 5% of the overall operating costs, so the impact is also well restricted against the final price going to the consumer. That, of course, is one of the reasons why the development of the ACR-1000, for instance, looks at reducing the consumption of fuel, looks at a reduced machine to produce more energy, and at the end of the day at getting a more competitive electricity price out to the people. We expect, with those types of advances, that we will see an extension of the life expectancy of the reserves.
The other thing that is interesting about uranium is that as the price goes up it becomes more profitable to go into more marginal deposits. Marginal is a relative term, but I can tell you that in Saskatchewan—for instance, at McArthur River—they have 80% pure uranium deposits, which is just a phenomenal resource for Canada. In other places it's not so good, but as the price goes up, you will find more reserves being opened up, more work going on. In fact, in addition to the different fuels that may be used, we have a very long life expectancy ahead of us.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Elston.
Mr. Cullen, for up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair. Thank you to our witnesses.
I want to get to this question of surprise Mr. Binder expressed. I imagine some of you and your colleagues were surprised by the amount of attention with respect to Chalk River over these last couple of months? Is that accurate?
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
I hesitate to dive into the “surprise” word debate, but in a sense, what I would say is our attention at the time the decisions were made with respect to the December announcement, frankly, was focused on the continuity of isotope supply. When we were concentrating our attention on what messages we wanted to send, that was foremost in our mind. So I would say that, consistent with what was said earlier, we treated this matter as one where there was no safety exposure, no risk to the public, and therefore we did not make an explicit comment on that in our press releases.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Do you feel as if you've gotten some fair treatment in this, then? It seems there's some sort of balance between reporting things when they happen and not alarming the public, as some of my colleagues have suggested.
I guess I'm confused. Okay, so you're focused on isotope supply, that's great, but you're also focused on nuclear safety. You heard me ask this earlier--unanticipated technical challenges. No layperson looking at this issue would have any clue whatsoever; people who study this issue would have no clue that was actually in fact talking about a leak that was going on in the reactor. Is that fair to say?
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Well, it's a choice of words we have to live with because we put it out under our letterhead. It was reflective of the view that this was indeed a routine technical matter. It was indeed a fully contained event and there were no environmental, safety, or other ramifications, and therefore our focus was to say that we had to take the actions we did because of this and move on.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just about that fully contained event, five kilograms went into the air, was released.
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Through the venting, up the stack.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. You collected some of the water, treated it, and then released it into the Ottawa River, correct? That's the process.
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Correct.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Is there tritium still in that water when it's released into the Ottawa River?
5:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Yes, there is.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have to hold you on this one: a contained event, and yet there's tritium going into the air, there's tritium going into the river system because of a leak. There is this balance between reporting everything in these miles of pipes and wires--as Mr. Binder talked about, which sounds very intimidating--and the notion that these leaks are not of concern, that they are using the word “contained” when they're not contained. Do you see where we might have some difficulty with that language and take some exception to the idea that unanticipated technical challenges should be understood by the Canadian public to be a leak?