Evidence of meeting #48 for Natural Resources in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was waste.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
We've never sent a steam generator before.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
So the question is this. There are many more to come down the line. One would assume this would not be the only shipment of decommissioned steam generators, considering the age of a number of the plants we're talking about. There are more to come. There will be more applications. Or is this it? This is the only time. This is the one exemption.
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
No, there will be some, but very, very few. We can actually give you the number of them if you want the number. But remember, you refurbish nuclear power plants once every 30 years. So with many of the other ones, the steam generator is fine and they're not going to be sent anywhere. If this works, there will be some that will be sent.
If you look at Europe, they're doing it as a matter of routine. Germany has done it. They're using Studsvik as a facility.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
What concerns me is that just recently Bruce Power filled out its 2006 environmental assessment and in that assessment committed to keeping the contaminated material—the nuclear waste—on site.
You say new technology comes about. You contradicted the idea when you said that an environmental assessment—what's written on those pages—is not a contract with the public. I fundamentally disagree with you. Whether it be a mining company or a nuclear outfit that makes an application, and the governing agencies—in this case CEAA—or you agree to what's on the paper, to change the conditions is the changing of a contract. I'm not sure why you disagree with that.
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
No. We have a principle that if you can do things better--it's called ALARA, as low as reasonably achievable. We try to continuously improve. For example, in uranium mines in operation, every time we can find a way of doing things better, we will look at that.
So yes, when the original environmental assessment was given, that was the plan at the time. All of a sudden when new technology comes in, or a proponent comes in with a new idea, we look at it. We would not approve it if we didn't think it was a good idea.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Cullen.
We go now to Mr. Anderson, and perhaps Mr. Dykstra if Mr. Anderson leaves him time.
You have up to seven minutes. Go ahead.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to acknowledge the three MPs who have visited us today: Pat Davidson, Ben Lobb, and Rick Dykstra. This is an important issue to all of them, and we're very happy to have them here at committee with us. And it's important that they are here.
I would actually like to come back to the question that Mr. Cullen was referring to. I'm not sure if he was trying to scare people or if he just didn't understand. But I want to ask you this. These are 100-tonne units. There are pictures of them here and they are large units. If they were smaller, would this be an issue? Would the shipping of this material be an issue?
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
If you could squeeze those things into one of those internationally pre-approved packages, it would go through without anybody doing anything about this. All it may require is an export licence. That's it.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
So if this would fit in a shoe box, this material could be shipped using the protocols that are in place that are used every day.
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Correct.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Right.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
And then just in terms of the other question you started to answer—and I think you got cut off—you said this type of work on these generators takes place in Europe all the time. Is that what you're saying? They're doing this fairly constantly and regularly.
4:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Yes, they have done recently.
I don't know if you can add some particulars to this, Mr. Jammal.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Thank you.
Correct. The Studsvik facility in Sweden is the most competent and the only available facility that is currently capable of separating the clean steel from the radioactive steel through that process.
There have been allegations made that there were other ways of doing things. The other ways are not recycling. You have to keep in mind that the current waste management is based on the three Rs: reduce, recycle, and reuse. As the technology becomes much more available and proven, then the three Rs are being applied.
So the Studsvik facility is the only one currently that did successfully service European reactors, where they had higher activity steam generators shipped in from Germany in 2007—on barges, as a matter of fact—through inland waterways to Sweden for recycling.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you.
I want to give my colleague some time here, so I'll turn it over to Mr. Dykstra.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Through you, Chair, I do have a question, after reading the report. Page 9 talks about the requirement for a special arrangement. I wonder if you could clarify why a special arrangement is necessary under section 5.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
The special arrangement is required in order to prove the safety equivalency as if you would put those generators into a pre-approved package. That's the intent of a special arrangement. In the absence of an existing pre-approved packaging, you will carry out the assessment of the special arrangements in order to give the safety equivalency that exceeds it.
We take pride, I will say, in a CNSC staff assessment that said we surpassed the international requirements. As a matter of fact, we have a declaration from the World Nuclear Transport Institute that in its conclusion said Canada and the CNSC have surpassed the good practices and international requirements. That's the letter from the WNTI.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
It would probably be nice to have a copy of that letter. If the committee doesn't have it yet, it would probably be good, through you, Chair, to make sure that each member of the committee has a copy of that.
In reference to your comments about international standards and having exceeded them, I noted also that page 14, paragraph 47 speaks to the transfer of similar material from Germany to Sweden. I'm wondering if one of you could provide us with a little more detail in regard to that transfer of similar-type material on a ship from Germany to Sweden. Tell us how that happened and in fact how it compares to what this shipment will be like.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Thank you.
In terms of the shipment from Germany, let me start first by making two comparisons. Those steam generators that currently the proponents have applied for have been decommissioned for several years. The shipment that did take place in Germany was a recent removal of those steam generators and the pressure tubes, hence they had a lot higher radioactive substance and they were much more radioactive. So the doses to the outside were a lot higher than what they were for these generators. Hence they had to apply exactly the same special arrangements that considered the transboundary transfer of those steam generators, and it was shipped by land, by inland waterways, and by sea to Studsvik. Again, I'm repeating it, in the inland waterways, these steam generators were put on a barge.
In our assessment, we went beyond the requirements, hence we put in the requirement that they should be in an irradiated nuclear fuel category ship.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
While the levels were higher in the material that was shipped from Germany to Sweden, while the travel was more difficult from Germany to Sweden than it will be from here to Sweden, you still, as an organization, went to make sure that the trip and the transfer would actually exceed what happened between Germany and Sweden.
4:10 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
That is correct.
4:10 p.m.
Executive Vice-President and Chief Regulatory Operations Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
I'll read, Mr. Chair, the conclusion of the World Nuclear Transport Institute, which says:
According to the information provided, it appears that the transport of sixteen steam generators from Canada to Sweden follows the current industry practice for the safe transport of large component, and in some instances exceeds it (in particular, in using an INF [which is irradiated nuclear fuel] ship on the one hand, and when there is practically no radiological risk for the population and the environment on the other).
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Was there any type of incident in the transfer of material from Germany to Sweden at all?