Natural Resources Committee on May 15th, 2012

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

So would you be a proponent of cumulative environmental assessments?

[Martin von Mirbach]

That's right.

Cumulative impacts are the way in which a strategic assessment sets the thresholds, but then also there's the other component, which is really different but can happen at the same time. By that I mean doing the spatial planning to identify, in effect, the relative sensitivities of coastal areas and mapping out the trajectory of where a spill might happen and where there's an overlap between spill trajectory and particularly sensitive sites. Then you work backwards and say, well, maybe it's not appropriate to carry it out. There could simply be seasonal restrictions; it may not be an absolute no-go zone.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Let's go back to the document that you submitted to the NEB concerning offshore drilling in the Arctic. You suggested modelling the trajectory of possible oil spills.

In your point of view, who should be responsible for this modelling process? Should it be the private sector or should it be the government?

[Martin von Mirbach]

Ultimately, we've been recommending that the NEB do it. I think, ultimately, an independent third party body should. The tools exist to do it. There are good trajectory models in different parts of the world, including the west coast.

As I've said, there are additional complexities by modelling not just ocean currents but also ice movement, when you get oil and ice. From a credibility perspective, we're looking at doing it, but in the long-run perspective it would be helpful for it to be done by a third-party body.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Liu.

We go now to Mr. Trost for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In our study on northern development, we're trying to figure out what decisions the government could make to enhance the economic development of our north, in particular, the natural resources. With that in mind, I listened to Dr. Binder talk about how he works well with Saskatchewan, with the history of uranium there. On other issues we've often heard how some jurisdictions have better practices than others.

As you develop projects, as you work with proponents of projects in Labrador, Quebec, and potentially Nunavut, etc., are there things you've learned from Saskatchewan that you could transfer over to work with other provinces? In dealing with your regulatory body, the Nuclear Safety Commission, do other provinces have similar practices to Saskatchewan’s, or do you have a different approach depending upon which jurisdiction you're in?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

That's an excellent question because, as I said, one of our mandated objectives is to disseminate objective information. For example, on June 5 we'll be in northern Quebec in the community of Mistissini for one day, an aboriginal community. The next day, we'll be in the community of Chibougamau. We are trying to explain the safety case for nuclear. There is a hearing about a nuclear mine.

We've implored the proponent to bring in people from Saskatchewan. They have a lot of experience in interacting with communities regarding employment, mining, and the safety case, bringing all of that to the table so that everybody can see it. We are not promoting the mine; our mandate is not to promote. Our mandate is that whatever you build, it should be safe. But the level of ignorance of some of the safety cases is astounding in many cases, so we try to bring actual factual, objective information to the table so that people can hear it.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

If I read you right, you're saying that one of the most effective things we could do is to assist in the transfer of knowledge from one northern community’s experience to other regions of the north that don't have that experience.

[Dr. Michael Binder]

Absolutely.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Okay.

Listening to Babcock and Wilcox and the discussion of the potential reactors they're planning reminded me of other groups who have come and talked about putting reactors in the north. They were taking off-the-shelf technology produced in Japan and other places. One thing they said was that their business case would depend on how quickly they could obtain regulatory approval.

Now, I don't know how the business has gone for what they've done, but, Dr. Binder, with every new reactor, with every new program that comes before you looking for a safety case, how do you ensure the timeliness of approval in your own organization? What internal steps are you taking to make sure this is cost-effective? We cannot bring new sources of power, potentially nuclear power, to the north if the cost is too high. Apparently, regulatory impediments or the requirements are a major cost factor for companies looking to the north. How do you internally assess this so that you know that your regulatory process is not wasting time? How do you know it is effective and timely at the same time?

[Dr. Michael Binder]

We've done a few things. First, we clarified our regulatory requirements. In the last four years that I've been on the job, we've been overhauling all of our regulatory documents and trying to make sure that our requirements are crystal clear.

Second, for new technology, as we heard from Mr. Mowry, we accept a pre-licensing discussion to get to know each other, so that they will know our requirements and we become acquainted with their new technology. This is before they come to us with a licence. So when they do come with a licence, at least some of their philosophy and technology is known.

Last but not least, we're not going to reinvent the wheel. They have an application in the U.S., for example. The U.S. is also going to do some prototyping. We will take a look at whatever evidence they can bring to us. The last I've seen, physics in the U.S. is the same physics as here. So we can transport over a lot of this stuff and not reinvent the wheel.

All of this to say that if you look at the CNSC time itself, we are very disciplined. We aren't going to be the regulatory bottleneck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

We go now to Monsieur Gravelle for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Deir, I'm hoping you can answer this question. In his presentation, Mr. Mowry said that they would bury nuclear waste 140 feet deep. Where?

[Christopher Deir, Manager, Babcock and Wilcox Canada, Babcock and Wilcox Ltd]

Just to clarify that, what he was referring to was the spent fuel, which during the operation of the reactor we keep on site in a special spent fuel pool 140 feet below grade, for the first 20 years or so. That's just the fuel we actually produced during the operation. After that comes out of the spent fuel pool, it goes into dry storage. Then the Nuclear Waste Management Organization that's set up in Canada or a similar organization in the United States would take ownership of that fuel, and we would continue to pay into that fund of course.

He was referring to just the fuel that was used during the operation of the reactor's life. Then after the reactor's life is over, it would go into a larger, more national type of organization for control.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

So it's not waste?

[Christopher Deir]

I would never call nuclear spent fuel waste, no. It's quite viable.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

So it's buried on site during....

[Christopher Deir]

It's not buried; it's kept within a spent fuel pool on site.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

One hundred and forty feet deep....

[Christopher Deir]

Within the containment structure, that is correct.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. von Mirbach, we always consider these oil wells and nuclear plants safe when they're built, but they're safe until something happens.

How are we going to guarantee that if we have a well in the Arctic it's going to be safe and it will never spill oil?

[Martin von Mirbach]

That's a good question.

Clearly, if we required 100% safety for all activity, there would be no activity. There are risks inherent in everything. Those risks can be minimized but they can never be removed to zero. The fact that a risk might be both very small but very high creates particular challenges.

We've been recommending to the NEB a risk management framework that really distinguishes between acceptable risks, which are risks that are managed in the ordinary business—for instance, you just accept the risk every time you get into a car—and tolerable risks, which are risks that need to be worked on, and then unacceptable risks that are a line that isn't acceptable.

It's a way of managing risks that accepts that some risk is going to be inevitable, but what you're simply doing is trying to move the tolerable risks into the acceptable framework and making sure there are no unacceptable risks. That's a social decision. There's no individual stakeholder who has the ability to actually determine what is an unacceptable risk versus a tolerable risk. We were keen to participate with the NEB to provide informed advice and support towards making that designation.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Are we prepared for an oil spill in the Arctic?

[Martin von Mirbach]

Absolutely not.

The big challenge is the lack of infrastructure. The Gulf spill had approximately 40,000 people working on it. It's physically not possible to get even a fraction of that number of people working on an oil spill in the Arctic, even given the operating limits in terms of the number of days you can operate. That's the big challenge: the lack of infrastructure at this point. In theory that can be improved upon, but at this point it's quite small.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

If we have an oil spill in the Arctic, it will of course be in the ice. So how can we clean that up if there's an oil spill within an ice floe?