Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 24th, 2016

[James Scongack]

That's an excellent question, and I completely agree with you. I think we have an industry in Canada that is respected internationally and has unprecedented levels of safety.

We always like to put the CNSC on the spot every year when all the operators in Canada go up to the CNSC for an annual review of our industry. It's an open, public, and transparent process whereby the CNSC openly rates the performance of nuclear facilities and operating plants across Canada. One of the statistics we always like to put up from the Bruce Power point of view—and I'm sure Glenn would share this from an OPG point of view as well—is that Bruce Power just exceeded six million hours' work without a lost-time injury. We're one of the industry leaders—and frankly, industrial leaders, if you look at any sector in Canada—when it comes to health and safety. Whether it's the Office of the Auditor General, the Parliament of Canada, or the CNSC, I can promise you that in most cases our lost-time injury rate and our safety performance are actually better than they are for people working in many of these buildings here today, and that is a really good benchmark. We're not only benchmarking ourselves against other nuclear plants; we're benchmarking ourselves against the best and the brightest.

With regard to the CNSC, we make it a policy not to comment on the audits of our regulator. We have enough audits of our own internally. We have permanent internal oversight functions within the company. We have independent audits that we, as operators, subject ourselves to. From a board perspective, we have an organization called the nuclear safety review board, which reports to our board. We bring in essentially independent experts on a quarterly basis to report to our board. It's an industry best practice.

We also open our doors to the World Association of Nuclear Operators on a frequent basis; a review of one of our facilities concluded just a week or so ago. There is also the IAEA.

I'm very hesitant to comment on an auditor's report of our regulator. I don't think that would be appropriate. I would say, though, that a common theme in any audit, including the ones we receive in Bruce Power, is that audits are meant to be.... How often have you heard an audit that gives a glowing review and says you don't have any room for improvement? I think this committee should be more concerned if an audit came out and said there wasn't any area for improvement, because when we talk about nuclear power, we're never satisfied. We never say that we have great safety performance and we're resting on our laurels. It's always about what we can do better.

That's one of the constant focuses we have as an operator. When we have good safety performances, we don't want our employees to think that's enough. It's always about the next thing.

I know I didn't directly answer your question, but that would be our perspective from an operational point of view.

[Glenn Jager]

The only thing I would add to that is we're all open and transparent operators. I think that assists the regulator.

We don't directly assist the regulator. It is meant to be an independent body that is looking at our operation. You can think of it as a series of layers. You begin with safe operation, and then external bodies and panels look at our operation in an audit framework. Independent regulators and international regulators all look at our operation through critical reviews, and they provide gaps or shortfalls to us, and that's how we improve. The regulator is looking at all of that. It looks at the integrity of the framework, and it's important that the regulator maintain that independence from us, and therefore we don't really comment.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

We heard from OPG about spent fuel. The NWMO is looking at the use of a geological repository for nuclear fuel waste. Can you provide us with some of your research or other options you are looking at when we consider how to deal with our spent fuel?

[Laurie Swami]

With regard to other opportunities for used nuclear fuel, in 2007, as I mentioned, the government decided that the APM program was the correct way forward for Canada in terms of how to deal with used nuclear fuel. That includes an end point of a deep geological repository.

As part of that and part of the work that we do at the NWMO, we also stay abreast of any international developments there may be in the area of other opportunities or other ways of dealing with used nuclear fuel. We have not identified anything at this time for which there is international consensus that it is better than a deep geologic repository, so we stay committed to implementing the APM program, as approved by the government in 2007.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have one quick question for Bruce Power, and then I'm going to give the rest of my time to Ms. Gallant.

On the $10 billion invested in Bruce Power since 2001, and for your future $13-billion investment, is that all private sector investment, or are you receiving a government subsidy?

[James Scongack]

That's a great question. One hundred per cent of it is private sector investment. Looking back and going forward, there's not one penny of government subsidy.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn my time over to Ms. Gallant.

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

Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, when the president of the CNSC was before this committee on November 17, he spoke of a so-called consensus to bury nuclear waste.

I understand that there is a provincial study under way in Ontario to examine a smarter way to deal with unused nuclear material: to recycle it. As we know, just 1% of the energy in a fuel rod is actually utilized during the time it's in the CANDU reactor. Unlike those of our nuclear competitors, the CANDU system is superior in that our technology can use reprocessed fuel from light-water reactors, and it can also be used for thorium.

I'm wondering whether Bruce Power and OPG would be supportive of a plan to recycle fuel if the technology is developed economically, or are OPG and Bruce Power committed to the DGR for fuel disposal?

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization was formed in 2002, and for over 14 years we've had significant technology advances. That's why I'm asking the question. That's for anyone.

[Glenn Jager]

I'll start.

Those technological advances are still under way. I think what you're talking about is “fast reactors” and reusing the spent fuel from CANDU reactors. There's still value if you were to put it into one of those types of reactors. That's very new technology. It's going to take a lot of development. For Canada, it would mean introducing fuel reprocessing capability, which is a capability we don't currently have.

Would we be interested? Yes. We're absolutely following that in looking at future uses. Is that a technology that will emerge as an economic and viable source of energy? I would tell you that it will take significant investment and development to reach that worldwide. It's at a very early stage. Notwithstanding that, you would still have to deal with the spent fuel. It doesn't get us away from the need for a DGR, but it would allow us to potentially use that spent fuel. We're monitoring that, but it's very early in the technology's development.

[James Scongack]

To build on Glenn's comments, from our perspective as a nuclear operator, our top priority is to ensure there is a process available that ensures this liability is fully funded, right? Since we're leasing the facility from Ontario Power Generation and the Province of Ontario, what's important for us is that when our facility ceases operation, we have fully funded that liability through our operational streams for whatever the best solution is as determined by the NWMO.

To give you a sense of what that liability looks like, there's a significant focus on fuel, but just to put the cost in perspective, right now we're paid about $66 a megawatt for all of our output on the Bruce Power site. About $4 of that $66 covers the cost of fuel. The most important issue for us, Ms. Gallant, is really that we ensure this is a fully funded liability based on the best available technology at the time.

It's really up to the NWMO to decide on the best available technology to deploy. The best-case scenario for our industry—and I think Ms. Swami mentioned they're always on the lookout for what's going on with new technology—is that we could actually have an overfunded liability down the road if technology progresses, but we have to make some assumptions based on what's available to us now and make sure we're funding to that. From our perspective, that's critical.

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

When will the OPG be replacing the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station of, as I understand, 3,000 megawatt-hours, with at least four new reactors to maintain the base load capacity and to maintain the clean air standards? Otherwise, we'll have to continue to use the gas plants for electrical generation. Are there plans under way to have those refurbished?

[Glenn Jager]

Currently Pickering is planned to cease commercial operations in 2024. That's what we're working on right now. There are no current plans to construct a replacement nuclear power reactor to replace Pickering, but we do have a licensed site and a licence to construct adjacent to the Darlington facility. There are some decisions on technology and vendor, and by the province on whether or not they'll proceed to construct a facility and whether it would be an SMR or large-scale nuclear on the Darlington site.

Those decisions haven't been made. They would be made in the course of producing a long-term energy plan and the province's energy plan. The replacement power for Pickering would be largely obtained from existing capacity or gas power installations, or renewable energy in the short term.

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

Okay.

With respect to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, how much money has been spent since 2002 through your organization for studies and preparation, total?

[Laurie Swami]

I'm looking at my colleagues, because I'm relatively new. I don't have the total amount we've spent since 2002, but I would be happy to provide that after this session.

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

Please provide that in writing to the committee. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cannings is next.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank you all for coming here today.

Mr. Jager, you mentioned the first nations approval process that's going on. I'm wondering how that's going. You kind of implied that you wouldn't proceed without that approval, and I just wondered if that's what you meant. If you don't get that approval, do you have a plan B?

[Glenn Jager]

First of all, we committed to the SON that we would not proceed without their concurrence, so they effectively have a veto on the DGR facility. Discussions with the SON are proceeding very well, I would say. They have a very good perspective on nuclear power within their territory and the need to responsibly manage waste. In that vein, I think the dialogue is very good. We'll take the necessary time to reach that consensus. I am hopeful that we will get that consensus. Notwithstanding that, they absolutely have a veto. We committed to them that ultimately they have a veto on DGR proceeding.

As for a plan B, we don't have a well-developed plan B. If that were to come to pass, we would have to site and study an alternate location. That's really what it would come down to.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I just want a clarification about the lifetime of Darlington. I guess it's about 26 years old now as you're starting this refurbishment. You said it would last for 30 to 40 years more. Is that from the end of the refurbishment or from now? When would you be looking at decommissioning Darlington in the future?

[Glenn Jager]

The items that govern the life of each unit are the pressure tubes or the reactor core components. The life starts as soon as those components are replaced. On a unit-by-unit basis, the lifespan is dictated from when those components are replaced. Each unit will be replaced initially with a three-year interval and then 19-month after that. It's 30 years following that component replacement. It can be up to 40 years, depending on how those pressure tubes perform.

That's part of the evaluation of the life of the plant. We look at the health of the pressure tubes and how they are aging. We complete the necessary inspections and studies. From that we're able to forecast the life of the pressure tubes. The minimum would be 30 years. I would expect 35, 40, or beyond, in fact. That's how we govern the life of the plant. At that time you can make a decision on whether to refurbish it again or retire it.

In the case of Darlington and Bruce Power, the economics are pretty clear. They're large units. It's very economic to refurbish the power plants. With Pickering they're smaller units, so it's less economic to do so, and that's why the decision was to retire Pickering. The decision for Pickering would be to build a new facility, one that is more economic than Pickering.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

Ms. Swami, in the process of choosing the site for the new facility, you said you started with 22 communities. Now it's down to nine that were “informed and willing”, I think were your words. I gathered that you wouldn't choose a site unless they had given some form of consent. I want to know how you measure that consent and the process for choosing that final site. What are the principles you're looking at?

[Laurie Swami]

In siting a waste repository of this nature, a deep geologic depository, it's an important principle that we have a willing host and that we can demonstrate safety of the repository. Those are two fundamental elements of the work.

In our work going forward in selecting a particular site, we will work with the communities, whether it's the municipalities or first nations and Métis communities in the specific area, as well as adjacent communities, to make sure they understand and acknowledge what the project would be about, what the particulars are around the design, and what it would mean to the environment. We would educate them, and should they choose to continue in the process, because this is a consent-based process, they would gain an understanding and begin to work with us in a real partnership. We really value the partnership we would develop with all the communities and that the communities would develop within themselves.

As we go forward, we would be looking at both the support and recognition that the community would be interested in proceeding, as well as the safety analysis and the safety case around the deep geologic repository.

It is a difficult thing to measure specifically, but we would be looking to the community to identify how it would see itself fitting into the process and whether it would like to continue with us.

That's essentially the process we would be looking toward.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

To Bruce Power, I have a technical question on the cobalt situation. You said that Ontario produces 70% of the world's cobalt now. After Chalk River winds down and you change your process, would Ontario still be producing 70% of the world's cobalt?

[James Scongack]

It's a great question. Just for clarification, when we talk about cobalt, we're talking about two kinds of cobalt. Not to get overly technical, there's what they call “low specific activity cobalt” and “high specific activity cobalt”. Low specific activity cobalt is used in most sterilization internationally. When I was referring to the approximately 70% of the cobalt-60 supply internationally, I was referring to low specific activity cobalt, and that comes from Glenn's facility at OPG and our facility at Bruce Power.

Obviously what's really important to the Canadian market is that we secure that cobalt supply long term, especially when Pickering reaches its end of life. I believe, Glenn, a week or so ago, Bruce Power and OPG signed an MOU together to look at the situation when Pickering reaches its end of life and some of our units, both at Bruce and OPG, aren't producing cobalt. What are the technical options for producing cobalt, so that we maintain that market supply?

Our plan is to replace a good portion of the high specific activity cobalt, which is currently produced at Chalk River, starting in Q1 of 2019, following the closure of the NRU in March 2018. The NRU will close, and there will be a significant HSA cobalt harvest at that point. We will have loaded the HSA cobalt literally in its last week, and it will cook for three years. When we have an outage starting in 2019, we will remove it at that point.