Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 13th, 2016

[Brett Plummer]

I believe, with the refurbishment of Point Lepreau, Point Lepreau is set up to run for another 35 to 40-plus years of non-emitting electricity for the province of New Brunswick. It's a huge baseload for New Brunswickers. As I said, it provides typically a third, and sometimes during the summer up to half, of the power generation in the province, and it's non-emitting. As we go through the consideration provincially on the transition to low carbon, and we look at whether we sunset Belledune in 2030 or 2040, Point Lepreau will be critical to meeting our mandate for a low-carbon economy.

As far as Lepreau two is concerned, the site was originally licensed for multiple units. As we go through this planning process for determining the energy mix in New Brunswick, which will include whether we're going to import and export power, Lepreau two needs to be considered. It hasn't been determined yet, because we're still in the planning process, but it still needs to be considered as one of the options for producing power in New Brunswick.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

Finally, I want to touch on nuclear waste. You referenced the on-site storage of nuclear waste at Lepreau. We've heard a lot in this study about the deep storage of nuclear waste and the positive and negative impacts surrounding that. I just want to get your thoughts on that.

I personally am quite comfortable with the idea that we store nuclear waste where we can see it, monitor it and have access to it. This is not only for the safe monitoring of the waste itself, but also as technologies change and evolve, there are possibilities for that waste to have alternative uses. You know, it's much more readily available if it's stored where we can have ease of access to it. I just want to get your thoughts on that.

[Brett Plummer]

We're working with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization on the long-term solution to nuclear waste. At least at the current moment, the DGR, deep geological repository, is the way to go from a global consensus standpoint. It's the safe alternative for storing nuclear waste. It's been studied for over 16 years, and technically we believe it's the best way to go at this time.

As far as the nuclear waste that's stored on-site is concerned, we manage and we store the waste. I agree with you from the standpoint that we can account for every curie of nuclear waste we've generated from this facility since 2002. We know where it is. We monitor it. We have independent oversight on it. I do believe that at some point we may want access to it, whether it's in a deep geological repository or stored here on-site, because I do think in the future there may be an opportunity, based on the new reactor designs, that we'll want to recycle this fuel. I think we're still a way from that. There's different technology out there in fast breeder reactors, whether it be molten salt reactors and so forth, but there are already some countries that are looking at recycling nuclear fuel in the different reactor technologies. I think someday we will want to look at that as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Ms. Gallant, I understand you are next. You have five minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, through you, first of all, Mr. Plummer, what do you see as the cost per kilowatt hour for nuclear versus solar and wind in your province?

[Brett Plummer]

The nuclear right now for Point Lepreau is 8.3¢ a kilowatt hour. As far as new generation goes, it will probably be slightly more, but we have not done the cost benefit analysis of the studies to determine exactly what the cost is.

Also, part of that answer is going to be dependent on what technology we use, whether it's another CANDU 6, advanced CANDU 6, or a molten salt or small modular reactor. Those will all determine the costs associated if the Point Lepreau two is built, and presently we don't have that information. We're only in, let's call it the information gathering stage.

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

So, there aren't the FIT contracts in New Brunswick the way there are in Ontario, where you know the price per kilowatt hour that it's costing the consumers.

Does your company sell electricity to the United States for a lower price per kilowatt hour than you sell to the consumers in your province?

[Brett Plummer]

I know we sell electricity to the United States. I do not know what the power purchase agreements are or the point value that we sell electricity to the United States, but I would be glad to follow up on that question, again with a brief, on the price point for power exported to the U.S.

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

Thank you. Would the chair be so kind as to distribute that to all members of the committee when it arrives.

We talked about the long-term storage of spent fuel. How do you plan to deal with the opposition to transporting used fuel rods to the deep geological storage site, wherever that may be?

[Brett Plummer]

Again, I think the transport of fuel and the different regulations going through the different provinces, and from a federal standpoint as well in Canada, will have to be resolved as we work our way through determining the deep geological repository. If that's the way we're going to go in how to get the fuel there, it will be all part of the plan.

Again, we'll be engaging all the stakeholders—first nations, the community, again the Province of New Brunswick, and the federal government—on what those regulations, those standards, or requirements are. Again, safety has to be number one on transporting fuel. I will say this, though. Transporting fuel is done globally on a regular basis, so the precedent has been set. It can be done. It can be done safely. We just need to understand that, study it, and make sure we put the right safeguards in place to do it.

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

You can have all the adherence to regulations that exist and do everything safely, but still you're going to encounter opposition from different groups when it comes time to transport it. Is there no plan in place to get the pieces in place in advance and the agreement of all the communities through which it must travel to get to the DGR?

[Brett Plummer]

We are engaged with our first nations and local community. If we change or come up with a plan to start transporting fuel, we will have to ensure that part of the plan will be the engagement, again, of all those stakeholders. We will have to have a campaign on communications to educate people on what we're doing, why we're doing it, and the safety associated with it.

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

It's going to be more than just first nations who put up the opposition to that. In Ontario we had a low nuclear piece of equipment that was going to be decommissioned, and it ended up they couldn't even transport it across the Great Lakes. I think you have a huge lot of work to do there.

If the business case could be made to reuse the spent fuel rods in a new type of reactor—you mentioned New Brunswick Power Corporation would consider using that technology instead of shipping so-called hot nuclear material across the country and burying it out of sight and out of mind—if the requirement were not there, and we did have the technology to reuse this fuel and in the process get rid of all the other parts, the by-products that last for years and years, would you see the logic in taking some of the money that's being dedicated to the DGR and instead using it to develop the technology that is going to be required to reuse that spent fuel?

[Brett Plummer]

First, the recycling of fuel needs to be considered as an industry, and it also needs to be considered at NB Power as well. That's all it is at this point. It's information to be considered in long-term planning.

The technology associated with fast reactors or molten salt reactors and so forth is several years off. The technology to sit there and recycle fuel, at least the CANDU natural uranium fuel, is quite a way off on the horizon, so even if we sit there and recycle fuel, it does not remove all the waste, and it does not remove the need for the DGR, the deep geological repository. We will still need that. It will just reduce the volume significantly.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Serré, you're next.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Plummer, how many jobs in the nuclear industry in New Brunswick does that represent?

[Brett Plummer]

Just for clarity, how many jobs do we have right here in nuclear at Point Lepreau?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Correct.

[Brett Plummer]

Directly at the plant there are approximately 900 nuclear workers plus an additional 100 contractors that work on-site. I'm not familiar with that number, but less than 100 indirect jobs at corporate support nuclear power as well.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

Obviously as part of the study we're looking at innovation but also at economic opportunities. I want to get your thoughts around clusters to try to see how we can increase the number of direct and indirect jobs in New Brunswick.

When we look at R and D operations, or indirect jobs in supply and services, what is your opinion and what are your suggestions to increase the number of jobs by 10% to 20%?

[Brett Plummer]

Again, I think the key to that is to come up with an integrated comprehensive plan associated with that transition to low carbon.

I'm sure the plan ultimately will be a combination of renewables and the technology associated with them. As we mentioned earlier, as we partner with Siemens and we have a smart grid technology in New Brunswick, I believe that will bring additional jobs and funds into the province. Then I think there's a possibility with what we're going to replace certain generation with new technology, whether it's nuclear or something else.

I think the first step is to come up with a comprehensive plan. Once we come up with a comprehensive plan and go to a low-carbon economy, we'll have no choice but to create new technology, and that will create jobs.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you.

Aecon, I want to get your thoughts and have you expand a bit on the extent of the training given at Aecon nuclear training facilities. Can that be transferred to other energy sectors?

[James Gandhi]

Yes. To some extent, it is quite possible. What we have adopted for the Darlington refurbishment program in partnership with OPG is to create a full-scale reactor mock-up. This decision was made based on the lessons learned from the Bruce refurbishment and the New Brunswick Power refurbishment that using the tool at the reactor phase and getting the buy-ins from the people using it is absolutely important.

We fabricated a full-scale reactor mock-up at Darlington, and also provided the 200 tools to our tradespeople to try on this mock-up, and then have a full plastic rehearsal, not just one time but many times, to gain the necessary proficiency in using the tools to get the full buy-ins.

For any mission-critical project like this, if we adopt the same philosophy of creating a mock-up and then training the people who will be working on the reactor, it will improve not only the safety but also the productivity. I will give you an example. The cost of producing this mock-up is equivalent to 13 days of savings in critical path activities. If, through the mock-up, we can improve our efficiency by 13 days, it has paid for itself, so it's an absolutely important aspect that can be used.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

With Aecon, where do you get the construction materials used for the projects in the nuclear sector? Are they all imported? What are the standards of safety for these materials?