A Nuke Free World-Facebook Group-close Quebec's nuclear plant

Nuclear Safety Commission to review Hydro-Québec%u2019s proposed refurbishments

In nine days, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will entertain public opinion on proposed refurbishments to Quebec%u2019s only nuclear power plant, the Gentilly-2 plant, in Bécancour. Hydro-Québec has slated nearly $2 billion for work on the plant.

A coalition %u2013 including Greenpeace Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Parti Québécois %u2013 is criticizing the proposal, claiming that the power plant is dangerous to the environment and human health, as well as being an unnecessary fiscal burden.

%u201CQuebec has no need for the risks associated with rebuilding Gentilly,%u201D said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Nuclear Analyst for Greenpeace Canada.

Opened in 1982 outside Trois-Rivières, Gentilly-2 currently provides 3 per cent of Quebec%u2019s electricity. Hyro-Québec%u2019s planned refurbishments would replace the nuclear reactor inside the plant, which has been in use since it first opened.

According to Stensil, the CANDU reactor %u2013 the type of reactor used in all 22 nuclear reactors in Canada %u2013 is comprised of 380 %u201Cpressure tubes%u201D that host the nuclear reactions. These tubes create heat, which is turned into steam and harvested by turbines to make electricity.

However, Stensil said the pipes were increasingly likely to bend or crack, considering that the pipes are over 25 years old and are in a highly irradiated environment.

%u201CYour probability of accident is going up the longer they run this plant. %u2026 So they have to basically rebuild it; it%u2019s a heart transplant,%u201D he said.

According to Stensil, the principal reason for the steep price tag is the delicate and dangerous nature of the proposed refurbishments.

%u201CIt%u2019s a highly radioactive environment; that%u2019s one of the reasons it costs so much,%u201D Stensil said. %u201CYou have a maximum dose [of radiation] that you%u2019re allowed to have as a nuclear worker, so you can%u2019t be in there very long. So it means you have to hire a lot of workers, or spend more money on really expensive robots, that also break.%u201D

Hydro-Québec needs approval from the CNSC to begin the refurbishment project. The CNSC will hold a public hearing on April 13 and 14.

Aurèle Gervais, spokesperson for the CNSC, emphasized that the Commission%u2019s responsibility is to protect the health of the workers, the public, and the environment.

%u201CWe listen to all information that is presented to the Commission, whether it be from CNSC staff, Hydro-Québec, and the public, and based on that information there is a decision made,%u201D said Gervais. %u201COur role is to make sure that the work that is going to be carried out is done safely, to protect the workers, the public and the environment.%u201D

Financial concerns are central to the argument against the refurbishment.

According to Karel Mayrand, Quebec director general for the David Suzuki Foundation, a similar refurbishment project in New Brunswick at a twin power plant, the Point Laperle project, is two years behind schedule and already $1 billion over the initial projected cost.

%u201CI think [Gentilly-2] is a crazy idea, financially,%u201D said Mayrand. %u201CHydro-Québec is telling us that they%u2019re going to refurbish Gentilly for $2 billion. We could expect $3 billion, we could expect more than this.%u201D

Gervais said the financial aspect of the refurbishment project was %u201Cnot something that [the CNSC] take into consideration,%u201D although Stensil questioned the impartiality of Canada%u2019s federal nuclear power regulator.

%u201CWe have a lot of problems with the [CNSC],%u201D he said.

Stensil described how, in 2008, the Harper government had fired CNSC president Linda Keen %u201Cfor applying modern safety standards to reactors in Canada,%u201D putting the independence of the CNSC into question.

He also said that he had acquired correspondences between Hydro-Québec and the CNSC from 2004, where Hydro-Québec told the CNSC that %u201Cthe economic case for refurbishing for Gentilly was%u2026weak.%u201D Stensil said Hydro-Québec%u2019s correspondences implied the company wanted the CNSC to %u201Cloosen the safety requirements so the project would be economical.%u201D

%u201CSo here is a very important point: there%u2019s a conflict of interest between safety and cost, and reducing the cost of Hydro-Québec means increasing the accident risks for Quebeckers,%u201D said Stensil.

In a press conference on March 24, Hydro-Québec President Thierry Vandal said they were following developments in refurbishment projects at twin power plants at Point Laperle in New Brunswick and in South Korea, as well as at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The Daiichi plant in Japan has been struggling to prevent a meltdown in several reactors since the country was hit with a massive earthquake on March 11.

%u201CWe%u2019re going to provide all the information that is required by the government to provide a thoughtful and informed decision on this very, very important project,%u201D said Vandal.

Both Stensil and Mayrand attributed part of the survival of nuclear energy in Quebec and across Canada to an effective government lobbying effort. However, neither Stensil nor Mayrand could give a clear answer as to why Hydro-Québec is choosing to continue to rely on nuclear power, when less expensive and safer renewable alternatives exist.

Currently, the Nuclear Liability Act in Canada caps the maximum possible compensation to victims of a nuclear accident from the power company at $750 million. Stensil pointed to this act as evidence that those involved with nuclear power believe that there is the real possibility of an accident.

%u201CThe truth I think Canadians need to remember, to turn this around %u2013 the industry believes nuclear accidents are a realistic possibility in Canada. %u2026 So while they%u2019re claiming publicly their reactors are perfectly safe, their accountants and their investors know accidents are a realistic possibility,%u201D said Stensil.

%u201CI trust what their investors say, and I%u2019m skeptical of their public [statements], and I think everyone else should be too,%u201D he continued.

Opponents to refurbishment also point out that the Gentilly-2 provides such a small amount of electricity to the province that a surplus in electricity makes its contribution optional.

%u201COne thing that%u2019s notable is the state of Vermont voted to shut down their one reactor, Vermont Yankee, last year, and Quebec has recently signed a deal to export power to them. So we have the power,%u201D said Stensil.

Mayrand also identified multiple health risks associated with Gentilly-2.

%u201CWe know that there is radioactive contamination happening, and it%u2019s allowed under Canadian law,%u201D said Mayrand. %u201CIn Canada, the regulation for the level of radioactivity contained is 7,000 becquerels per litre, and in the U.S. it%u2019s 700%u2026and in Europe it%u2019s 150.%u201D

%u201COur regulations on what is allowed in terms of radioactive contaminants in the environment is much higher here than elsewhere,%u201D she continued. %u201CSo basically, we have this false ceiling of security, but it may not be as secure and as healthy as some people would like us to believe.%u201D

 http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2011/04/coalition-rallying-to-close-quebecs-only-nuclear-plant/

%u2014With files from Mari Galloway

If you are on Facebook and want to join our Group please do so at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_110993702314452&ref=ts