Ontario’s nuclear debate re-ignites
OPG betting billions on Darlington as overhaul hearings begin
Let the nuclear debate begin, again.
Starting Monday at a church in Courtice, east of Oshawa, Ontario Power Generation will make the case for performing a multibillion-dollar mid-life refit of its Darlington nuclear generating station.
And the hearings by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will give opponents of nuclear power a chance to state their views.
Dozens of groups and individuals who both oppose and support the project have already lined up to address the hearings.
It’s a massive undertaking to overhaul the station’s four reactors, work that will extend the life of the station until midcentury. Two years ago, Ontario’s ministry of energy gave a ballpark cost estimate of $6 billion to $10 billion.
OPG won’t make a hard estimate until 2015 — by which time it says it will have worked out an hour-by-hour schedule for the project.
Tom Mitchell, OPG’s chief executive, says there’s every reason to proceed, however.
“The plant is at mid-life, and it’s a world-class performer,” he said in a recent speech. “Refurbishment will enable it to continue its excellent performance for another 25 to 30 years. That’s 25 to 30 more years of reliable, lowemission, large-scale baseload power — generated at an affordable cost.”
Since the plant’s four reactors produce about 20 per cent of Ontario’s power, everyone in Ontario who uses electricity has a stake in the overhaul. The scope of the work is massive. A nuclear reactor is a big steel drum or calandria, lying on its side, and pierced by 480 double-walled horizontal tubes.
Filling the calandria outside the tubes is heavy water, which is needed to promote the nuclear reaction in the Candu technology used by Ontario’s reactors.
The tubes piercing the calandria contain the uranium fuel pellets. They also contain heavy water that carries heat from the nuclear reaction to a steam generator; the steam ultimately turns the turbines that power the generators.
In the refit, each of the 480 tubes will be removed and replaced, as will the feeder tubes that circulate the heavy water to the steam generator and back.
The work — in effect, rebuilding the heart of the reactor — is delicate and precise, and performed in an environment where workers’ exposure to radiation must be carefully monitored.
OPG is building a full-scale mockup of a reactor near the plant so work crews can rehearse their tasks. But not everyone is as enthusiastic as Mitchell about the project.
Traditional opponents of nuclear power have signed up as well to give their views.
Greenpeace, a venerable campaigner against nuclear energy, is one. “This project will lock Ontario into a reliance on nuclear power until 2055,” Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, said in an interview.
It will also limit Ontario’s ability to develop renewable power, he said.
Overall demand for power is shrinking, he said; if nuclear is awarded a big block of the supply it will crowd out space for wind, solar and other renewables, he said.
The scope of next week’s hearings don’t provide for discussion of alternative supplies, he said. “The project comes with a lot of risks, but we never have a discussion about the alternatives,” Stensil said.
Safety is likely to be big issue at the hearings, especially in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
OPG insists it has done its homework since Fukushima, improving both procedures and equipment to cope with catastrophic events.
But two decades of successful operation, it says, “has demonstrated that the station is safe and operates within a small overall environmental footprint.” Others aren’t so sure. The Canadian Environmental Law Association, for example, says OPG’s planning hasn’t considered the possibility of severe accidents with a wide-spread release of radiation. “The province of Ontario must develop detailed evacuation plans for at least 20- to 30-kilometre areas around Darlington — not just10 km — until 2055, as well as more detailed plans for 50 to 80 km,” it said in its brief. It has doubts about extending the life of the plant at all, because of the growth around the site: “The suitability of the Darlington site must be re-evaluated in light of growing population and the regular occurrence of nuclear accidents internationally.” The Sierra Club of Canada takes up the same message: “To advocate or authorize the building of new or extended nuclear reactors at the Darlington site, knowing what has happened at Chernobyl and at Fukushima, it is not only unwise but could be seen as a crime against current and future generations,” the club warned in its brief. Other submissions, from individuals, are short and to the point: “I personally have lost faith in the Nuclear Industry,” Larraine Roulston wrote. “Accidents are bound to happen, whether they be human error or one of a natural disaster engulfing a nuclear plant. For the sake of the next generation, it is time we turned our attention towards energy conservation and green alternatives.” But there’s plenty of support as well, especially from the community around the plant. Darlene Brown, executive direc- tor of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Clarington, writes wholeheartedly in favour of the project:
“Whenever we have needed them, they have been there to lend a helping hand,”her brief said.
“OPG Darlington continually displays a high level of Corporate Social Responsibility, and I am sure that this high standard is one that is carried throughout all areas of OPG.” Oshawa Mayor John Henry also writes in support: “In essence, the presence and practices of Darlington Nuclear make Oshawa a better city.”
The hearing is expected to last four days. OPG is also asking for an extension of its operating licence, as well as a licence to continue storing spent fuel on the site.