Point Lepreau refurbishment worries critics

The decision by the provincial government to proceed with the estimated $1.4 billion refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor -- without any financial assistance from the federal government -- has disappointed the generating station's critics, who had hoped that a recommendation three years ago against refurbishment would lead to a nuclear-free future in the province. On July 29, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord announced that the province will proceed with the refurbishment with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) as the general contractor, which will extend the nuclear reactor's life by 25 to 30 years. The plant, which is located 28 miles from Eastport, was scheduled to operate until 2008.

The decision comes after many months of discussions and negotiations with stakeholders and potential partners. That delay, though, has generated some criticism. Opposition Leader Shawn Graham questions why it has taken so long to make a decision. He says knowledge of the need for refurbishment was known after the Hagler Baillie report in 1998, and he asks whether the premier has merely increased the risk and capital cost. In 1997, the cost of refurbishment and retubing was thought to be about $860 million, but in 2004 Dr. Robin Jeffrey, a nuclear expert hired to analyze the refurbishment proposal, concluded that the cost should be $1.4 billion, including the purchase of replacement electricity.

The federal government will not be contributing, though, to that cost. The province had asked for $400 million from the federal government. "We were shocked by the decision of the federal government not to invest in New Brunswick by investing in the refurbishment of Point Lepreau," Lord said. "I was also shocked that they would support the nuclear industry in China but not support the industry here in New Brunswick. I would like to remind the federal government that AECL is their corporation, and we will hold the federal government accountable for AECL's performance as we move forward with this project."
Derek Burney, chairman of NB Power's board of directors, said, "After completing an exhaustive examination of all options and addressing concerns identified by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities and nuclear expert Dr. Robin Jeffrey, NB Power is confident that refurbishment with AECL represents the best balance of cost and risk for the ratepayers of New Brunswick."

However, David Thompson, a director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and a longtime nuclear energy critic, says the council is disappointed by the provincial government's decision because "there was the clear opportunity to move on renewable energy," including wind and tidal, along with possibly upgrading older hydroelectric stations. In addition, with natural gas coming into Saint John in the future, there's the possibility for cogeneration. "There's the opportunity to move away from the polluting energy of the 1960s," says Thompson, but the provincial government "decided to stay with the status quo."

Pamela McKay, manager of public relations for NB Power, says that the nuclear plant provides a constant source of energy, while wind energy's availability is not predictable. NB Power estimates that wind energy could only provide 2% of the energy supplied by Point Lepreau over a 10-year period. "We support renewable energy, but it's not our intent to replace Lepreau with that energy," she says.

According to NB Power, Lepreau's CANDU-6 reactor provides New Brunswick with 635 megawatts of electricity or 30% of its energy requirements. But Thompson notes that NB Power officials stated during the hearings held in 2002 by the New Brunswick Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on the refurbishment of the reactor that only 400 megawatts, not 635 megawatts, would be needed to replace Lepreau's capacity.

Thompson also states that during the hearings NB Power officials admitted that the true cost of power generated by Point Lepreau is 10.9 cents per kilowatt hour, making it the most expensive power generated in New Brunswick. McKay says that the cost for producing electricity at Point Lepreau is 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Following the hearings, the board decided to reject the refurbishment application because the board was of the opinion that the refurbishment was not "in the public interest." A significant factor in the decision was that, compared to a natural gas option, there was too much risk placed on NB Power and its ratepayers.

Thompson believes that there are many risks involved with refurbishment C including that a full refurbishment of such a reactor has never been done before in Canada. Lesser refurbishments have run over cost and estimated time periods, he notes.

When the plant's operating license expires this fall, the conservation council will be requesting that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission issue a license for only a very short term, instead of the usual five-year period. Thompson points out that safety standards are higher now than when the reactor was built in the 1970s. "NB Power wants to refurbish the core of the reactor but not take the measures to bring it up to current safety standards," says Thompson. "We'll request it be licensed like a new reactor. They're just calling it maintenance."

The nuclear energy critic believes that the Point Lepreau plant has problems that won't be overcome by refurbishment. The plant only has one large generator, so if there is a shutdown for any reason, NB Power has to rely on "dirty fossil fuel" plants instead of a second nuclear generator. During the past several years, there have been numerous outages, the cause of which won't be overcome by refurbishment, Thompson believes. The conservation council also is concerned that nuclear waste is not stored within the reactor containment area and that the safety evacuation plan covers only 12 miles from the plant.

McKay says that the refurbishment will include a complete retubing of the reactor, along with maintenance work, to extend the life of the facility for an additional 25 to 30 years. Completion of the detailed engineering and procurement will begin this summer with completion expected by March 2008. The construction of temporary facilities and waste storage will begin in April 2006. The planned maintenance outage will start in April 2008, and refurbishment will be completed by September 2009.