By Janice Harvey
I’m pretty sure I wrote a column back when the decision to refurbish Lepreau was made in which I called the idea of finishing the project in 18 months and for $1.4 billion a pipedream. I probably reminded people of what the Public Utilities Board, as it was known then, had said earlier of refurbishment – that the technical difficulties and potential for expensive problems were such that the projected cost of the project was unreliable. Therefore, said the PUB, given the availability of alternatives for which the cost is very reliably estimated, refurbishing Point Lepreau would not be in the public interest.
If I recall, it took Conservative premier Bernard Lord several months to make the decision to go ahead anyway. During that period, he was goaded mercilessly by Liberal opposition leader Shawn Graham to sign on the dotted line.
Now here we are, the month by which the refurbishment was to be completed. It is at least seven months overdue, some say nine. Last Saturday’s paper had Energy Minister Jack Keir complaining that the contractor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) isn’t talking to him at this point and he has no idea when the project will be finished. Just give me a date, he pleads.
Tuesday’s paper had Premier Graham weighing in, righteously indignant over AECL’s failure to come clean on how the project is going. Bad management, he says, and he will take it to the Prime Minister.
AECL’s ability to pull off such an unlikely feat has been questioned from the start. The federal Crown corporation’s track record of delivering nuclear projects on time and on budget, at least in Canada, inspires little confidence.
Furthermore, that either Minister Keir or Premier Graham should be surprised by what has transpired certainly does little to inspire confidence in them as accountable decision-makers.
Did either of them read the PUB report on the possibility of refurbishment and the current cost of Lepreau power? Do they understand that New Brunswick taxpayers have already assumed $450 million of the original debt at Point Lepreau? Has either of them followed the difficulties Ontario has had in repairing reactors and getting them back on line, and how much all that has cost?
What credible, objective evidence was there that this was a reasonable job to be done, and therefore a reasonable investment for a province with a low electricity demand and small population of rate payers/tax payers to pay for it?
In short, there was none. There was only AECL’s self-promotion and the hype of the pro-nuclear lobby pitched to a political class that is ideologically committed to the promise of high technology and the priesthood of experts.
Premier Graham needn’t sound too exasperated with the current state of affairs. It was entirely predictable – and predicted by those of us whom governments care to ignore. It is telling that AECL is now actually being rather forthright about the situation. While Minister Keir is demanding to know the end date of the project, AECL is refusing to give one. That will have to wait until the inspection of the reactor core is completed now that the calandria tubes have been removed. Serious problems in the reactor core would slow down the project even more, or possibly end it because it would be too expensive or impossible to repair.
This development was not unforeseen. At the PUB hearings on the project, testimony indicated that the state of the reactor core, once uncovered, could be a show-stopper. Without knowing what awaits in the core, any estimate of time and budget for the refurbishment isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. This was a major factor in leading the PUB to make the decision it did.
So here we are, waiting for the core to be inspected. Had they availed themselves of the information from the government’s own unbiased tribunal, Premier Graham or Minister Keir could have avoided all this.
In nuclear projects, you only know where the finish line is when you reach it. Or the game could be called for lack of money. In AECL’s current situation, what are the chances Stephen Harper will write a cheque to cover cost overruns at Point Lepreau?
Prudent politics would avoid nuclear projects altogether, or cut the losses and bail. The money could be much better spent without saddling our progeny with the staggering financial and ecological debt inherent in all things nuclear.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
