DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta submitted by Alberta Research Council and Idaho National Laboratory to the Government of Alberta Nuclear Expert Panel on October 1, 2008 The Alberta Research Council Inc. (―ARC‖) and Idaho National Laboratory (―INL‖) submit the following paper in confidence to the Government of Alberta Nuclear Expert Panel (―Expert Panel‖). This paper was prepared as an account of work conducted at the ARC and INL. All reasonable efforts were made to ensure that the work conforms to accepted scientific, engineering, and environmental practices, but ARC and INL make no other representation and give no other warranty with respect to the reliability, accuracy, validity, or fitness of the information, analysis, and conclusions contained in this paper. Any and all implied or statutory warranties of merchantability or fitness for any purpose are expressly excluded. Any use or interpretation of the information, analysis, or conclusions contained in this paper is at the user’s risk. Reference herein to any specified commercial product, process, or service by trade-name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation by ARC or INL. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A range of new generation options is being considered by Albertans to meet future power demand caused by rapid economic and population growth. One option is the construction of one or more nuclear power plants that produce no carbon dioxide (CO2) and require no hydrocarbon-based fuel. Such an installation would be the first in western Canada. Although there are a number of nuclear plants successfully operating in eastern Canada, Alberta’s citizens and government have had little experience with this technology. Albertans need a better understanding of the safety of nuclear power and the long-term disposition of the radioactive waste products associated with nuclear fuels, among other topics. This background paper was commissioned by the Government of Alberta nuclear expert panel to provide an overview of the scientific facts and issues concerning nuclear power plants. It introduces the technical, economic, environmental, and social issues of which Albertans need to be aware. This paper does not provide either technical or policy recommendations to address those issues, nor does it cover the use of nuclear technology for making process heat or for co-generating both heat and power, which are possible applications in the oil sands region. A nuclear power plant would only be built in Alberta if the project owner believes there is a demand for the electricity produced. The power demand is independent of the production technology. Hence, the decision is not just whether to build a nuclear plant, but also between satisfying the power demand by building a nuclear plant or by building equivalently sized power generation facilities based on some other technology. The ability to import power from outside Alberta is limited. Because of the large size of nuclear plants, the most comparable alternative is a coal-fired power plant. As a standard example to illustrate the inputs or outputs of a nuclear reactor system, this paper uses data for a single 800-MWe unit, although some power plants consist of multiple independent units at one site. While a nuclear power plant attracts attention because of the nature of its energy source, many of the systems and local impacts are similar to those of an equally large fossil-fired power plant. Although these plants generate heat in different ways, the way that that heat is used to make steam and then electricity is the same. Once it enters the electrical grid, the electricity from both kinds of plant is indistinguishable. This paper describes the current electricity market and that projected by 2024. It also describes the supply and demand by energy source and the distribution of generation, including a regional evaluation of the transmission system. The current load is characterized by strong growth rate, substantial demand from the industrial and the commercial sectors, and a statistical relationship to gross domestic product (GDP) or population growth. The current generation capacity is characterized by a prevalence of coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants, a high degree of geographic concentration, and an increasing market concentration. Rapidly increasing demand is exerting pressure on the generation system. The 2024 projections indicate substantial demand increases over current levels for both generation and load. Of Alberta’s generating capacity, 88% is fossil-fuelled; 94% of the actual electricity generation in 2007 was from fossil fuel. The generation system is already operating at or near its safe operating limits more often and for longer durations. The transmission system requires upgrading and new lines. Peak demand projections are expected to increase 21%–78% over current levels by 2024, or 1.3%–3.2% per year. Oil sands will contribute significantly to the increased energy demand in Alberta. A dedicated and reliable source of electricity is important to oil sands operation, but this is subject to growing concerns surrounding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Nuclear Energy Option in Alberta, October 1, 2008 i Three categories of energy technology (fossil fuel, renewable, and nuclear energy) might be used to meet Alberta’s electricity needs. The technology comparison is based upon underlying parameters such as costs, environmental footprint, sustainability, reliability, and capacity. Coal-based electricity production is well established in Alberta. Supercritical pulverized coal technology is currently the technology of choice due to its efficiency. Coal-fired power plants are large scale (400 MW or greater) and are better-suited for base load power. Natural gas-fired power is also common in Alberta. However, uncertainty surrounding natural gas availability and price have an impact on its long term potential, and make it better suited for peak power production. Increasing concern surrounding GHG raises the future importance of carbon capture technology. Three main options are post-combustion capture, oxyfuel combustion, and pre-combustion capture in an integrated gasification combined cycle. All three result in a significant increase in the power production cost. Different alternatives for renewable energy are present in Alberta. Their inherent intermittency, availability, capacity, and cost currently limit the extent of their energy contribution to, and integration in, the Alberta grid system. Four basic types of commercial nuclear power plants are identified as having potential applicability to the province. These have different characteristics such as technology availability, reactor size, requirements for enrichment, heavy-water production, applicability to heat applications, and reactor efficiency. All of these reactors could be available within the next 20 years. The cost of power from a large scale nuclear power plant is similar to that from a coal power plant equipped with CO2 capture. This paper covers the issues surrounding the integration of nuclear power plants in Alberta. The infrastructure needed to establish and operate a nuclear power plant is extensive and will require significant planning. A large portion of the required physical resources can be obtained in Canada but certain components will have to be imported. The needs extend beyond the nuclear reactor itself to waste fuel storage as well as ancillary infrastructure. Additional infrastructure requirements to distribute these resources to the chosen site should also be considered. The deployment of a nuclear power plant is subject to a number of risks involving the technology itself, licensing, cost of construction, financing, construction time, supply infrastructure, cost of fuel, waste disposal, and risks of accident or terrorism. Another major risk to consider is the current uncertainty surrounding future policies and penalties involving GHG emissions since these will significantly affect the economic comparison of nuclear and fossil fuel-based electricity. The integration of any new large-scale power plant may require substantial reinforcement of the transmission system, a consideration that poses a major challenge especially if there is stakeholder opposition. However, this issue is a function of the size of the new generator and is not specific to nuclear units. As a new generator, the nuclear plant operator will have to pay some costs associated with integration into the transmission grid as well as a potentially refundable system contribution fee. The operational and decommissioning phases of a nuclear plant life cycle primarily affect the reliability and the cost of power production. All owners would insist on reliable operation because nuclear power plants are relatively large and costly. The more capital intensive the plant, the more economically harmful will be its unnecessary shutdown. Nuclear plant operation worldwide has improved over the past several decades, in part because of increased sharing of information within the industry. Regulators routinely make it clear that the primary responsibility for safety and operation falls on the plant owner. It is appropriate to inquire into the relevant nuclear industrial experience of any entity undertaking the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of nuclear power plants. It is also appropriate to inquire about the support network a new plant would have. If the plant were not a CANDU, there would be foreign expertise, but no
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Position Statement #74 Fast Reactor Technology: a Path to Long-Term Energy Sustainability
    Position Statement #74 Fast Reactor Technology: A Path to Long-Term Energy Sustainability The American Nuclear Society believes that the development and Fast reactors in conjunction with fuel recycling can diminish the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron cost and duration of storing and managing reactor waste with fi ssion technology is important to the sustainability, reliability, an offsetting increase in the fuel cycle cost due to reprocessing and security of the world’s long-term energy supply. Of the known and fuel refabrication. Virtually all long-lived heavy elements are and proven energy technologies, only nuclear fi ssion can provide eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount the large quantities of energy required by industrial societies in a of fi ssion product waste that requires assured isolation from the sustainable and environmentally acceptable manner. environment for less than 500 years.4 Natural uranium mined from the earth’s crust is composed Although fast reactors do not eliminate the need for international primarily of two isotopes: 99.3% is U-238, and 0.7% is the fi ssile proliferation safeguards, they make the task easier by segregating U-235. Nearly all current power reactors are of the “thermal and consuming the plutonium as it is created. The use of onsite neutron” design, and their capability to extract the potential energy reprocessing makes illicit diversion from within the process highly in the uranium fuel is limited to less than 1% of that available. impractical. The combination of fast reactors and reprocessing is The remainder of the potential energy is left unused in the spent a promising option for reasons of safety, resource utilization, and fuel and in the uranium, depleted in U-235, that remains from proliferation resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Association 2020 Awards
    Canadian Nuclear Achievement Awards Prix canadiens pour contributions nucléaires exceptionnelles Canadian Nuclear Society/ Canadian Nuclear Association 2020 Awards 2020 June Gaëtan Thomas Ian McRae Award . Mr. Gaëtan Thomas is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer at New Brunswick Power, and has previously held the role of Chief Nuclear Officer and Vice President Nuclear. Throughout his career, he has advanced nuclear energy as a manager, administrator, public servant and top-level communicator. Mr. Thomas is known as a leader who engages with staff at all levels of the organization, facilitating a culture of innovation and excellence. He demonstrated determination and persistence in leading his team through completion of the Point Lepreau Refurbishment project and start-up, giving the station an extended 30 years of operation. He built a foundation of safety and operational excellence upon which the company could flourish and grow. In 2019, Point Lepreau achieved the highest industry standards as assessed by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). Mr. Thomas is also a leader within the broader industry. His roles have included Chair of the New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corporation, Board member of Plug ‘n Drive, and Chairman of the WANO Atlanta Centre. Additionally, he has been selected by Atlantic Business Magazine as one of the region’s Top 50 CEOs, and was selected as one of the Most Influential Acadians by L’Acadie Nouvelle. In recent years, Mr. Thomas has been instrumental in positioning New Brunswick Power as a leader in the development and deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). He has successfully worked with the New Brunswick government to encourage investment in SMR technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Consultation. by Ricardo Acuna
    Issues: Another contentious issue, another phony consultation Nuclear Consultations Ricardo Acuña / ualberta.ca / parkland Why bother? Does anyone in Alberta really believe that "consultations" and "expert panel" reports generated by the provincial government are ever anything more than attempts to whitewash contentious issues and unpopular policies? Yet the government continues to spend millions of dollars on these public relations exercises, and continues to try to pass them off as genuine and objective consultations. The latest supposed information gathering and public consultation effort launched by the government is no different. When Albertans responded loudly and angrily to a proposal from Ontario's Bruce Power to build up to four nuclear reactors in northern Alberta, the government sought to quell the outcry by assuring us that they would not take a position on nuclear power without first studying the pros and cons in depth and fully consulting the public. As always, the first step in this process was the appointment of an "expert panel" to produce a "comprehensive and balanced" research report, which would look at the environmental, safety and myriad other issues related to nuclear power generation. Unfortunately, the panel itself was neither comprehensive nor balanced. The panel is chaired by Harvie Andre, a former Conservative MP who remains closely allied with pro-nuclear Conservatives, including Stephen Harper. Also on the panel is John Luxat, who is a past president of the Canadian Nuclear Society, and a current board member of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Rounding out the panel are Joseph Doucet, an energy policy professor from the University of Alberta, and Harrie Vredenburg, a prof from the University of Calgary who has done work in the past for energy companies holding a direct stake in Bruce Power.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary This Document Is a Summary of the Report Maintaining Excellence: Planning a New Multi-Purpose Research Reactor for Canada
    y S u m m a r About the CNS: The Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS), established in 1979 and independently incorporated in 1998, is a not-for-profit learned society with a nation-wide membership of over 1200. The CNS is dedicated to the exchange of information on the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology. This encompasses all aspects of nuclear energy, uranium, For more information about the Canadian Nuclear Society, fission and other nuclear technologies, such please visit its website or main office: as occupational and environmental protection, medical diagnosis and Canadian Nuclear Society www.cns-snc.ca 480 University Avenue treatment, the use of radioisotopes, and Suite 200 Tel: (416) 977-7620 food preservation. CNS members join as Toronto, ON. Fax: (416) 977-8131 Canada M5G 1V2 individuals (there is no corporate category of membership), and are drawn mainly © 2010 - Canadian Nuclear Society from the various fields mentioned above, The information contained in this document may be copied without permission. including from within the academic This document is not intended for commercial use. Copyright for photography remains with the Canadian Nuclear Society, unless otherwise indicated. community. Canadian Nuclear Society / Société Nucléaire Canadienne MAINTAINING EXCELLENCE: PLANNING A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE RESEARCH REACTOR FOR CANADA Summary This document is a summary of the report Maintaining Excellence: Planning a New Multi-Purpose Research Reactor for Canada. In representing the interests of the Canadian nuclear science and engineering community, the Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) issued that report as a factual, objective contribution to the national discussion on the future role of a national multi-purpose research reactor in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrary to Popular Belief, Coal Is Alive in Canada — but We Can Change That - Ipolitics
    8/11/2021 Contrary to popular belief, coal is alive in Canada — but we can change that - iPolitics (https://ipolitics.ca/) SUBSCRIBE (HTTPS://IPOLITICS.CA/SUBSCRIBE) OPINIONS Contrary to popular belief, coal is alive in Canada — but we can change that By David Khan (https://ipolitics.ca/author/david-khan/). Published on Feb 26, 2021 4:08pm 'Despite Ottawa’s very public promises to “power past” thermal coal and phase out coal-powered electricity in Canada, we continue to mine it here in Alberta and sell it to the world.' Coal (Dexter Frenandes/Pexel photo) Email (mailto:?subject=I want you to Facebook read this article [Contrary to popular (https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php? text=Contrary+to+popular+belief%2C+coal+is+a belief, coal is alive in Canada — but we u=https://ipolitics.ca/2021/02/26/contrary-to- can change that]&body=Check out this popular-belief-coal-is-alive-in-canada-but-we- article: can-change-that/) https://ipolitics.ca/2021/02/26/contrary- to-popular-belief-coal-is-alive-in- canada-but-we-can-change-that/.) Recently, cattle ranchers, environmental activists, members of the Blood Tribe and Siksika Nation — and even a couple country singers — came together to oppose the Alberta government’s decision to quietly rescind the 1976 Coal Policy (https://www.alberta.ca/coal-policy-guidelines.aspx). It was an inspiring Albertan story — a prime example of the do-it-yourself attitude Albertans take pride in. Together, the First Nations, ranchers, environmentalists, musicians, and other Albertans spoke against a decision that left iconic Rocky Mountain peaks open to destructive mining practices, and risked poisoning watersheds that drain into the rest of the province and beyond via rivers across Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Northwest Territories.
    [Show full text]
  • Emission Abatement Potential for the Alberta Oil Sands Industry and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Applicability to Coal-Fired Electricity Generation and Oil Sands
    Canadian Energy Research Institute Emission Abatement Potential for the Alberta Oil Sands Industry and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Applicability to Coal-Fired Electricity Generation and Oil Sands Zoey Walden Study No. 126 October 2011 Relevant • Independent • Objective EMISSION ABATEMENT POTENTIAL FOR THE ALBERTA OIL SANDS INDUSTRY AND CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE (CCS) APPLICABILITY TO COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY GENERATION AND OIL SANDS Emission Abatement Potential for the Alberta Oil Sands Industry and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Applicability to Coal-Fired Electricity Generation and Oil Sands Copyright © Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2011 Sections of this study may be reproduced in magazines and newspapers with acknowledgement to the Canadian Energy Research Institute ISBN 1-927037-03-4 Author: Zoey Walden Acknowledgements: The author of this report would like to extend thanks and gratitude to everyone involved in the production and editing of the material, including, but not limited to Carlos Murillo, Afshin Honarvar, Dinara Millington, Jon Rozhon, Thorn Walden, Peter Howard and most notably Megan Murphy. CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 150, 3512 – 33 Street NW Calgary, Alberta T2L 2A6 Canada www.ceri.ca October 2011 Printed in Canada Emission Abatement Potential for the Alberta Oil Sands Industry and Carbon Capture iii and Storage (CCS) Applicability to Coal-Fired Electricity Generation and Oil Sands Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A AECL EACL AECL Research EACL Recherche
    CA9501000 A AECL EACL AECL Research EACL Recherche AECL-10463, COG-91-340 Characteristics of Used CANDU Fuel Relevant to the Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program Caractéristiques du combustible CANDU usé intéressant le Programme canadien de gestion des déchets de combustible nucléaire K.M. Wasywich £7.M<1 May 1993 mai AECL RESEARCH CHARACTERISTICS OF USED CANDU FUEL RELEVANT TO THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM by K.M. Wasywich Whiteshell Laboratories Pinawa, Manitoba 1993 AECL-10463 COG-91-340 CARACTÉRISTIQUES DU COMBUSTIBLE CANDU USÉ INTÉRESSANT LE PROGRAMME CANADIEN DE GESTION DES DÉCHETS DE COMBUSTIBLE NUCLÉAIRE par K.M. Wasywich RÉSUMÉ On a rassemblé, dans un manuel pratique, des renseignements provenant de la documentation sur les caractéristiques du combustible CANDU (CANada Deuterium Uranium) usé des réacteurs de puissance intéressant son comporte­ ment en tant que forme de déchets. On présente des renseignements sur les quantités de combustible usé produit, la combustion massique, les inven­ taires de radionuclides, la libération des gaz de fission, le volume et la surface de gaz, la microstructure du combustible, les propriétés de la gaine du combustible, la variation des propriétés des grappes de combus­ tible due aux procédés d'immobilisation, aux champs de rayonnement, à la chaleur de désintégration et aux tendances futures pour divers types de combustible CANDU. EACL Recherche Laboratoires de Vhiteshell Pinawa (Manitoba) ROE 1L0 1993 AECL-10463 COG-91-340 CHARACTERISTICS OF USED CANDU FUEL RELEVANT TO THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM by K.M. Wasywich ABSTRACT Literature data on the characteristics of used CANDU (CANada Deuterium Ura­ nium) power-reactor'fuel that are relevant to its performance as a waste form have been compiled in a convenient handbook.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Canadian Oil Sands Applications: a Proposal and Way Forward
    The use of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Canadian Oil Sands Applications: A proposal and way forward By Dennis Attwood, P.Eng, Ph.D Principal, Human Factors Applications and Mohamed Moledina Senior Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Energy Business Unit WorleyParsons Resources & Energy Canada 1. ABSTRACT It has been estimated that Canada’s Oil Sands contain between 160 and 200 billion barrels of oil reserves – the second largest accumulation of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia. It is also estimated that by 2015, output from the oil sands should increase from about 1 million barrels per day (mbbl/day)to approximately 4 mbbl/day. However, Canada and the world have to pay a price for oil extraction from the sands.It is estimated that about 40 cubic metres of natural gas as fuel must be burned for each barrel of synthetic crude produced. Therefore, if oil sands production did reach 4 mbbl/day,natural gas use for oil production could seriously limit exports of natural gas to the US. It has also been estimated that every barrel of synthetic oil pollutes about 950 litersof fresh water and emits about 100 Kg of Carbon Dioxode (CO2)along with other pollutants. Clearly an alternate source of energy is required for oil sands production that will allow our natural gas to be put to better use while simultaneously sustaining our environment. The energy must be continuously obtainable and not be subject to the intermittentavailability of wind or sunlight. Nuclear energy is the obvious choice. Nuclear energy for power generation has been prevalently used around the world since the 1950’s.
    [Show full text]
  • Is There a Role for Nuclear?
    2​ ​ City of Edmonton Urban Form and Corporate Strategic Development ​ Is there a Role For Nuclear? TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Issue Identification PG 3 2. Nuclear Fission Status PG 3 3. Nuclear Fusion Status PG 8 4. Foreseeable Issues and Mitigation Strategies PG 12 5. Conclusions and Recommended Policy Statement(s) PG 13 3​ ​ City of Edmonton Urban Form and Corporate Strategic Development ​ Is there a Role For Nuclear? ISSUE IDENTIFICATION On August 27th, 2019, City of Edmonton (the City) Council Declared a Climate On August 26th, 2019, City Emergency and requested that City administration take steps to bring back a of Edmonton Council Declared a Climate revised Community Energy Transition Strategy (CETS) by the end of third Emergency and requested Quarter 2020 that aligns the current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets that City administration and actions with the local carbon budget for City Council’s approval. The take steps to bring back a revised Community Energy requested work involved the City modelling a 2050 carbon neutral scenario Transition Strategy which showed that even with interventions and aggressive adoption of renewable energy technologies, the City will not be able to reduce enough GHG emissions to stay within its carbon budget developed under a 1.5​o​C scenario. The objective of this policy brief is to examine the current status of nuclear fission and fusion technology and evaluate what role these technologies might play in Edmonton’s Energy Transition. Nuclear fission is the common form of nuclear energy used currently. Nuclear fission is the process by which the nucleus of an atom (typically uranium) is split into two or more smaller atoms, while releasing energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy in Canada GPAC 04NOV09
    Nuclear Energy in Canada Presentation to GPAC Sharon Maddock, P.Eng., Senior Project Manager, Energy Division Wardrop Engineering Inc., a Tetra Tech Company 04-Nov-09 Presentation Outline • Overview of Nuclear Industry • Fuel Cycle – Uranium Mining & Processing of Fuel – Power Generation – Used Nuclear Fuel • Safety, Regulation, Environmental • Numerous Applications including Oil Sands Canada’s Nuclear Industry • 47 years of electricity from CANDU nuclear plants • Today: 17 reactors in service, 3 reactors being refurbished, 2 reactors being placed in safe storage Gentilly, Bruce, Pt. Lepreau, Pickering, Darlington, QC ON NB ON ON Nuclear Industry Economics • $ 6.6 billion/year industry $ 1.5 billion in federal and provincial tax revenues • In 2008, $1.2 billion in exports • Over 150 nuclear related firms in Canada. Total direct and indirect full-time employment from nuclear power production in Canada: 67,000 jobs. The uranium mining industry in Canada generates employment of 5,000 people. Source: Canadian Nuclear Association Electricity Generation Mix in Canada CANDU Fuel Nuclear Fuel 1. Uranium ore extracted through conventional mining 2. U2O converted to pellets 3. Pellets are put into thin zirconium tubes Zirconium tubes with pellets – Elements 4. Elements arranged in different configurations of 28, 37, and 43 called Fuel Bundles 5. Fuel bundles inserted into Fuel Channels in the Reactor Core – Calandria Energy Comparison by Fuel Type • Eight of these uranium fuel pellets can power an average 2000 square-foot home for almost a year
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Canada’S Nuclear Regulator
    The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Canada’s Nuclear Regulator Alberta Innovates Learning Series: Small Modular Nuclear Reactors February 16, 2021 Mr. Marcel DEVOS Senior Project Officer– Technology Reviews New Major Facilities Licensing Division Directorate of Regulatory Improvement and Major Projects Management Canadian Nuclear Commission canadienne Safety Commission de sûreté nucléaire e-Doc 6479939 THE CNSC REGULATES ALL NUCLEAR-RELATED FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES • Uranium mines and mills • Uranium fuel fabrication and processing facilities • Nuclear power plants • Waste management facilities • Nuclear substances & equipment used in industrial, medical, research and educational applications • Transport • Export/import controls OVER THE FULL LIFECYCLE OF FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES 2 OUR MANDATE REGULATE IMPLEMENT DISSEMINATE the use of nuclear Canada's international objective scientific, technical energy and commitments on the and regulatory information to materials to protect peaceful use of nuclear the public health, safety, and energy security and the environment OVER 7 DECADES YEARS OF REGULATORY EXPERIENCE 3 NOT PART OF OUR MANDATE… Promoting the use of nuclear energy Site or technology selection for proposed licensed activities Provincial and Federal Government energy policy such as what mix or types of energy to use Provincial and Federal Government waste policies Indigenous rights and treaty determination 4 CANADA’S REGULATORY APPROACH CNSC Responsibilities: Focus is on Safety Licensee (Regulated Party) Responsibilities First responsibility for safety. Manage regulated activities in a manner that protects the health, safety, security and the environment, while respecting Canada’s international obligations (consistent with the licence application). ALIGNED WITH CONTINUALLY IMPROVING GLOBAL PRACTICE 5 BENCHMARKED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) INDEPENDENT COMMISSION Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Framework for Coal Development in Alberta
    1982) COAL DEVELOPMENT 117 THE LEGALFRAMEWORK FOR COALDEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA L. DOUGLAS RAE• This paper examines the legal and regulatory regime that has been developed by the government of the Province of Alberta in order to implement the specific aspects of the Alberta coal policy. I. INTRODUCTION In June of 1976 the government of the Province of Alberta, through the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, issued a landmark docu­ ment which was to be the basis for coal development in the province from that time forward. Entitled "A Coal Development Policy for Alberta" 1 it is commonly referred to as the "coal policy". In the five years since the document's issuance, the Alberta government has, for the most part, im­ plemented both the general and specific aspects of the policy. It is the pur­ pose of this paper to outline the legislative and regulatory framework through which the coal policy is currently being implemented. The coal policy purports to govern the extraction of coal resources by all methods, including surface mining, underground mining and in situ processes yet to be developed. It must be remembered that the coal policy not only governs the exploration for and extraction of coal resources, but also designates those areas which for the foreseeable future are to be untouched by coal development. Coal deposits in Alberta underlie large areas of the plains, foothills and Rocky Mountains. The coal policy, as it relates to deposits found in the foothills and Rocky Mountains, must be applied in conjunction with the land use zones specified in "A Policy for Resource Management of the Eastern Slopes," 2 which has direct impact on the manner and method of coal development in those areas.
    [Show full text]