McNamara: Comments on Mel Knight's Nuclear Power Report
Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:10 pmComments on Mel Knight's Nuclear Power Report
by Pat McNamara April 01, 2009
In May 2008, Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight announced the formation of "An Expert Nuclear Panel" to investigate whether nuclear energy is appropriate for Alberta. The panel was set up to help the province answer questions on environmental, health, safety and waste management issues surrounding nuclear energy.
The report released by Mel Knight last week did not answer any of these questions. Instead, the report was little more than a nuclear industry advertisement on behalf of nuclear reactors and the merits of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Considering its purported mandate, the Expert Nuclear Panel Report is fraudulent, incomplete and biased. (Report at: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/1577.asp )
In reality, we couldn't expect anything else considering the makeup of the panel. Harvie Andre was appointed to chair the committee despite having no expertise in environmental, health, safety or radioactive waste related issues. There were no environmental experts, medical doctors, nuclear opponents or health experts on the panel at all.
The balance of the panel consisted of two business professors from Alberta universities and a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The panel was advised on nuclear issues by the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory from the United States. Even by Mel Knight's dubious standards, this report is a slap in the face of democracy and the people he was elected to serve.
Reactors
The report says new reactor designs are safer, more efficient and easier to control and operate. Yet the report makes no mention that two of the three reactor types being considered in Canada have not even been completely designed yet, much less gone through the regulatory process to determine their level of safety.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that design approval for the Westinghouse AP-1000 will not come until 2012 at the earliest. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s ACR-1000 is an even more dubious reactor. It is based on AECL’s aborted ACR-700 reactor which the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined did not operate as AECL claimed. The ACR-1000 is still on the drawing board and is years away from licensing. How can the "Expert Nuclear Panel" say these reactors are safer and more efficient if the nuclear regulators haven't determined if they work yet?
The only Generation 3 reactors being built are by Areva. They started building their first EPR reactor in Finland in 2005. The project is currently three and a half years behind schedule and 55% over budget because of poor welding, flaws in piping and mistakes with concrete pouring. The nuclear regulator in Finland had issued over 2000 citations to Areva for work deficiencies. Siemens, the German engineering firm is pulling out of the project which will cost Areva $2 billion. Further, the Finnish government has started a $4 billion legal action against Areva to cover replacement electricity and Green-credit costs as a result of the project being so far behind schedule.
Areva started building the second EPR reactor at Flamanville France in December 2007. The French Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) shut down the project six months after it started (May 21, 2008) after finding cracks in the slab beneath the reactor building and non-conformities in steel re-enforcing for the concrete among many other deficiencies. A quarter of the welds were not up to standards. The entire reactor site was shut down for a month before work was allowed to resume.
On page 42, the report states that nuclear reactors are designed to safely withstand man-made and natural destructive forces, including earthquakes. However, the report makes no mention of the seven reactors in Japan that were damaged and shut down as the result of an earthquake two years ago. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is the largest complex in the world. As with Alberta's "Expert Panel", the Japaneese experts assured the Japaneese public that earthquakes could not harm the reactors.
None of this information was included in the "Expert Nuclear Panel's Report".
Neutron Radiation
On page 37, the report discusses the relative dangers of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. But no mention is made of neutron radiation which is the most dangerous form.
"Neutrons readily pass through most material, but interact enough to cause biological damage. Due to the high kinetic energy of neutrons, this radiation is considered to be the most severe and dangerous radiation available. Another, sometimes more severe, hazard of neutron radiation is neutron activation, the ability of neutron radiation to induce radioactivity in most substances it encounters, including the body tissues of the workers themselves." (Wikipedia)
Neutron radiation is present at the reactors and during processing of UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) in Port Hope.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
The report's brief discussion of low-level radioactive waste states that the radiation levels in this material are very low. This is simply not true. The term "low-level" denotes the origin of the material, not the level of radiation. Low-level radioactive waste can be very highly radioactive. Several sites are briefly discussed but no mention is made of the massive quantities of low-level radioactive waste in Port Hope, Pinawa and Chalk River.
The report makes no mention of about 400 million tons of radioactive mine tailings at the uranium mines in Ontario, Saskatchewan and the North West Territories. For instance, at Serpent River Ontario, the tailings from 12 mines were dumped into ten lakes near the mines. The radioactive tailings killed all ten lakes and 55 miles of the Serpent River. The Serpent River is literally a river of poison from the dead lakes to Lake Huron.
Radiation Hormesis
The only discussion of health impacts from the nuclear industry concerned the impact of low levels of radiation on people. The report put forward the belief among many in the nuclear industry that small amounts of radiation are good for you, which is called "radiation hormesis". No mention was made of the findings of the BEIR 7 Report from the United States National Academy of Sciences which states that there is no safe level of radiation. The BEIR 7 Report further states that there is no scientific evidence to support the industry's belief in radiation hormesis.
There is no mention of any of the reports which show elevated rates of cancers and leukemia in people living close to reactors.
Environmental Impacts
According to the report: "Environmental impacts arise from periodic blow down discharge of water containing chlorine and other chemicals used to control corrosion and the accumulation of microbes and minerals." There is no discussion in the report about the nature of these "other chemicals" or of the environmental impact they have. There are no other environmental consequences of the nuclear fuel cycle spoken to in the report.
Water Usage
The report states that 17 million cubic metres of water per year would evaporate from the cooling tower of an 800 megawatt reactor or 21,250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt. Bruce Power estimates that 113 million cubic metres of water will evaporate from the cooling towers for four 1000 megawatt reactors or 28250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt.
Bruce Power's estimate of water usage is 33% higher per megawatt than the figure cited in the report. Why is there such a large discrepancy? Who is right?
Community Education
The report states: "there is a need for the citizens of Alberta to have a reasonable understanding of the issues and concerns associated with nuclear power plants."
I completely agree. However, after reading this report and attending Bruce Power's open houses in the Peace River region March 23-26, it is very clear that the Alberta government, Mel Knight and Bruce Power cannot be relied on to give both sides of the nuclear debate. Funding must be provided by the Alberta government and Bruce Power to allow nuclear opponents to give the other side.
Reprocessing Spent Reactor Fuel
There are multiple references throughout the report touting the benefits of recycling high-level waste from spent reactor fuel. However, there is no mention anywhere in the report that reprocessing has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried.
The process involves chopping up the highly radioactive spent fuel bundles and dissolving them in boiling nitric acid. The process causes the release of radioactive gases and the contamination of the nitric acid which has to be dealt with as high-level radioactive waste. The plutonium is separated from other radioactive products to be used to manufacture Mox (Mixed Oxide) Fuel for breeder reactors.
United States - Nuclear Fuel Services built and operated a reprocessing facility in West Valley, New York from 1966-1972. The facility processed 640 metric tonnes of spent reactor fuel while in operation and generated 660,000 US gallons (2,500 tonnes) of highly radioactive liquid waste. The waste must be stored in an underground carbon-steel tank for around 200,000 years before it loses its radioactive potency, There was four times as much radiactive waste after reprocessing as there was before. The State of New York commissioned a study on the West Valley site and found out it would cost between $9-$27 billion to clean it up. This runs contrary to the Expert Nuclear Panel Report that claims the amount of radioactive waste is reduced through reprocessing.
In 1971, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (US) was estimated to cost $400 million. When it was finally cancelled in 1983, $8 billion had been spent on it.
France - "A July 2000 report commissioned by the French government concluded that reprocessing was uneconomical - costing about $25 billion more than a "once through" fuel cycle - and will do little to reduce the amount of long-lived radionuclides in the waste." (Public Citizen - Nuclear Waste Reprocessing) Reprocessing in France has severely polluted the English Channel.
The Superphenix Breeder reactor was started in 1981 and was shut down in 1997. It produced very little electricity during its final ten years because of breakdowns. By 1996, it was estimated the reactor cost more than 9 billion Euros.
England - It appears as if Britain is going to close the Sellafield Mox Plant after ten years of troubled operation. The Mox production plant cost almost a billion dollars to build when it opened in 1999 and has never worked properly. Further, it was hit by scandal concerning quality control and falsification of documents from the start. They were never able to regain business from the Japanese they lost as a result.
"These discharges go into the sea, the surrounding countryside, the air and into us. Sellafield's waste discharges have made the Irish Sea the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and its waste has been washed up on shores as far away as Greenland. Sellafield's pollution is found in the sea spray, soil, vegetation and bodies of animals and in people's homes. There are areas around Sellafield that are as radioactive as the land in the 'exclusion' zone around the stricken Chernobyl nuclear reactor." (Greenpeace, UK)
Japan - In March 2009, Japan Nuclear Fuels Limited (JNFL) announced the 16th delay in completing its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant which was originally scheduled to open in 1997. The $20 billion price tag for the project is about three times as was estimated when the project started in 1993.
Japan's Monju fast breeder reactor has been shut down since 1995 becaus eod severe safety concerns.
Reprocessing has caused massive contamination of the Irish Sea from Sellafield, the English channel off the French coast from the La Hague reprocessing plant and in West Valley New York. Reprocessing is not economical and you end up with several times as much waste as you started with. The fact that most of it is liquid waste further adds to the challenges of containment.
Missing Information
No mention was made of the demise of the plan to dispose of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain in the United States. There is no site designated in Canada either.
No mention was made that Canadian taxpayers would be responsible for 99.9% of up to one trillion dollars in damages in the event of a major accident.
No mention was made of a site to dispose of decommissioned reactors, nor a time frame for doing so.
No mention was made of reactors costs or who would be responsible for cost overruns.
No mention was made of the billions of dollars in costs and liabilities Canadians are responsible for from the last round of reactor construction in Canada.
No mention was made of the health studies showing elevated rates of leukemia and cancers around nuclear reactors.
No mention was made about reprocessing contamination or that all breeder reactors built to date have been shut down for safety issues and high costs.
No mention was made of elevated tritium levels if CANDU technology was chosen.
No mention was made as to which regulatory body would deem these new reactors safe to operate. The CNSC does not have the regulatory statutes in place nor the technical expertise to determine whether a reactor is safe to operate.
No mention was made of any of the negative aspects of nuclear energy.
Blatant Hypocrisy and Bias
The Report states: "This report is intended to be an unbiased compilation of scientifically accepted information underpinning the issues associated with nuclear power." How can this aim be met when only pro-nuclear advocates are present on the panel?
The hypocrisy and bias of this panel was clearly shown when Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the world’s foremost experts on the health consequences of exposure to radiation, offered to meet with the panel on a recent visit to Canada from Australia. Harvie Andre refused her offer because she is a "biased advocate". The panel then announced that it "had unanimously agreed it won't "entertain requests from proponents or opponents of nuclear power." This came from a panel which includes a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and consultants from the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory in the United States.
The Expert Nuclear Panel Report has little credibility because of the biased and inadequate information it contains, the exclusion of health and environmental considerations and in some cases, false information.This report from Mel Knight is further confirmation of his disregard for the well-being and rights of Albertans in his support of large corporations.
Recommendations
That Bruce Power and the province provide resources to grass-roots organizations to develop and present information to the public about nuclear power concerns not brought forward by nuclear proponents
That the CNSC establish a presence or a direct liaison to concerned community members. The concerns in the community must be addressed as they arise.
That the current impacts of the proposal on the immediate community be tabulated, assessed and dealt with by Bruce Power.
Pat McNamara
entwork@hotmail.com
"Pat McNamara is a former resident of Port Hope now living in Grande Prairie Alberta"
by Pat McNamara April 01, 2009
In May 2008, Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight announced the formation of "An Expert Nuclear Panel" to investigate whether nuclear energy is appropriate for Alberta. The panel was set up to help the province answer questions on environmental, health, safety and waste management issues surrounding nuclear energy.
The report released by Mel Knight last week did not answer any of these questions. Instead, the report was little more than a nuclear industry advertisement on behalf of nuclear reactors and the merits of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Considering its purported mandate, the Expert Nuclear Panel Report is fraudulent, incomplete and biased. (Report at: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/1577.asp )
In reality, we couldn't expect anything else considering the makeup of the panel. Harvie Andre was appointed to chair the committee despite having no expertise in environmental, health, safety or radioactive waste related issues. There were no environmental experts, medical doctors, nuclear opponents or health experts on the panel at all.
The balance of the panel consisted of two business professors from Alberta universities and a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The panel was advised on nuclear issues by the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory from the United States. Even by Mel Knight's dubious standards, this report is a slap in the face of democracy and the people he was elected to serve.
Reactors
The report says new reactor designs are safer, more efficient and easier to control and operate. Yet the report makes no mention that two of the three reactor types being considered in Canada have not even been completely designed yet, much less gone through the regulatory process to determine their level of safety.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission says that design approval for the Westinghouse AP-1000 will not come until 2012 at the earliest. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited’s ACR-1000 is an even more dubious reactor. It is based on AECL’s aborted ACR-700 reactor which the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined did not operate as AECL claimed. The ACR-1000 is still on the drawing board and is years away from licensing. How can the "Expert Nuclear Panel" say these reactors are safer and more efficient if the nuclear regulators haven't determined if they work yet?
The only Generation 3 reactors being built are by Areva. They started building their first EPR reactor in Finland in 2005. The project is currently three and a half years behind schedule and 55% over budget because of poor welding, flaws in piping and mistakes with concrete pouring. The nuclear regulator in Finland had issued over 2000 citations to Areva for work deficiencies. Siemens, the German engineering firm is pulling out of the project which will cost Areva $2 billion. Further, the Finnish government has started a $4 billion legal action against Areva to cover replacement electricity and Green-credit costs as a result of the project being so far behind schedule.
Areva started building the second EPR reactor at Flamanville France in December 2007. The French Nuclear Safety Agency (ASN) shut down the project six months after it started (May 21, 2008) after finding cracks in the slab beneath the reactor building and non-conformities in steel re-enforcing for the concrete among many other deficiencies. A quarter of the welds were not up to standards. The entire reactor site was shut down for a month before work was allowed to resume.
On page 42, the report states that nuclear reactors are designed to safely withstand man-made and natural destructive forces, including earthquakes. However, the report makes no mention of the seven reactors in Japan that were damaged and shut down as the result of an earthquake two years ago. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is the largest complex in the world. As with Alberta's "Expert Panel", the Japaneese experts assured the Japaneese public that earthquakes could not harm the reactors.
None of this information was included in the "Expert Nuclear Panel's Report".
Neutron Radiation
On page 37, the report discusses the relative dangers of alpha, beta and gamma radiation. But no mention is made of neutron radiation which is the most dangerous form.
"Neutrons readily pass through most material, but interact enough to cause biological damage. Due to the high kinetic energy of neutrons, this radiation is considered to be the most severe and dangerous radiation available. Another, sometimes more severe, hazard of neutron radiation is neutron activation, the ability of neutron radiation to induce radioactivity in most substances it encounters, including the body tissues of the workers themselves." (Wikipedia)
Neutron radiation is present at the reactors and during processing of UF6 (uranium hexafluoride) in Port Hope.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
The report's brief discussion of low-level radioactive waste states that the radiation levels in this material are very low. This is simply not true. The term "low-level" denotes the origin of the material, not the level of radiation. Low-level radioactive waste can be very highly radioactive. Several sites are briefly discussed but no mention is made of the massive quantities of low-level radioactive waste in Port Hope, Pinawa and Chalk River.
The report makes no mention of about 400 million tons of radioactive mine tailings at the uranium mines in Ontario, Saskatchewan and the North West Territories. For instance, at Serpent River Ontario, the tailings from 12 mines were dumped into ten lakes near the mines. The radioactive tailings killed all ten lakes and 55 miles of the Serpent River. The Serpent River is literally a river of poison from the dead lakes to Lake Huron.
Radiation Hormesis
The only discussion of health impacts from the nuclear industry concerned the impact of low levels of radiation on people. The report put forward the belief among many in the nuclear industry that small amounts of radiation are good for you, which is called "radiation hormesis". No mention was made of the findings of the BEIR 7 Report from the United States National Academy of Sciences which states that there is no safe level of radiation. The BEIR 7 Report further states that there is no scientific evidence to support the industry's belief in radiation hormesis.
There is no mention of any of the reports which show elevated rates of cancers and leukemia in people living close to reactors.
Environmental Impacts
According to the report: "Environmental impacts arise from periodic blow down discharge of water containing chlorine and other chemicals used to control corrosion and the accumulation of microbes and minerals." There is no discussion in the report about the nature of these "other chemicals" or of the environmental impact they have. There are no other environmental consequences of the nuclear fuel cycle spoken to in the report.
Water Usage
The report states that 17 million cubic metres of water per year would evaporate from the cooling tower of an 800 megawatt reactor or 21,250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt. Bruce Power estimates that 113 million cubic metres of water will evaporate from the cooling towers for four 1000 megawatt reactors or 28250 cubic metres of water per year per megawatt.
Bruce Power's estimate of water usage is 33% higher per megawatt than the figure cited in the report. Why is there such a large discrepancy? Who is right?
Community Education
The report states: "there is a need for the citizens of Alberta to have a reasonable understanding of the issues and concerns associated with nuclear power plants."
I completely agree. However, after reading this report and attending Bruce Power's open houses in the Peace River region March 23-26, it is very clear that the Alberta government, Mel Knight and Bruce Power cannot be relied on to give both sides of the nuclear debate. Funding must be provided by the Alberta government and Bruce Power to allow nuclear opponents to give the other side.
Reprocessing Spent Reactor Fuel
There are multiple references throughout the report touting the benefits of recycling high-level waste from spent reactor fuel. However, there is no mention anywhere in the report that reprocessing has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried.
The process involves chopping up the highly radioactive spent fuel bundles and dissolving them in boiling nitric acid. The process causes the release of radioactive gases and the contamination of the nitric acid which has to be dealt with as high-level radioactive waste. The plutonium is separated from other radioactive products to be used to manufacture Mox (Mixed Oxide) Fuel for breeder reactors.
United States - Nuclear Fuel Services built and operated a reprocessing facility in West Valley, New York from 1966-1972. The facility processed 640 metric tonnes of spent reactor fuel while in operation and generated 660,000 US gallons (2,500 tonnes) of highly radioactive liquid waste. The waste must be stored in an underground carbon-steel tank for around 200,000 years before it loses its radioactive potency, There was four times as much radiactive waste after reprocessing as there was before. The State of New York commissioned a study on the West Valley site and found out it would cost between $9-$27 billion to clean it up. This runs contrary to the Expert Nuclear Panel Report that claims the amount of radioactive waste is reduced through reprocessing.
In 1971, the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (US) was estimated to cost $400 million. When it was finally cancelled in 1983, $8 billion had been spent on it.
France - "A July 2000 report commissioned by the French government concluded that reprocessing was uneconomical - costing about $25 billion more than a "once through" fuel cycle - and will do little to reduce the amount of long-lived radionuclides in the waste." (Public Citizen - Nuclear Waste Reprocessing) Reprocessing in France has severely polluted the English Channel.
The Superphenix Breeder reactor was started in 1981 and was shut down in 1997. It produced very little electricity during its final ten years because of breakdowns. By 1996, it was estimated the reactor cost more than 9 billion Euros.
England - It appears as if Britain is going to close the Sellafield Mox Plant after ten years of troubled operation. The Mox production plant cost almost a billion dollars to build when it opened in 1999 and has never worked properly. Further, it was hit by scandal concerning quality control and falsification of documents from the start. They were never able to regain business from the Japanese they lost as a result.
"These discharges go into the sea, the surrounding countryside, the air and into us. Sellafield's waste discharges have made the Irish Sea the most radioactively contaminated sea in the world and its waste has been washed up on shores as far away as Greenland. Sellafield's pollution is found in the sea spray, soil, vegetation and bodies of animals and in people's homes. There are areas around Sellafield that are as radioactive as the land in the 'exclusion' zone around the stricken Chernobyl nuclear reactor." (Greenpeace, UK)
Japan - In March 2009, Japan Nuclear Fuels Limited (JNFL) announced the 16th delay in completing its Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant which was originally scheduled to open in 1997. The $20 billion price tag for the project is about three times as was estimated when the project started in 1993.
Japan's Monju fast breeder reactor has been shut down since 1995 becaus eod severe safety concerns.
Reprocessing has caused massive contamination of the Irish Sea from Sellafield, the English channel off the French coast from the La Hague reprocessing plant and in West Valley New York. Reprocessing is not economical and you end up with several times as much waste as you started with. The fact that most of it is liquid waste further adds to the challenges of containment.
Missing Information
No mention was made of the demise of the plan to dispose of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain in the United States. There is no site designated in Canada either.
No mention was made that Canadian taxpayers would be responsible for 99.9% of up to one trillion dollars in damages in the event of a major accident.
No mention was made of a site to dispose of decommissioned reactors, nor a time frame for doing so.
No mention was made of reactors costs or who would be responsible for cost overruns.
No mention was made of the billions of dollars in costs and liabilities Canadians are responsible for from the last round of reactor construction in Canada.
No mention was made of the health studies showing elevated rates of leukemia and cancers around nuclear reactors.
No mention was made about reprocessing contamination or that all breeder reactors built to date have been shut down for safety issues and high costs.
No mention was made of elevated tritium levels if CANDU technology was chosen.
No mention was made as to which regulatory body would deem these new reactors safe to operate. The CNSC does not have the regulatory statutes in place nor the technical expertise to determine whether a reactor is safe to operate.
No mention was made of any of the negative aspects of nuclear energy.
Blatant Hypocrisy and Bias
The Report states: "This report is intended to be an unbiased compilation of scientifically accepted information underpinning the issues associated with nuclear power." How can this aim be met when only pro-nuclear advocates are present on the panel?
The hypocrisy and bias of this panel was clearly shown when Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the world’s foremost experts on the health consequences of exposure to radiation, offered to meet with the panel on a recent visit to Canada from Australia. Harvie Andre refused her offer because she is a "biased advocate". The panel then announced that it "had unanimously agreed it won't "entertain requests from proponents or opponents of nuclear power." This came from a panel which includes a director of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and consultants from the Idaho National Nuclear Laboratory in the United States.
The Expert Nuclear Panel Report has little credibility because of the biased and inadequate information it contains, the exclusion of health and environmental considerations and in some cases, false information.This report from Mel Knight is further confirmation of his disregard for the well-being and rights of Albertans in his support of large corporations.
Recommendations
That Bruce Power and the province provide resources to grass-roots organizations to develop and present information to the public about nuclear power concerns not brought forward by nuclear proponents
That the CNSC establish a presence or a direct liaison to concerned community members. The concerns in the community must be addressed as they arise.
That the current impacts of the proposal on the immediate community be tabulated, assessed and dealt with by Bruce Power.
Pat McNamara
entwork@hotmail.com
"Pat McNamara is a former resident of Port Hope now living in Grande Prairie Alberta"