Capitalism Fouls Things Up
Canada's "dirty" nuclear industry continues to make headlines. In recent months the issues have ranged from the controversial sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China, to the start of cross-country public hearings into finding a long term solution to the problem of high level nuclear waste disposal.
In this issue's column we want to provide our readers with some concrete information about Canada's nuclear industry including the cost to the Canadian public of keeping this environmentally destructive source of energy alive, and the ongoing problem of what to do with the large and increasing amount of dangerous waste generated by the nuclear industry.
The cost to Canadians of CANDU nuclear reactor exports can be measured on several scales: economics, Human Rights, corruption, broken commitments by the Canadian government, and nuclear proliferation.
Total subsidies (see below) to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) from Canadian taxpayers, primarily working men and women, totalled $13 billion to the end of March 1995.1 Given the lack of any domestic market for future nuclear sales and the intense competition internationally, coupled with a rapidly declining performance by the CANDU technology, AECL's prospects for future sales are bleak. It is questionable whether reactor sales can even match the level of ongoing federal subsidies.
The countries which AECL has targeted as its highest priorities for CANDU sales (China, Indonesia, Turkey and South Korea), have consistently been identified as among the world's worst human rights violators.2 The Canadian government argues that through its policy of "constructive engagement", i.e., by establishing even stronger commercial relations with such nations, Canada can encourage improvements in human rights. However, this claim has yet to be successfully demonstrated in even a single country. Rather, imposing serious trade sanctions on such countries would seem to have more chance of improving human rights.
Bribery and corruption have a long history in connection with CANDU sales. Over $22 million in bribes, disguised as agent fees, was paid by AECL to secure sales to Argentina and South Korea. Since 1977 AECL has paid out about $60 million for such dubious purposes.
Despite AECL claims that CANDU reactors do not contribute to the spread of nuclear weapons, the CANDU design produces the most plutonium per unit of energy (plutonium is an essential ingredient in nuclear weapons), and is the most difficult to safeguard of any commercial nuclear reactor. This difficulty was demonstrated most graphically in 1974 when India exploded an atomic bomb using plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor.
Canada continues to flout various commitments it has made to stop nuclear proliferation, particularly in the case of the recent CANDU sale to China. While the US government bans the export of nuclear reactors to China because of China's record in providing nuclear military technology to countries which are known to have dedicated programs to build nuclear weapons, Canada places commercial interests in reactor sales above its oft-avowed support for the non-proliferation of nuclear arms.3 Similar concerns no doubt influenced Canada's decision to avoid criticizing China during its latest round of nuclear tests.
According to a recent study by the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, "total federal subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) since its creation in 1952 to March 31, 1997 amount to $15.2 billion" (1997$).4 The "opportunity cost" of this subsidy, i.e., what the subsidy would have been worth if the money had been invested in more cost-competitive ventures, was calculated to be more than $160 billion. Think of the vast array of social, environmental and economic spending options that $160 billion dollars would have given us in the past 45 years. Instead we face the as yet uncosted problem of dealing with the accumulated toxic nuclear waste generated by the nuclear industry.
It is important to note that while the federal government has slashed transfer payments to the provinces for several years, payments used to fund health, education, social services, etc., AECL's funding has only declined slightly in the 1990s and was not reduced at all in 1996-97. In 1996-97 AECL received a subsidy of $174.1 million.5
Some of our readers may be wondering what exactly is meant by the term High Level Waste (HLW). In simple terms HLW is the "spent fuel" from CANDU nuclear reactors. Physically it is in the form of fuel rods which are packed into 24-kilogram fuel bundles. After producing electricity for approximately 12 months, the rods are removed. The spent fuel contains many deadly radioactive elements, byproducts of the fission process, including: uranium, plutonium, cesium and strontium.
The radioactivity of these elements lasts far longer than humans have so far existed. For example, Plutonium has a half-life of 24,400 years, rendering it dangerously radioactive for 250,000 years. Right now most of the HLW from our nuclear reactors is stored in water-filled cooling pools located at the nuclear reactor sites. AECL proposes to bury this HLW in an undetermined location under the Canadian Shield. Their idea "is to dig a hole 500 to 1000 meters inside the rock, deposit the spent fuel and fill in the hole."6 The containers that hold the spent fuel would be designed to last "at least 500 years".
There are several "holes" in AECL's proposal. Firstly, we have no way of knowing how the groundwater at the proposed disposal site will react over a period of thousands of years. Since the disposal containers can only be "guaranteed" as safe for 500 years it is likely that at some point after that the containers will begin leaking into the surrounding groundwater, ultimately contaminating our wells, springs, lakes and rivers.
Secondly, the possibility of earthquakes and their impact on the storage containers must be acknowledged. AECL claims that the Canadian Shield is a predictably geologically stable region, but on December 25, 1989 the Shield was rocked by the "unexpected" Ungava earthquake. It is impossible to predict when or where the next earthquake will occur, but it is reasonably certain that over a span of thousands of years (the expected dangerous lifespan of the HLW) another, if not many, earthquakes will occur. It is reasonable to assume that an earthquake will cause the disposal containers to leak their contents into the surrounding rock.
Thirdly, the terms of NAFTA and the FTA may mean that Canada cannot prevent or limit nuclear waste being imported into Canada for disposal. This prospect has increased as a result of the federal government's decision to accept plutonium from American, and possibly Russian, nuclear warheads for use as fuel in CANDU reactors. In fact, Liberal MP David Iftody is promoting Whiteshell Laboratories in Pinawa, Manitoba as a site "for the disposal of nuclear waste from hundreds of reactors around the world and the dismantling of the nuclear arsenal."7 In other words Canada has the opportunity to serve as the world's nuclear dump site.
Fourthly, the communities that AECL is approaching as possible "volunteer" dump sites are primarily impoverished northern native communities that AECL hopes will be eager to be bought off. The Indigenous Women's Network Saskatchewan, a branch of the IWN based in Minnesota, charges that "the nuclear waste dump proposal is an example of `environmental racism,' where large industries prey upon the desperation of Aboriginal people to take the world's garbage — first it was the toxic tailings from uranium mines and now nuclear waste."8
Finally, transporting the nuclear waste from its source to any disposal site is fraught with dangers ranging from in-transit accidents to possible terrorist activity. This month Germany has witnessed mass demonstrations across the country as protesters from throughout Germany and other European nations have attempted to block the rail shipment of similar nuclear waste to a storage depot in northern Germany. The German government spent $80 million and deployed 30,000 police to make sure the convoy reached its destination.9 Transporting nuclear waste to a site in the Canadian Shield will require transporting the waste thousands of miles, leaving Canadians subject to countless possible environmental disasters.
So what should we do about HLW? To date, no country in the world has come up with a method to permanently dispose of any high-level nuclear waste. Research into possible storage methods or into ways to change nuclear waste into short-lived or non-radioactive substances is ongoing. However, we have to accept that there may never be a truly "safe" place to put our high-level nuclear waste. Current disposal concepts cannot guarantee the safety of future generations. Our best option at present is to keep the waste at the reactor site where it can be monitored in a retrievable storage facility and where we can prevent its dispersal into the environment.
"Our immediate priority should be to stop the problem at the source by phasing out nuclear power. The best, safest, and most reliable way to eliminate nuclear waste is to not create it in the first place."10 This will require a major increase in investment in energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources, both of which create far more jobs for our economy and result in a healthier environment and stronger communities. At the upcoming HLW Hearings raise your voice in opposition to AECL's proposal. Only massive pressure on the federal government can prevent AECL in having its way once again. Don't let it happen!
1. Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Exporting Disaster The Cost of Selling CANDU Reactors, 1997.(Back to Text)
2. Ibid.(Back to Text)
3. Dr. Joan Russow & Dr. Fred Knelman, CANDU sale to China violates Canada's international undertakings. (Back to Text)
4. Martin, David H. and Argue, David. Nuclear Budget Watch 1997. Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Ottawa, 1997, p.1. (Back to Text)
5. Ibid., p. 1. (Back to Text)
6. High Level Nuclear Waste: No End In Sight, Fact Sheet, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Ottawa, 1997. (Back to Text)
7. Ibid. (Back to Text)
8. Ibid. (Back to Text)
9. Alan, "Thousands of angry Germans fail to halt nuclear convoy", The Globe and Mail, March 6, 1997, p. A14. (Back to Text)
10. High Level Nuclear Waste: No End In Sight, Fact Sheet, Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Ottawa, 1997. (Back to Text)