Nuclear Industry

To:  Panel Secretariat, Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Read the rest of this entry ... (2483 words left)

Did the world nuclear establishment instigate the concept of global warming in order to insure its own survival and potential expansion?

Some may think “instigate” is too strong a word. However, the influence of the nuclear establishment on the development and perpetuation of the global warming-climate change movement during the 1980's and 90's to the present, certainly raises some serious questions about its role.

Prior to the  Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992 and the 1997 Kyoto assemblage, the world’s nuclear establishment was sustained by financial “life supports” from governments and was facing imminent collapse. Since the 1970's, orders for new reactors had all but dried up.   Even nuclear engineers were becoming an endangered species resulting from lack of new projects.

During the 1980's, the time was ripe for the nuclear establishment to escalate its efforts to  assure its survival and to expand its horizons.  Its actions suggest that its strategy was designed to achieve  a  “nuclear renaissance.”  The strategy appears to have coupled the growing world demands for energy with the idea of a human induced world-wide environmental “meltdown” caused by greenhouse gasses.  Nuclear was portrayed by its advocates as the ideal solution to this two pronged energy and environmental threat.

However, it appears that the nuclear establishment had been working on this project for a much longer period of time.  According to environmental consultant Alan Tate, it has been promoting itself as a solution to climate change for decades.  He points out that its representatives were in abundance during the 1988 climate change convention in Argentina.  "They inundated the international negotiators, including with what appeared to be a number of front groups like Students for Nuclear Power,"

Furthermore, in the U.K. during the 1970's, nuclear energy interests worked with the Margaret Thatcher’s government to use global warming as a way of boosting nuclear power.   A U.K News, March 4th, 2007, article recounts a documentary called 'Global Warming Is Lies. It  depicts how the global warming research drive really began when Mrs. Thatcher gave money to scientists to 'prove' burning coal and oil was harmful, as part of her intense effort to stimulate the growth of  nuclear power.

In the U.S., the eminent scientist, Alvin Weinberg, and others involved in the early days of nuclear energy, were promoting the idea of nuclear as the future energy source to deal with a potential CO2/global warming problem stemming from the use of carbon based fuels.

But the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. As well, the unsolved nuclear waste issue was becoming an albatross around the nuclear neck. Thus, global warming became the main rationale for the unpopular nuclear power facilities which were required for nuclear weapons development.

Additionally, to achieve its survival and expansion goals, the nuclear establishment knew it could rely on its long-standing  relationship with, and powerful influence on,  the world’s scientific community,  which it had developed in its early days; during the 1950's and early 60's.

As a middle management level employee in the headquarters of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for three years in the late 1950's, I had a grandstand seat from which to witness the rapid, almost meteoric rise of the “atoms for peace” program and all that it entailed. The public was told that nuclear energy would be “too cheap to meter.”

It was an era of cost plus fixed fee contracts for  some of the largest U.S. corporations, as well as the development of lucrative “symbiotic” relationships with broad based university science and engineering programs. Money was no object. The Eisenhower administration made sure of that. Scientific and engineering disciplines (especially physical, biological, earth, and medical sciences) benefitted greatly from the bulging nuclear pocketbook augmented by massive support from governments.  

By the 1980's, it had become very difficult to locate scientists or engineers in virtually any discipline anywhere in the world who would openly criticize nuclear energy. Try to find a scientist today who will lend his or her name to the "no nukes" side of the nuclear energy controversy!  A few exist but they are generally blacklisted or worse by the mainstream scientific community and governments around the world.

When I was a spokesperson for the Concerned Citizens of Manitoba (regarding nuclear waste issues)  in the early 80's, it was clear that you could count the number of scientific and technical critics on the fingers of your hands. The giant world nuclear establishment had become a  major source of employment, professional opportunities, and especially large financial grants for scientific exploration into climate change and global warming.  It’s influence was indeed formidable.

In 1988, an intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed under United Nations auspices to study the impact of human intervention on the climate, and by 1997, the nuclear establishment was pushing the global warming envelope to new heights.

According to writer Jeffrey St. Clair, the very well heeled Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) distributed a packet to the Kyoto convention participants promoting the benefits of nuclear energy to the environment and especially to the global warming issue. Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and other environmental groups have been working to block the nuclear establishment’s efforts “...to use the pollution trading credit scheme in the Kyoto climate change agreement to offset nuclear energy’s oppressive construction costs.”


While most environmentalists involved in the Kyoto process did not embrace nuclear as a “green” technology, others actually slipped into the nuclear camp, such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. I find it disheartening that any environmentalist would advocate nuclear energy as solution to anything, but, some unhappily have.   But the battle goes on, and during the December, 2008, Poznan climate change conference, some church and women’s groups admirably continued the fight to prevent the labeling of nuclear energy as clean and green.

One of the most hawkish friends of the nuclear establishment’s future and, especially, its environmental role, is global warming guru, former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore.

Jeffery St. Clair describes the aggressive nuclear establishment lobbying effort directed at the U.S. government noting  “...a long and profitable relationship with both Clinton and Gore.” He goes on to say that “...Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's most problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs.”
 
In October, 2000, NIRS pointed out that “unfortunately, the Clinton/Gore Administration is not only willing to include nuclear power in the Kyoto process, but to allow it equal status and credits with renewable energy”

Although, currently, the former Vice President tends to understate the future role of nuclear energy in dealing with the climate change-global warming issue, I seriously doubt that his true allegiance to the future of nuclear power has been diminished..               

During my tenure with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I heard much about the influence and efforts of the political Gore family to promote and develop nuclear energy, especially on their Tennessee home turf at the Oak Ridge facility.

“Kyoto targets are reachable now with nuclear energy,” is but one of the many article titles found on the Canadian Nuclear Association website related to the climate issue.  Its reading list is replete with such literature, even to the point of pushing electric car development, (another hoped for nuclear energy sinecure).

The nuclear establishment is pulling out all the stops and is spending a fortune (much of which is taxpayer’s dollars) to tout its energy source as the cure for global warming.. And the strategy seems to be paying off, with a significant increase in activity and identification of potential new reactor projects around the world, including North America.


But I do not see references in the nuclear energy propaganda  to the fact that large quantities of global warming gasses are emitted in the processes of uranium mining, refining and milling required to produce the fuel rods for the reactors.  Furthermore, little is said about the irradiated nuclear fuel waste for which no acceptable solution exists.  

The big question now, however,  is how governments,  faced with a severe and deepening economic downturn, will deal with the very expensive nuclear expansion issue.

Unable to stand on its own two feet, financially, will the nuclear establishment be able to count on continuing life support from governments, many of which are now committed to the global warming movement?  It is too early to answer that question fully, but one sad  indication was recently provided by NIRS that “...the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee late on the night of January 27 (2009) snuck in a provision to President Obama's economic stimulus package that would allow as much as $50 BILLION of your dollars to be used as loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors. This would be on top of the $18.5 billion taxpayer dollars already authorized by Congress during the Bush administration.”

Also sadly, many countries have been bamboozled by the nuclear establishment’s lies about its potential to deal with climate change and the world’s energy requirements.  With the exception of Germany which still plans to phase out nuclear energy by 2021, a number of European and Asian countries, are in the process of planning a nuclear future.

However, I would not be surprised to see most of these potential projects succumb to a likely long-term economic meltdown and a massive reduction of energy consumption throughout the developed world. After all, these large nuclear projects are extraordinarily expensive, subject to substantial cost overruns and take about a decade to complete.

In the meanwhile, even without  the obscene level of subsidies granted to nuclear  from governments, sustainable alternative green energy could still create a paradigm shift in many parts of the world.  Hopefully, governments will come to their senses and begin to provide the kind of support needed to really stimulate the green alternatives to nuclear.

So, what about this phenomenon called ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change.’  I have already expressed my concerns about the role of the nuclear establishment as a likely “instigator” of the concept.

However, regardless of what one may think or believe about the issue itself, the most scary thing for me is the mounting evidence of a large measure of “group think” among the global warming advocates of the scientific community and the distortion of the meaning of science itself. 

Irving Janis, a psychology professor, who did extensive work on the subject of group think, defined it as “a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” 

Group think is particular nasty when found in science.  In ancient times, scientific skeptics were sometimes even dispatched to oblivion for their heresies. Today, such skeptics who do not fully embrace the global warming theory are marginalized and even ridiculed by the self-righteous.  If they refuse to accept the “truth,” they are even labeled  as “deniers,” a term which has a particularly unfortunate connotation.

My understanding of what science is supposed to be all about may be deemed quaint by some.  But here it is: 

Science is at its best when it openly projects a high degree of skepticism about it's own findings and conclusions and freely admits that "all is tentative." It is at its best when it deals in a respectful and reasonable manner with those who disagree or have doubts. It is at its best when it serves as an independent arm of society and does not tie itself to special interest groups or to those who have personal or organizational agendas.

Humility is also a virtue for science. For example, the earth and environmental sciences are chronologically in their infancy. Yet, they frequently do not behave that way. It is important to acknowledge  this fact and that it is possible that many predictions and computer model forecasts, etc. may not be much more accurate than a coin flip and may turn out to be simply wrong.

Caution and prudence are needed when issuing public statements about potential consequences of scientific findings and conclusions. The very reputation of science is at stake when it takes on the aura of a "new priesthood."

The nuclear establishment itself, also contains many of the classic ingredients of “group think.” As a retired organization development consultant, I have witnessed  this phenomenon from the perspective of both the inside and the outside of the establishment.

But I was particularly pleased to discover an item written  by a former employee of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., a  nuclear energy advocate, who has some misgivings about the global warming-climate change issue.  He is a Mr. JAL Robertson, an excellent writer who carefully analyzes and evaluates this issue. Calling himself  “a Kyoto Skeptic, but not a Climate Change Denier” he points out in a January 24, 2007 article, that “When uncertainties in the (climate change) model are considered, it would be irresponsible to damage the economy for a futile gesture. Resources would be better spent combating true pollution of air, water and land, that is harming and killing real people who are alive today. I am concerned that when the public realizes that they have been misled they will distrust all scientists ("They told us..."),  and not just Kyoto proponents. For the same reason we nuclear advocates should not rely on nuclear energy's lack of GHGs (greenhouse gasses): it has plenty of advantages without having to rely on a dubious one.”

Although I surely do not subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy has “plenty of advantages,” and lacks GHG’s, (see my article on  downsides),  I do completely agree with him that the main priority today is to address the big, immediate killers; air, water and land pollution.

But would nuclear energy make much of a difference in the event that the predictions of the climate change movement  materialize?  Many observers have pointed out that for a variety of reasons,  it is totally unrealistic to believe that nuclear energy, even in massive doses, could make a dent in solving the problem as presented by its advocates.

My own personal view of the climate change issue is: of course the climate is changing; it has ever since the earth was formed and is likely to continue doing so until the “end of time.” As Mr. Robertson indicates, the real issue is, to what extent does human activity affect the climate and, if it does, what might be the consequences? 

On that point, I am agnostic.

The “fine hand” of the nuclear establishment in the creation of this global warming movement is far too much in evidence not to raise considerable suspicion in my mind about its  legitimacy. My agnosticism also extends to the philosophical position that it is the height of arrogance to suggest that we puny humans really have the power to savage mother earth to such a degree (and in such a short time) as predicted by Al Gore and his followers. 
                                                   
For me, the jury is still out!

Walt Robbins


   
























 

In my first “Back to the Future” article, I pointed out that the so-called "Option 4 'Adaptive Phased Management' (APM)" program described in the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) final report is little more than a dressed-up version of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd’s (AECL’s) failed 1980's nuclear waste burial program.

In fact, both plans would ultimately yield the same end result: a sealed underground nuclear waste dump, some of its contents radioactive and lethal for eons of time.

Now, NWMO is going back to the future in its approach to selecting a site for a repository. Aside from using a lot of smooth talk, it is dangling big bucks as an enticement to municipalities and other groups.

A recent example is NWMO’s approach to aboriginal communities, something that was tried south of the border by the U.S. Department of Energy during the 1990's and failed miserably.  In the end, all the first nations in the U.S. which were contacted, rejected the offer to host a surface monitored retrievable nuclear waste storage facility, turning down offers of millions of dollars for the “privilege.”

In November 2010, various Canadian media outlets revealed that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) has received one million dollars from the NWMO  to educate first nations people about nuclear waste and that two northern communities—the English River First Nation and the Métis village of Pinehouse—have come up as potential sites.  And of course it is no secret that vastly larger sums of money would be made available to the “finalist” of the site selection process.

I was struck by the reported comments of Lyle Whitefish, FSIN vice-chief (in a November 18th 2010 article in the  Saskatchewan News Network).  While declaring neutrality on the issue, Whitefish said that “he and FSIN will not be providing any other information besides that coming from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.”  He was quoted as saying that “...there may be an opportunity in the future for other organizations to be heard on the nuclear waste issue.”  

In a CBC News item online, November 18, 2010, Cathy Holtslander, of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan,  was reported as being concerned that the NWMO information would be biased.  She said that "It needs to have independent information, not information from a group that has an interest in basically looking after their problem."

As a former member of the nuclear establishment, and having been involved with and written extensively on this issue for many years, I certainly believe that Ms. Hotslander raises an important point about sources of information. Perhaps the NWMO did not mention to Mr. Whitefish that throughout the world, nuclear waste management is one of the most controversial public policy issues of our time encompassing many different points of view.  I can only hope that FSIN will agree to having other information and  voices heard up front and right along side those of NWMO, an organization that is clearly an agent of the Canadian nuclear establishment.

NWMO has also been providing information to two interested communities in northwest Ontario; Ear Falls’ and Ignace .  The information has been publically challenged by North Bay’s Northwatch organization, on grounds of “omissions and understatements.”  Northwatch’s Brennain Lloyd cited NWMO informational deficiencies, including issues around long term repository reliability, storage container reliability, and the rejection of the earlier AECL burial concept after a ten year environmental assessment review.  Ms. Lloyd also observed that “...no country has yet permanently disposed of nuclear fuel waste in rock...”

I commented on NWMO’s siting process in December, 2008, when it was in draft form and concluded that “Aside from the fact that a plan to permanently bury nuclear fuel waste is inherently immoral, unethical, unscientific, and downright mean-spirited to future generations, it is simply not a good idea.” Furthermore, I have a real problem with the dangling of large sums of money to entice communities into such a scheme.

In the final analysis, any community which supposedly “benefits” from this dubious activity, could very well be playing dice with the health and safety of its own descendants.


         

    

        
The beginning of the end of nuclear power

Read the rest of this entry ... (582 words left)

The world’s powerful nuclear establishment took a big public relations hit in July, 2010.

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the International Energy Agency-backed Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) project, declared that, for the second year in a row,  the quantity of  “newly installed capacity” of  renewable energy in Europe and the U.S. outpaced that for fossil fuels and nuclear. The report suggests the same outcome is likely on a global basis by next year.

As reported in the July 15, 2010 Report on Business section of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, the report stated that green energy has “reached a clear tipping point” as the main kind of new electricity supply.

Green energy includes such sources as wind power, solar energy, biomass, geothermal, hydro power, ocean wave and tidal power.  Also, energy conservation technology could be considered a major form of green energy.

Of course, it will be many years  before the tipping point becomes an overwhelming reality.  But the trend is quite clear. A comprehensive system of green energy and conservation alternatives is rapidly developing around the world.

Some countries continue to plan for more nuclear energy projects, e.g., China and Russia and even the U.S.  But it can take a decade or more to build nuclear plants, whereas many green energy and conservation projects can be completed in a much shorter period of that time.  Also, it is likely that countries now planning more nuclear energy will be unable to proceed with many of  their projects for financial, design and safety reasons.

There are many downsides to nuclear power generation.  To mention a few, it requires fabrication processes which cause noxious emissions and greenhouse gasses, uses non-renewable and ever more costly uranium deposits with increasing amounts of energy inputs, emits radioactive tritium into the air and water, requires massive public loans and subsidies, contributing greatly to the national debt, is the basis for nuclear weapons proliferation, and a desirable target for terrorism. It is a technology that must have an impossible-to-achieve perfect record of zero tolerance for accidents over an entire reactor life cycle, as there is no safe level of ionizing radiation.

Furthermore, some observers point out that , in the unlikely event that all planned nuclear reactors are finally built, they would contribute little or nothing to global energy supply or to the mitigation of any possible adverse effects of climate change, since they will largely be replacing old decommissioned reactors.

And then, of course, there is the intractable nuclear waste issue.  A few countries are still planning to develop permanent underground repositories, such as Canada and Sweden, and likely China. But there is a  growing reluctance in other quarters to pursue the permanent underground nuclear waste burial option.
 
Aside from the fact that the underground burial option is certainly no solution to the waste problem and should not be pursued, the act of challenging and thus slowing the development of nuclear waste repositories has helped to “buy time,” for the expansion of green energy and conservation technology.

Renewable green energy may only be providing a small percentage of the world’s energy now, but the tipping point is great news for all of us who have worked so long to bring about a “paradigm shift” away from nuclear energy and fossil fuel toward a sustainable alternative clean energy future and a much safer and healthier planet.


Walt Robbins
August, 2010

Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
                                               



 

U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world is indeed laudable as is his treaty with Russia on weapons stockpile reduction and the communiqué issued at his April, 2010, 47-nation summit promising greater efforts to block "non-state actors" from obtaining nuclear materials for "malicious purposes."  

Read the rest of this entry ... (931 words left)

Back in the late 1950's, ideas for the use of small nuclear reactors for various purposes were in vogue. During that period, when I worked for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I heard speculation over the possible use of atomic energy to run our autos, heat our houses, lift our rockets to the heavens. Many of these ideas were so wild, they were quickly dropped. However, some small reactors were designed and used for university research projects, medical and industrial isotope production and even nuclear submarine propulsion. 

Read the rest of this entry ... (3588 words left)

WATER, ROCKS AND NUCLEAR WASTE


HOORAY! We hit water, and lots of it!  At two hundred forty feet the pinkish gray granite rock gave way to a reddish color and at two hundred and eighty feet our well "came in." Water was being pumped from the hole at the rate of forty gallons per minute, and had leveled off at a depth of sixteen feet from the surface.  Our eastern Manitoba household would have plenty of clean, cold water.

Could there be a veritable labyrinth of rivers and streams underground, running cold and deep, through the ancient Pre-Cambrian rock of the Canadian Shield?  The strangest thought of all was that we had tampered with some of the deep secrets of the world below us. Nature was permanently altered and had given to us one of her most valued treasures. For that we were thankful.

While we were well drilling on our property, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., (AECL), at its nearby nuclear research station, was conducting test drilling as a prelude for an underground nuclear waste research laboratory (URL) in our municipality. It’s officials initially insisted that the granite rock formation in the area had “remarkably few cracks.”  However, during the major excavation of the URL during the early 1980's, an extensive water-bearing fracture zone was encountered.  Several cracks, including a large fracture resulted in the intake of considerable amounts of ground water. requiring pumps to run continuously.

Probably the most descriptive statement about the wet condition of the URL came from Walter Patterson, when he spoke at a 1986 nuclear waste conference in Winnipeg.  Trained in nuclear physics and residing in the UK, he was involved with many aspects of nuclear technology for decades. He visited the URL underground facility in as an advisor to a Select Environmental Committee of the British Parliament. After the visit, the Parliamentarians asked his opinion of the operation. Patterson told the conferees, that for the first time on the entire Canadian trip, "I had to say I had not the faintest idea.. I do not know why they are doing what they are doing: because if this is supposed to be research for an underground repository for final disposal of spent fuel, everybody in the business knows that the one thing you have to avoid is water -- and the place is soaking! Absolutely soaking! Up to here (gesturing) in water!"

My comment to reporters after I visited the URL excavation was “if you plan to go down into that hole, be sure to take your rain boots, an umbrella and a life raft.  When you think about nuclear waste going into that wet hole, it gives you the chills.”  

Over the ensuing years, our own personal well drilling experience in 1980 has always been in the back of my mind whenever the subject of deep underground “disposal” of irradiated fuel waste comes up.  Common sense informs us that ground water can eventually corrode waste canisters and carry lethal radioactive substances into the environment above. Given the toxic nature and longevity of the irradiated fuel wastes created by the operation of nuclear reactors, few would disagree that the presence of groundwater presents a serious problem for the integrity of an underground nuclear waste repository.  

And, what about these lethal substances?  

According to Wikipedia, “Certain radioactive elements (such as plutonium-239) in ‘spent’ fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for hundreds of thousands of years. Other radioisotopes remain hazardous for millions of years. Thus, these wastes must be shielded for centuries and isolated from the living environment for millennia. Some elements, such as Iodine-131, have a short half-life (around 8 days in this case) and thus they will cease to be a problem much more quickly than other, longer-lived, decay products but their activity is much greater initially.”   

Hundreds of thousands and millions of years?  It may be easier to wrap your mind around the concept of a billion or trillion dollars!

In the U.S., Yucca Mountain, Nevada was chosen as the preferred site for an irradiated nuclear fuel waste repository.

One of the reasons the Nevada location was originally selected was because of its arid, desert location.  Yucca Mountain (geologically, a tuff formation) would be nice and dry.  Or so it was thought.

The October 15, 1994 issue of the Las Vegas Sun, reported that “. . Radioactive water from past nuclear testing has penetrated to layers below the proposed storage site. Scientists studying Yucca Mountain as a place to store the nation's high-level nuclear waste have found evidence that surface water from the days of atmospheric nuclear testing probably seeped to layers beneath the proposed repository site,”  The Department of Energy spokesman, Greg Cook was reported as saying ". . . the finding is obviously of concern to us because ground water intrusion within the repository would make it more difficult to contain for 10,000 years the 77,000 tons of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors that the government wants to entomb there."

Carl Johnson, a geologist for the State of Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, which monitors the federal Yucca Mountain studies, said that ". . . the finding means 'at least one very fast pathway' exists for ground water to move from the surface to below the repository site." Johnson said that ". . . samples collected from a bore hole on the southeast side of the repository site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, contained tritium and chlorine-36 isotopes, residuals from nuclear weapons testing. That means the water seeped from the surface to a depth of 1,450 feet within the 49 years since the first US nuclear weapons test was conducted in New Mexico and probably since nuclear testing began in Nevada in 1951."

Over the years, billions of dollars have been poured into the Yucca Mountain Project.  In 2009 it experienced major cuts to its budget at the hands of the Obama Administration.  It’s future as a nuclear waste repository lies in doubt.

The latest Canadian proclamation about the suitability of an underground repository (this one for low and intermediate level radioactive waste) comes from Ontario Power Generation (OPG).  Its plan is for a deep geological repository (DGR) at the Bruce nuclear facility near the shore of Lake Huron.  

In media reports, OPG has stated that "There is a consensus in our research that shows the natural barriers will help protect the repository," and that "The limestone bedrock formations that are there have an extremely low rate of permeability. Also, there is a cap of shale 200 meters (about 656 feet) above the repository area that would act as a protective layer."  

That rhetoric is an echo of earlier optimistic  “dry rock” expectations.  What will they find in the limestone excavation?  Based on the URL (granite) experience, and the Yucca Mountain (tuff) one, can we anticipate water logged caverns feeding into Lake Huron?   

But the biggest question of all is what will the industry-dominated Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) turn up in its ongoing search for a willing community to “host” a repository for Canada’s irradiated nuclear fuel waste?  Even if some community in Canada does volunteer for the “undertaking,” any water found within its underground natural barriers would still be a major deterrent.

“Water, water, everywhere.” It’s been nearly 30 years since the Underground Research Laboratory was excavated and over 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was started.  The time has come to look for other methods  to manage irradiated nuclear fuel waste.  In the absence of an acceptable solution, the most rational and logical first step is to phase out its production.

Walter Robbins
September, 2009











.























                                           

NUCLEAR EXPANSION: THE ROAD TO OBLIVION?

Like the tobacco companies of yore, the nuclear establishment is currently aggressively marketing its dubious products. Most recently, the industry has been bombarding the public with ads to the effect that nuclear energy is clean, safe and environmentally friendly; depicting it as an important tool in dealing with climate change and global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This paper summarizes the downside of expanding nuclear power, which requires processes which cause noxious emissions as well as highly irradiated toxic fuel waste, uses non-renewable and ever more costly uranium deposits with increasing amounts of energy inputs, emits radioactive tritium into the air and water, contributes greatly to the Canadian national debt, is the basis for nuclear weapons proliferation, and is a desirable target for terrorism. It is a technology that must have an impossible-to-achieve perfect record of zero tolerance for serious accidents over an entire reactor life cycle, as there is no safe level of ionizing radiation.

Yes, nuclear energy does boil water which is converted to electricity, that is when not in a shut- down state for frequent maintenance. Yes, there are much safer, cheaper and environmentally friendly alternatives. Yes, our politicians are idiots if they pursue the nuclear option.

Please feel free to use this commentary and the material below to help prevent nuclear expansion and to promote nuclear phase-out along with a rapid increase in safe renewable energy alternatives, conservation and efficiency.

Walt Robbins

March, 2007 

 

Read the rest of this entry ... (1099 words left)

Preface

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., it was widely reported that al-Qaeda had given serious consideration to crashing commercial aircraft into several nuclear plants on that day. According to journalist Jeffrey St. Clair, in his September 14, 2002 Counterpunch article (The Fire Next Time), al-Qaeda operatives Ramzi bin al-Shaibah and Khaled al-Sheikh Mohammad told Al-Jazeera interviewer Yosri Fouda, that future attacks on western nuclear facilities could not be ruled out.

While it is true that nuclear reactors are housed in buildings that are among the most durable modern structures in existence, and have been designed to (hopefully) withstand the force of earthquakes, no one had ever conceived of a direct impact from a large commercial aircraft full of aviation fuel or from some other similar massive explosive assault. Some authorities state that the consequences would be truly catastrophic.

But the real Achilles heels at nuclear plants are the adjacent spent fuel facilities, which contain major concentrations of highly radioactive material. They lack the heavy duty containment safeguard provided for the reactor, and could be considered "sitting ducks" for disastrous terror attacks. Large explosions, along with major fire resulting in radioactive release from spent fuel would have serious health, social and economic consequences for people in the surrounding geographical area. It should be noted that many of our nuclear facilities are in close proximity to the Great Lakes. Any ecological disaster resulting from terrorism could affect both Canada and the United States.
Unfortunately, none of the discussion papers commissioned by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) deals forthrightly and directly with the need to "harden" existing spent fuel facilities at reactor-sites to better protect them from such an attack.
Some of the discussion papers deal with nuclear waste security, but in rather general and overly reassuring terms. These discussion papers are available to the public from the NWMO.

The references to pertinent discussion papers follow my commentary:

Commentary on the discussion documents dealing with the security of nuclear waste:
In my view, the NWMO discussion papers (with the exception of the final one by Ed Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists), do not truly come to grips with the growing threat of extremist Islamic terrorism in the world, and how spent nuclear fuel could be used to further that threat. Perhaps one reason for this is that Canada, unlike many other countries, has, thankfully, not yet been subjected to these barbaric attacks. Another possibility is that Canadian authorities are actually working on the problem, but prefer to keep their efforts quiet----for security reasons.

In any event, none of these papers directly identify, in any degree of detail, possible kinds of terrorist scenarios and how Canada could develop plans to deal with them. Mostly, the papers hide behind administrative requirements and regulations of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, almost as if somehow the rule book itself provides a wall of protection.

1 Transportation of spent nuclear fuel:
Several discussion papers emphasize that there have been no attacks on spent fuel shipments anywhere in the world. But, some also point out that there have been relatively few spent fuel shipments. If spent fuel is to be moved from reactor sites to any centralized locations, shipment frequency would increase dramatically over decades. It is hard to imagine that such a change would escape the notice of terrorists who are becoming increasingly sophisticated with their information networks and their technology for destructive acts. Lauding past performance is not a comforting response to the potential threats of the future.
Assertions to the effect that attacks upon spent fuel shipments would fail, or produce very limited negative consequences, or that safeguards in the present security system are adequate, minimize the fact of the rapid advance of destructive technologies now in use or potentially available to those who wish to do us harm. And, as Mr. Bin Laden has indicated, all of us who are not in his camp, can be considered "infidels" and fair game.

Are contemporary spent fuel transportation casks on trucks or trains sufficiently "robust" to withstand a major, high yield type of attack? Many nuclear watchdog groups and others, point out that governments have not undertaken the kinds of full scale tests required, and therefore, the question cannot be reliably answered.

As one paper points out, other transported substances might be more easily used by terrorists. Perhaps, but that overlooks the essence of the terrorist mentality and objectives; i.e., to terrorize the public. The large scale psychological impact on the public from damage or destruction of a radioactive nuclear source (as contrasted with any other substance) should never be underestimated.
Any contemplated large-scale, long-time period movement of spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites to some centralized storage or repository site, is, for me, truly a "non-starter." Furthermore, I am fully confident that communities along nuclear waste transportation routes would veto any such plan.

2 Security of the storage options themselves:

In spite of the reassuring words about security of the various options in some of the above cited discussion papers, no concrete evidence has been presented that any one of the nuclear waste management options is really secure from large scale terrorist attacks. The onus has been placed upon current regulatory standards which were produced for a bygone age. Nowhere (with the exception of Ed Lyman's paper) have some of the key technical issues surrounding terrorism even been identified. Nowhere in these papers has the central issue of the need for securing and "hardening" on-reactor-site storage facilities against contemporary terrorist methodology, been addressed.
As long as the reactors are operating, there will always be about a ten year (cooling off) inventory of high-level nuclear waste at the reactor sites, even if the older waste is moved somewhere else. The technical problems surrounding the security of that on-site waste must be addressed. That they have not been adequately addressed in the NWMO discussion papers dealing with the subject of security, is a very serious deficiency; one which would make any attempt at the selection of a final nuclear waste management option, a dubious exercise at best.

Outside of a general recognition of need, specific security problems and protections for the centralized (above or below ground) storage option were not mentioned. Both a centralized storage facility and an underground repository facility share some of the same security risks; i.e., transportation to them, as well as vulnerability of protracted surface exposure at the destination, including loading and unloading, repackaging, and movement to the final resting place.

Advocates of "permanent" underground burial in a deep geological repository have long insisted that their option is virtually completely secure; from theft, terrorism, accidents, etc. As indicated above, the permanent burial option is still subject to the security risks of transportation and the exposed surface destination. Nor does burial solve the problem of the "hot" waste that must remain at the reactor sites for a decade before being moved.

Can geological repositories really remain secure for thousands, or even hundreds of years? Some scientists think not and suggest that such facilities could become "plutonium mines" of the future.

An underlying premise of the burial concept is that the waste would not only become irretrievable, but the waste repositories themselves, would require "no institutional controls." Given the advance of science and technology, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a sealed-up underground facility would need any fewer institutional controls than an aboveground one. It would be prudent to assume that those in the future who might want to extract the contents of an underground nuclear burial place, will have the capabilities to do so with whatever technologies, and for whatever purposes they may then have.

In any event, by now it should be crystal clear that this "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" approach was not embraced by a public which was confronted with the spectre of permanent geological burial. Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., (AECL) discovered this in the 1980's while trying to implement such a program in the Canadian Shield rock in Manitoba and Ontario. More recently, media accounts of an NWMO commissioned study (Citizens' Dialogue on the Long-term Management of Used Nuclear Fuel, July, 2004) reported that "Canadians want the radioactive waste from their nuclear reactors stored within reach, not dropped down holes deep into the rocky Precambrian Shield and forgotten. And they don't trust government, industry or existing regulators with the job."

In the U.S., the Commission which studied the circumstances that led up to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, pointed to a "lack of imagination" on the part of the intelligence community.

 I note a singular lack of imagination in most of the Canadian NWMO discussion papers that deal with the subject of security and nuclear waste. There is an unmistakable aura of smugness and complacency in some of these writings which I find disquieting.
They convey the message "Don't worry, we have it all under control." Anytime I hear that kind of message on a subject of this gravity--I do indeed worry. And so should we all!

Pertinent Discussion Papers

One discussion paper, numbered 3-3, is under the category, Health and Safety, and entitled the Status of Canadian and International Efforts to Reduce the Security Risk of Nuclear Fuel Waste, (by Science Applications International Corporation).

It is an overview of current security requirements and applications to future management possibilities and includes basic information about how nuclear waste is currently generated and how it is managed in Canada and internationally. It assesses the nature and extent of potential threats against nuclear waste and provides a section on current security measures including a "risk management approach." It also summarizes Canadian and international security requirements, as well as application of existing security regulations in the context of storage, disposal, reprocessing and transportation.
One of its main conclusions is that current storage management as well as future management options meet Canadian and International requirements; that there have been no "credible threats" to the fuel waste and that the present system acts as a deterrent to "...the current crop of potential terrorists."

Several other NWMO discussion papers deal with security of spent fuel transportation:

Number 6.8, under the Technical Methods category is called Review of the fundamental issues and key considerations related to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel, by Gavin J. Carter of Butterfield Carter and Associates, L.L.C.
In its Section 8 (Security Requirements) this paper concludes that transportation of spent fuel "can be managed safely" and is a "low risk activity."

It notes that illegal procurement or attacks on a shipment of spent fuel has never occurred anywhere in the world. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) in 1972 first published guidelines for physical protection, used by governments in member countries. Its most recent document is INFCIRC/225/Rev.4. (1980) which requires specific arrangements and meeting of defined standards of physical protection for movements of nuclear material.

The paper notes the existing use of armed guards in certain transport situations e.g., plutonium, (or spent fuel through heavy populated areas in some countries).
Some of its main conclusions are that hazardous material is not an appealing target for thieves as it is difficult to handle, and of little financial or practical value; that spent fuel casks are "... too unwieldy to move quickly", etc. ( difficult for someone to steal or to use for a "dirty bomb"). It notes that "...shipments of spent fuel take place relatively infrequently. As for a terrorist attack, the paper asserts that "A large explosive charge would be necessary to breach the containment of the cask. Even if this is achieved, a dangerous disbursement of radioactive materials will not necessarily occur." The section on security concludes with the statement that "... there are many substances being transported much more frequently every day that would be more attractive options for terrorists than spent fuel casks."

Discussion Paper Number 6-6, under the Technical Methods category, is titled Status of Transportation Systems of High-level Radioactive Waste Management, by Wardrop Engineering, Inc.

This paper reviews the status of plans for transport of used fuel in various countries and deals with possible methods of transportation to a centralized storage or underground repository facility in Canada.
This paper observes that "...though large-scale shipments of used fuel are not currently conducted in Canada, it is a distinct possibility in the future."

In its section 6.10, "Transportation Security Plans," it provides a general statement of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) license and threat assessment requirements. It does identify some of the measures that might be required for security, such as armed guards, escort personnel, and response forces.
In addition to security of transportation issues, several other papers review security aspects of some of the management options themselves.

Discussion Paper 6-1, under the Technical Methods category, is titled Status of Reactor Site Storage Systems For Used Nuclear Fuel, by Senes Consultants Limited

Primarily, this paper reviews methods and plans for on-site nuclear waste storage throughout Canada. Some tangential issues are covered, including Security (in section 3.3).

As is the case with some of the other papers dealing with security issues, it mainly addresses the basic CNSC regulatory framework with a general description of the procedures that must be followed for the security of spent nuclear fuel. Although it does not address the need for further securing or "hardening" of on-site storage against high-impact terrorist threats, it does recognize public concern. It states that during NWMO workshops and discussion groups, in the wake of September 11, 2001, participant comments "...reflected concerns about the security of fuel currently stored at the reactor sites."

Paper 6-3, under the Technical Methods category is titled Status of Geological repositories for Used Nuclear Fuel, by Charles McCombie, McCombie Consulting

This paper provides an overview and assessment of the international status and developments of the underground "disposal" (burial) option for the long-term management of nuclear waste. Much of the paper relates to the safety of this option.
The issue of security as related to the underground burial option (section 4.3) is presented in general terms making the point that "...ensuring that there can be no unauthorised access to these materials, is vital throughout the whole fuel cycle." The paper maintains that security would be enhanced by the implementation of geological repositories, and suggests a global system of a fewer number of such facilities. There is, however, recognition of the larger transportation problems resulting from such a system.

Discussion Paper 6-2, under the Technical Methods category, is titled Status of Centralized Storage Systems for Used Nuclear Fuel, by Mohan Rao and Dave Hardy of Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited.

In its examination of the centralized storage option, this paper lacks a specific section on the security issue. It does state that since centralized storage systems could have a long lifetime, they should "...include appropriate features that address security and safeguards issues such as proliferation and terrorism by limiting possibilities through which such acts could be carried out."

Two additional NWMO papers deal specifically with the security issue:

Discussion paper 1-4 Guiding Concepts: Nuclear Waste Management in Canada: The Security Dimension, by Franklyn Griffiths, Ignatieff Chair Emeritus of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto

This paper deals directly with the security aspects of nuclear waste management.
It develops the idea of a dichotomy between centralized national security needs on the one hand, and the need to address individual human security needs on the other. So any national security perspective would need to be "enlarged" to involve the public as a whole in discussions. Griffiths maintains that the two perspectives are not entirely compatible when applied to options for nuclear waste management.

He concludes that the NWMO has an opportunity to "make a human security effort to gain support for an agreed approach." Failing that, the Canadian public might embrace the idea of a continued on-site storage option and join in international efforts to explore other alternatives, (.e.g., one or more international repositories, transmutation of long-lived radionuclides).
He also considers that an integrated approach between national and human security could be attempted.

One other paper on security (unnumbered) was provided by the NWMO, titled Comments on "Nuclear Waste Management in Canada: The Security Dimension," by Prof. Franklyn Griffiths." The author of these comments is Edwin S. Lyman, Senior Scientist, Global Security Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C.

In his comments on Professor Griffith's paper, Edwin Lyman takes a more narrowly focussed approach to Nuclear Waste security than does Griffith. Lyman considers that the details of the "purely technical aspects" of this issue are more complex than Griffith suggests, and that an understanding of them is fundamental to any nuclear waste management program. Lyman outlines the key technical issues which must be faced and are not being addressed. He is highly critical of the U.S. government's apathetic response to public concerns over nuclear waste security subsequent to the September 2001 terrorist attacks.

He is concerned that the nuclear industry may not be willing to underwrite the large costs of providing the required high level of security needed for public safety. If that is the case in Canada, he suggests a Canadian public dialogue on questions surrounding the future of nuclear power plants and spent fuel production in the face of increasing terrorist threats.

READ:  The Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga:  http://www.web.net/~robbins