|

ets

_ FEATURE

Melting down

nuclear power
myths

By DEREK MACKIE
Any traveller speeding east along On-
tario’s Highway 401 will round a bend
just as Toronto’s suburbs are slipping
away and catch a glimpse of a row of

- concrete monoliths. The sulky grey

domes jutting into Lake Ontario, and
lying 32 kilometers from the core of
Canada’s largest city, make up the Pick-
ering Generating Station. Deep in the
belly of this complex whirr CANDU
atomic reactors, electrifying the homes
of Ontario’s citizenry.

As they whip by, our traveller is un-
likely to know that Pickering is the sec-
ond largest concentration of nuclear
reactors in the world, containing a radio-
active inventory of thousands of Hiro-
shima bombs. And he or she doesn’t real-
ize that Pickering hovers only minutes
away from a catastrophic meltdown, a
decidely unpleasant thought.

However, nearly two years after the
Chernobyl accident, nuclear power’s fu-
ture in Canada remains secure. Despite
other nations scurrying away from atom-
ic technology — Sweden and the U.S. for
instance — this country continues to
place much of its energy demands on the
atom. Forty per cent of Ontario’s elec-
tricity comes from nuclear power, pos-
sibly rising to 65 per cent in the 1990s.

Meanwhile, Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd., the crown corporation which mar-
kets nuclear technology, is developing
Slowpoke reactors. Elsewhere, the con-
struction of the massive $11-billion Dar-
lington nuclear generating station, an
hour’s drive east of Toronto, continues
apace.

From all of this activity, you can see
that myths about nuclear power persist,
the largest being that it’s safe, cost ef-

ficient and a boon to the Third World.

Such questions should finally be put to
rest.

$ eck ak

Nuclear reactors are a product of the
desire or necessity of nations to build
atomic weapons. They were originally
invented to produce the material that
makes bombs go bang.

Not surprisingly, the principles and
materials of nuclear bombs and reactors
are the same: uranium atoms are split,
causing chain reactions which generate
heat. In a bomb. the reaction reels out of
control, letting off immense power in a
fraction of a second. In reactors, the
chain is controlled and the heat boils
water. Steam then powers turbines
which create electricity.

But when a reaction in a reactor runs
awry, and cooling systems fail, it can
turn so hot that it melts down. Steam and
radioactive matter puncture a station’s
walls, spewing poisons onto the country-
side. A variation of this scenario hap-
pened on April 26, 1985 at Chernobyl, a
nuclear power station in the Ukraine.

From Chernoby] the world got an idea
of a meltdown’s magnitude. In the first

_ four months, 31 people died. The Soviet

government predicts 2,000 more will
soon join their ranks. Overall, the acci-
dent cost. $4-billion and more than
135,000 people were permanently moved
from their homes. Many scientists, like
world-renowned peace activist Linus
Pauling, say as many as 500,000 people
will die from Chernobyl’s fallout in com-
ing years. :

While the West was quick in using the
accident as anti-Soviet agitprop, there’s
little to be smug about over here. We are
now living with the legacy of Three Mile
Island, a‘reactor in Pennsylvania that al-
most melted down in 1979 and released
radiation into local surroundings.

But Three Mile Island was no isolated —

incident. According to the Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission (NRC), America’s
atomic power watchdog, there were 169
accidents at U.S. nuclear stations be-
tween 1969 and 1979 which could have
led to a meltdown. And if one reactor
does go kablooey, the NRC estimates
102,000 first-year deaths and $314-billion
in damages.

When Chernobyl happened, Ontario
Hydro was quick to reassure the public
that a similar accident could not occur
here. Hydro is Ontario’s crown corpora-
tion that runs 16 nuclear reactors (Cana-
da’s other two reactors are in Quebec
and New Brunswick). Hydro argued that
the Soviets were not very careful, their
technology was inferior and Canadians
needn’t fear CANDUs running amok.

Yet the history of Canada’s nuclear
program reveals that a Chernobyl-style
accident could well have happened here
and only simple luck has prevented it
from doing so.

Consider the following:

e Canada’s first atomic reactor came
to life in 1945 at Chalk River, Ontario. Its
purpose was to produce plutonium-239
for atomic bombs.

In 1952, a hose broke in the station and
radioactive water poured out, much of
which escaped the plant. Six years later,
a fuel-rod rupture released even larger
quantities of radiation into the country-
side.

e In 1962, Canada’s first prototype
nuclear power station swung into opera-
tion at Rolphton, Ontario. It opened four
years behind schedule and $17-million
over budget.

Rolphton is so poorly designed it’s
closed four months out of every year for
repairs. In 1970, 11,000 pounds of cool-
ing water spilled, forcing a plant evacua-
tion and a large quantity of radioactive
material to be jettisoned into the en-
vironment.

e Ontario Hydro did not wait to see
whether Rolphton panned out. The cor-
poration rushed into building the Doug-
las Point station for commercial use. It
entered service in 1968, $15-million over
budget. Durings its lifetime, the reactor
only operated at 46 per cent capacity.

In 1971, 739 members of Douglas
Point’s staff received radiation expo-
sures, with eight serious overdoses. The
previous year, 497 workers were similar-
ly exposed. Moreover, in 1980 the plant
ran for six months without a proper filter
to contain radioactive gases. The falter-
ing plant closed in 1985.

When the first Pickering Generating
Station reactor started up in 1971, the
$746-million plant was touted as the
jewel in Ontario Hydro’s crown. Despite
all the hullabaloo, Pickering’s record is
fraught with near disasters.

Durings its first four years of opera-
tion, Pickering experienced six uncon-
trolled chain reactions, despite official
predictions that such events would hap-
pen only once every century. The sta-
tion’s original emergency cooling system

il ae

The Pic

was also designed poorly. In 1976cooling |

systems in three reactors failed to op-
erate, leaving them out of commission
for days.

But Pickering’s worst catastrophe oc-
curred on August 1, 1983. A pressure
tube in one reactor ruptured, causing the
loss of tons of coolant, an accident gen-
erally considered among the worst be-
cause coolant prevents the reactor from
overheating. The reactor was quickly
shut down and no large amounts of radia-
tion released. Nevertheless, the accident
revealed that pressure tubes were brittle
years before they were expected to be-
come so, causing a $700-million retubing
operation on two reactors.

e The Canadian government isn’t fool-

ish enough to build things like nuclear —

reactors without safety standards. The
Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB)
is given the task of ensuring they work
properly.

When Ontario Hydro was building the
Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in the
early °70s, it decided to cut costs and
maximize electricity production by ig-
noring some safety standards. Contain-
ment domes were eliminated and operat-
ing temperatures raised.

The AECB became alarmed at Hy-
dro’s attitude. In 1976, it told the utility
an operating license allowing Bruce to
run at full capacity would not be issued.
After some bureaucratic warfare, a li-
cense was issued which only allowed
Bruce to run at 88 per cent capacity be-
cause of its shortage of safety features.
The station’s pressure tubes are also
going brittle.

All of these troubles means that none
of Ontario’s nuclear stations — Rolph-
ton, Pickering, Douglas Point and Bruce
— have successfully met the safety sys-
tem standards which their AECB
licenses were originally granted.

es yee

Contrary to popular belief, nuclear
power is a very expensive way of making
electricity. In Canada, the atomic indus-
try has ignored information that its sta-
tions cost far more than estimated and
need expensive repairs.

In 1974, Ontario Hydro estimated that
the province’s demands for power would
increase by seven per cent annually.
Thus it began building nuclear stations to
meet this projection.

However, the utility didn’t predict that
the economy would soon falter and peo-
ple start conserving energy. Consequent-
ly, energy demand increased by only
three per cent over the next seven years.
In 1982, it actually shrank.

Meanwhile, the costs of nuclear plants
was soaring beyond reason. All of On-
tario Hydro’s plants have come in over
budget and behind schedule. For in-
stance, when four reactors were finished

kering Generating Station

at Pickering in 1974, they were one year
late and $218-million over budget. Al-
ready, Ontario Hydro has spent $12.5-
billion on Darlington and Pickering.

Douglas Point was supposed to run
until 1998. Instead it was closed two
years ago. It lost money from the start —
$16-million alone during the three years
leading up to its closure. It is costing
$100-million just to be decommissioned.

Nevertheless, through the 1970s,
Hydro kept building nuclear stations
based on its original projections, borrow-
ing capital to do so. This overestimation
created Darlington. So if demand for
electricity grows at 1.1 per cent annually
in Ontario in the next two decades (not
unthinkable if a recession occurs) Dar-
lington’s power won’t be needed, thus
wasting $11-billion of taxpayers’ funds.

All this building and cost overruns give
birth to an alarming deficit. By 1982, On-
tario Hydro’s debt reached $15-billion.
Today, it is $23.5-billion, a sum that ri-
vals those of many Third World nations.
We are now paying for this debt through
ever escalating power rates and taxes.

* * *

Many progressives argue that nuclear
power is a source of energy which
underdeveloped nations desperately
want. But if atomic power isn’t feasible
in industrialized countries, it surely
makes little sense elsewhere.

Today, at least 60 atomic power sta-
tions of various types exist in the Third
World. Originally, salesmen quoted
prices per reactor between $300- and
$500-million. In reality, the final sum
usually averaged $2-billion.

Canada has sold CANDUs to India,
Romania, South Korea, Pakistan and
Argentina. What is worrisome is how
these reactors are used to develop nu-
clear weapons.

Among those nations accused of being
‘phantom proliferators’’ of bombs are
India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa and
to a lesser degree, Argentina and Brazil.
India detonated a bomb in 1974 using fuel
from a Canadian-built research reactor.
Pakistan is developing a weapon with
nuclear technology obtained from Cana-
da. South Korea has recently been justly
accused of similar actions.

HA, Ske Sik

To conclude, some wise words on nu-
clear power from Norman Rubin, a re-
searcher at the think tank Energy Probe:
“If Ontario Hydro spent just $2-billion
on a drive to insulate homes in Ontario,
the energy savings would be equal to the
yearly output of the Darlington station. If
the (federal government) would spend
more money on renewable energy
sources, such as wind power, solar and
smaller scale hydro-electric avenues,
then this country would really be on the
way to a sane energy future.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 16,:1987 e 19

co a Aer oe ene

Ta mn ne