Why does Greenpeace oppose nuclear power?

Nuclear power isdirty, dangerous and expensive.  With cancer-causing emissions andradioactive waste, nuclear power is not a clean alternative to fossilfuels.  Greenpeace supports a total phase-out of nuclear power inCanada.

How many nuclear plants are there in Canada?

There aretwenty-two nuclear power reactors in Canada - twenty in Ontario, one inQuebec and one in New Brunswick.  Eight of the twenty reactors inOntario were shut down in 1997 due to poor performance and safetyproblems.  Since then, several reactors have been restarted athigh-cost.  After massive cost over-runs during the restart of two ofthe reactors at the Pickering A nuclear station, the remaining tworeactors were permanently mothballed in August 2005.

Quebec iscurrently discussing whether it should rebuild its only nuclearreactor, Gentilly-2.   New Brunswick is pushing ahead with plans torebuild its only reactor, the Point Lepreau nuclear station in 2008.

How is the nuclear industry funded in Canada?

Atomic Energy ofCanada Limited (AECL) is the federal crown corporation that designs andmarkets CANDU reactors.  Since it was founded in 1952, AECL hasreceived over $20 billion in tax-payer subsidies.  Since 2000, AECL hasbeen given over a billion dollars in subsidies.  In addition, theOntario government has indirectly subsidized Ontario Power Generation'snuclear power plants by relieving them of billions of dollars of debt.

What is radioactive waste? 

Radioactive wasteis created at each step in production of nuclear power - from uraniummining in Saskatchewan, to reactor operation, and finally to theclosure and decommissioning of nuclear stations.  .

What is oftenreferred to as high-level radioactive waste is the spent fuel fromnuclear plants.  It contains over one hundred different radioactiveisotopes that cause cancer and other health problems.  This waste islethal and must be kept isolated from the environment for hundreds ofthousands of years. 

'Low-'and'Intermediate' wastes are other non-fuel radioactive wastes created bynuclear energy, including everything from radioactive clothescontaminated at nuclear stations to the reactor components that willremain a threat for thousands of years to come.

Mining andprocessing uranium for reactor fuel produces wastes known as tailings. There are currently over 200 million tons of uranium tailings inOntario and Saskatchewan.   These wastes remain a hazard for thousandsof years and contain carcinogens, such as radium, radon gas, thoriumamong others. 

What happens to nuclear waste in Canada?

Nuclear wastecannot be safely disposed of or destroyed.  There are about 40,000tonnes of high-level radioactive waste (spent fuel) in Canada with morethan 30,000 tonnes in Ontario.  Currently, most of Canada nuclear fuelwaste is stored at the nuclear plants where it has been produced. 

What is the government's long-term plan for nuclear waste?

In 2002, theCanadian government mandated a nuclear industry-controlled agencycalled the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to propose along-term solution for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste (spentfuel).  The nuclear industry has always advocated the burial ofhigh-level nuclear waste in the granite formations of the CanadianShield. 

The federalgovernment gave NWMO a three-year mandate to choose between threeradioactive waste management alternatives: "deep geological disposal inthe Canadian Shield"; "storage at nuclear sites"; or "centralizedstorage".

In 2005, the NWMOasked the federal government for permission to proceed with a proposalthat combined all three flawed waste management alternatives called'Adaptive Phased Management.'   The 300-year, $24 billion "phased"approach moves used nuclear fuel wastes from storage at nuclear plants,to centralized storage, and finally to deep rock disposal. It says thehigh-level radioactive waste dump should be located in either Quebec,Ontario, or Saskatchewan.  

The industry-controlled NWMO refused to consider phasing out the production of nuclear waste.

The nuclearindustry is moving forward with proposals to bury non-fuelradioactive wastes as well.  Ontario Power Generation plans to buryso-called low and intermediate-level waste at the Bruce site on theshore of Lake Huron.  Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has proposed tobuild deep geological repository for its radioactive wastes at itsChalk River Laboratories on the shore of Ottawa River, 100 km north ofOttawa.

Neither NewBrunswick Power nor Hydro-Quebec has a proposal for how they safelywill management their long-lived radioactive wastes for thousands ofyears.

What is the Greenpeace position on radioactive waste?

Radioactive wasteremains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years and deep rockburial cannot guarantee that it will remain isolated from theenvironment.  Radioactive waste should be left on or near the earth'ssurface and closely monitored storage facilities.

Is the Canadian nuclear industry correct when it says that a Chernobyl-type accident is "not possible in Canada"?

No.  Canada'sCANDU nuclear reactor is no safer than any other reactor design.  Human error, terrorist attack or technical failure could cause ameltdown at any of Canada's nuclear stations.

Following theaccident at the American Three Mile Island nuclear station in 1979, anall-party committee of the Ontario Legislature (the Select Committee onHydro Affairs) investigated Ontario's nuclear policies.  In its 1980report to the legislature, the committee concluded that:

"It is notright to say that a catastrophic accident (in a  CANDU  reactor) isimpossible ... The worst possible accident could involve thespread of radioactive poisons over large areas, killing thousandsimmediately, killing others through increasing susceptibility tocancer, risking genetic defects that could affect future generations,and possibly contaminating, for further habitation, large land areas...

Accidents,mistakes and malfunctions do occur in [CANDU] nuclear plants: equipmentfails; instrumentation gives improper readings; operators andmaintainers make errors and fail to follow instructions; designs areinadequate; events that are considered `incredible' happen...no matterhow careful we are, we must anticipate the unexpected."

Is the nuclear industry confident that a nuclear accident will never happen in Canada?

No.  Despitenuclear industry claims that a Chernobyl-type accident is "not possiblein Canada," the nuclear industry requires special financial liabilityprotection from the federal government in case of a major nuclearaccident.  The federal Nuclear Liability Act limits that amount offinancial liability of any nuclear reactor operator to $75 million - aminiscule fraction of the likely actual cost of a nuclear disaster. 

Is theCanadian nuclear industry correct to say that a Chernobyl-type accidentcould happen in Canada because of "Canada's Candu technology"?

No.  CANDU reactors also share the following similarities with the RBMK reactors at Chernobyl:

1.  Ontario'snuclear stations and Chernobyl are four-reactor stations with sharedsafety systems. Sharing of safety systems reduces redundancy andincreases the risk of radiation release.

2.  Both reactordesigns employ fuel channels (as opposed to one large pressurizedreactor vessel), including pressure tubes made of the same alloy. Thesetubes incorporate hydrogen over time, causing tubes to become brittleand breakable.

3.  While mostreactors have to be shut down every year or two for refuelling, CANDUand RBMK reactor designs allow for on-line refuelling. This has thepotential to improve performance, but it also can increase the lengthof time without inspection or maintenance. Chernobyl reactor 4 had beenoperating for over two years non-stop when it exploded on April 26 1986.

4.  CANDU is theonly reactor design outside the former Soviet Union, that like theRBMK, has a positive void effect. Steam formation in the reactor coreincreases reactivity (more nuclear fissions taking place), increasingpower levels, causing more steam formation and resulting in a loss ofregulation accident.

What have other countries done to avoid a Chernobyl-type accident?

In 2000, Germanycommitted to phasing out nuclear power and phasing in clean, greenrenewable energy. Germany's then-Environment Minister Jurgen Trittinsaid that phasing out nuclear power was "a logical response toChernobyl."

In a referendumfollowing Chernobyl accident, Italy voted to abandon nuclear powercompletely in 1987.  Italy subsequently closed all of its reactors andplaced a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear stations. 

What is Greenpeace doing?

Greenpeace isworking to end government subsidies to the nuclear industry and tophase out nuclear power.   We are lobbying to prevent the restart andreconstruction of old reactors and against the deep rock burial ofradioactive waste.