Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
My name is Gordon Edwards. I have a PhD in mathematics. I graduated originally with a gold medal in mathematics and physics from the University of Toronto. I have been involved for over 30 years as president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and also as a consultant to both governmental and non-governmental bodies on nuclear issues, on issues related to nuclear safety and radioactive materials.
Before it is used in a nuclear reactor, uranium fuel can be safely handled using only a pair of gloves. Inside the reactor, however, hundreds of new radioactive substances are created, called fission products. These are literally the broken pieces of uranium atoms, which are split in order to produce energy.
The fission products are millions of times more radioactive than the fresh uranium fuel. Immediately after discharge from a reactor, a single CANDU fuel bundle can deliver a lethal dose of penetrating radiation in just 20 seconds to any unprotected person standing one metre away. Indeed, the irradiated fuel is so radioactive that is has to be cooled under 14 feet of circulating water for at least 7 to 10 years or it will spontaneously overheat, experience self-inflicted damage, and release radioactive gases and vapours into the surrounding atmosphere.
Inside the core of a reactor, even after the fission process has been completely terminated, the radioactivity of the fission products is so intense that the core continues to generate 7% of full power heat. That's an awful lot of heat, and if adequate cooling is not provided, even after complete shutdown of the reactor itself, the residual heat is more than enough to melt the core of the reactor at a temperature of 5,000°F.
When the fuel melts, large quantities of fission products are released as gases, vapours, and ashes. I have provided the committee members with excerpts from four official Canadian documents. These excerpts confirm the fact that core melting accidents are possible and even probable in Canada, if Canada chooses to build a large fleet of nuclear reactors.
Unfortunately, committee members, I neglected to bring the bag that has those exhibits in them. I'm going to deliver it later today to the clerk, and you will be getting copies of these. They are available in both French and English.
The official bodies that produced these statements, which I have prepared for you, are the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, the Atomic Energy Control Board, the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs.
As a participant in the deliberations of both the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning and the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, I can assure the committee members that the rationale for this bill, C-5, is based on the potential damages of fuel melting accidents. Without fuel melting, it is not possible for a nuclear accident to have off-site property damage exceeding $10 million.
However, the consequences of core melting accidents can typically run into the tens of billions of dollars or even hundreds of billions of dollars and can make large regions of land uninhabitable for a considerable period of time.
In the case of such a catastrophe, Bill C-5 limits the liability of nuclear operators to a very modest amount. It eliminates all liability for nuclear equipment suppliers, even if they supplied defective equipment that caused the accident, yet it does not address any important measures that would limit the overall financial liability to the Canadian taxpayer or the social liability of any affected population.
The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility feels that it is important for the elected representatives of the people to ensure that the nuclear industry is held publicly accountable and to ensure that the best interests of Canadians are not compromised in order to serve the interest of the nuclear industry.
We believe the figure of $650 million cited in the act has no sound scientific or financial basis, and this arbitrary amount merely serves to distract the committee from much more important questions. For instance, just how great might the total damage be in case a core melt accident occurs here in Canada? Have these studies been carried out? Have they been given to the committee members? Have they been discussed in Parliament? What if such an accident occurred at the Pickering site? How much of the Toronto population would have to be evacuated and for how long? How far would the radioactive contamination spread?
It is sobering to realize that even today, 20 years after the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine, some sheep farmers in northern England and Wales still cannot sell their mutton because of radioactive contamination of the meat, caused by radioactive cesium-137 given off by the Chernobyl reactor.
Will farmers in the Ottawa Valley and Quebec have to curtail their agricultural practices following a nuclear accident near Toronto, such as those envisaged in this bill? Is the Canadian Parliament expected to pass this Bill C-5 to limit the liability of the nuclear industry without giving any careful thought to the question of limiting the ultimate financial liability to the crown?
One way of limiting public liability would be to require that any new reactors be sited far away from large population centres. Observers both inside and outside of the nuclear industry have commented that the Pickering reactors are among the worst-sited reactors in the world because of the catastrophe potential, so close to such a large and vital city. Such a catastrophe could be realized in the event not only of a severe industrial accident, but also as the result of external causes, such as a large earthquake, causing multiple pipe breaks in the reactor core area, or an act of deliberate sabotage or terrorism, which can no longer be discounted as fanciful.
I was one of the fortunate few to attend a 1977 conference of the nuclear fuel cycle, sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, held in Salzburg, Austria. At that conference, one of the leading American nuclear scientists, Alvin Weinberg, spoke for an hour to an audience of about 300 nuclear scientists from every corner of the world. His message was stark. He said: We nuclear scientists have not faced up to the full consequences of complete success. If we succeed in building tens of thousands of nuclear reactors around the world, which we must do to make any noticeable dent in the world's use of petroleum, we can expect to have a core meltdown approximately every four years. The lesson is clear. W e must stop building these reactors near large cities.
I was very impressed by the sincerity of Mr. Weinberg's proposal. In fact, he recommended that large tracts of land should be set aside specifically for nuclear reactors and nothing else. As he put it, if the reactors are going to melt down, let them do so there, far away from the population centres.
Alvin Weinberg's proposals may strike some of us as extreme. But perhaps it is only because we have not taken the time and trouble to educate ourselves about the science behind core melting and the possible consequences of such events. In 1978, one full year before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania, the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning spent several months on the question and found that if there were 100 reactors operating in Canada at some future date, then under the worst assumptions of probability, there could be a core meltdown here in Canada once every 40 years.
In his report, Arthur Porter, a professor of engineering from the University of Toronto, wrote that serious consideration should be given to building any new nuclear reactors underground, so that the radioactive releases from an uncontained core meltdown could be largely trapped in subterranean caverns and prevented from spreading over vast land areas.
Another way of limiting the nuclear liability of the crown and of the Canadian population is to invest in other energy technologies that can reduce greenhouse gases faster and more efficiently than nuclear power can possibly do, without posing the same risks of catastrophic impact, requiring bills such as this Bill C-5, which is available for no other industry that I am aware of.
According to a report issued in May 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nuclear power currently provides about 16% of the world's electricity, which amounts to about 2.7% of total energy use. In the next quarter century, the IPCC estimates that nuclear power could increase its contribution from 16% to 18% of electricity supply. This is far from solving the climate change problem.
Meanwhile, the same IPCC report states that renewable electricity currently accounts for 18% of electricity worldwide—that's the target in 25 years for nuclear—and that in the next 25 years renewable electricity could account for 35% of all electricity. That's twice as much as nuclear can provide in the same timeframe. Evidently, renewables are a much better bet than nuclear, at least for the next 25 years, in the opinion of this estimable panel.
Germany decided about 10 years ago to phase out of nuclear power. They have shut down two of their seventeen reactors already and will soon shut down a third one. In that same 10-year period Germany has installed 20,000 megawatts of wind power. That's more than the entire Canadian nuclear program. Meanwhile, Germany is leading all other European countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So perhaps instead of just passing Bill C-5 , the committee members should be refusing to pass it and recommending that a comprehensive inquiry into the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, in comparison with other energy technologies, be undertaken. In the public interest such an inquiry is long overdue. It would be a shame for this committee to approve a piece of legislation that is so peripheral to the larger issues.
Ultimately, Bill C-5 is based on much misinformation, and perhaps even a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the energy choices that we all must confront. I am concerned about the marginalization of our democratic institutions. I am concerned about the problem of governance of this industry. I do not believe, if we are going to embark upon an enlargement of this industry, it is responsible to continue to allow it to operate outside of public scrutiny, outside of responsible accounting, and I would hope this committee would do something about that.
Thank you.
