NUCLEAR GENOCIDE IN CANADA Part 4 Nuclear Costs to Date "Nuclear is the single biggest business disaster in the history of the world. No other technology has failed so big, so often, and so spectacularly. No other technology has needed so much help from so many governments over so long a period of a time. Because of its sorry record, almost all developed nations decades ago scrapped their nuclear-expansion plans." (National Post, March 8, 2008, Lawrence Solomon) The costs associated with Canada's 65 year nuclear history have been staggering. There are no figures available from the Canadian government on the total costs to date nor have all the bills been paid yet. Suffice it to say that our children and grandchildren will be paying for it throughout their lives; with their wallets, their quality of life and their health. The damage caused by the nuclear industry goes well beyond simple dollars and cents; the costs to our health and the environment are much harder to put a price tag on. We must also factor in the 'lost opportunity costs' resulting from Canada directing the majority of energy related subsidies to the nuclear industry. Consequently, Canada lags behind the other industrialized nations in the development and deployment of renewable energy. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) AECL is the crown corporation in charge of developing and selling nuclear reactors for the Canadian government. They are also responsible for radioactive waste management. Canadian taxpayers have given AECL over $20 billion in direct subsidies since their inception in 1952. This amount is just the 'tip of the iceberg' that AECL has cost Canadian taxpayers. AECL's history of incompetence culminated with the 2008 cancellation of the Maple reactors 18 years after they started.  Cost Overruns from Reactor Construction  The last reactors built in Canada were at Darlington, 40 minutes east of Toronto. The four Darlington reactors were not completed until 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion or more than $10 billion over budget. By 1998, the cost overruns from the 20 reactors in Ontario were the major contributor to Ontario Hydro's $35 billion debt. The utility was bankrupt and split into five separate components. The Canadian government forgave $20 billion of Ontario Hydro's debt (all Canadians are paying this bill) and Ontario electricity users are paying the balance with a surcharge on their electricity bills.  The public was in for one more shock before the dust settled on Ontario Hydro. The utility was mandated to set aside a portion of their revenue from the time the reactors were built in order to decommission them when they were shut down. It was revealed that the utility had put the funds directly into general revenue instead; there was no money set aside for decommissioning. It is unclear at this time whether this will become the responsibility of Ontario taxpayers or if the pain will be shared by all Canadians. Refurbishments AECL's claim that the CANDU reactors would last for 40 years had no basis in fact. The first CANDU reactor was shut down in 1983 at Pickering A after 12 years of service for re-tubing. All four of the Pickering A reactors were re-tubed over the following 10 years. In 1997, all four Pickering A and three of Bruce Powers reactors were shut down for accumulated safety problems and lack of reliability.  In 1999, Ontario Power Generation estimated it would cost $1.1 billion dollars and take three years to get all four Pickering A reactors back in service. Work commenced in 1999 to bring Unit 4 of Pickering 'A' back into service at a cost of $457 million. According to the Report of the Pickering 'A' Review Panel: "In late September 2003, the first of four Pickering 'A' reactors returned to service. Compared with the plan approved by the Board of Directors of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) in August 1999, the cost of Unit 4's return to service had almost tripled, and the return to service date has slipped by more than two years."  The cost to repair Unit 4 was $800 million dollars over budget and two years late. They spent more money fixing one reactor than the original estimate for all four reactors. OPG went ahead and fixed Unit 1 at a cost of $1 billion. Due to the delays and massive cost overruns of the first two reactors, OPG decided to permanently shut down Units 3& 4. Spending all this money on the reactors did little to improve their performance. In the summer of 2007, Units 1 & 4 were shut down for further repairs along with one other reactor from Pickering B. Combined with the two reactors on permanent shutdown, only three of the eight reactors were generating electricity all summer.  By 2005, Bruce Power restarted reactors 3 and 4 at a cost of $720 million, which was more than double their initial estimate of $340 million. They have since announced plans to refurbish four reactors by 2013 at a cost of $5.2 billion. They started working on the first two reactors in 2007. This part of the project was supposed to cost $2.5 billion but it is already 25% over budget.  In 2008, Hydro-Quebec announced plans to refurbish Gentilly 2 at a cost of $1.9 billion. This was $700 million more than the estimate when the project was first proposed in 2004.  In February 2009, AECL was given a $100 million subsidy to address cost overruns for refurbishments at Bruce Power and Point Lepreau. This came only two weeks after AECL was given $350 million dollars by the Canadian government as announced in the January 27, 2009 budget. Cost of Replacement Electricity Bruce Power had to shut down reactor 6 for three months in the summer of 2002 because an accident had caused holes in the pressure and calandria tubes. As the summer is the 'peak load' time of year, Ontario was forced to buy replacement power at a cost as high as $2 per kilowatt hour instead of the normal domestic price of five cents per kilowatt hour. It would cost $1.6 million per hour (at $2 per kilowatt hour) to replace the electricity from the 800 megawatt reactor 6 during peak demand instead of the normal price of $40,000. Assuming two hours per day of 'peak load' purchases for the duration of the three-month shutdown, Ontario would have paid $288 million for replacement electricity instead of $7.2 million at domestic rates. The problem was worsened because of the other reactors at Bruce Power and Pickering that were on permanent or temporary shutdown. Ontario had a shortfall of up to 4000 megawatt hours of electricity during peak demand that summer which would cost $8 million per hour at $2 per kilowatt hour. It would only take 125 hours at this rate to burn up a billion dollars. To make matters worse, the replacement power they bought was from coal-fired generators, the dirtiest energy source of all. "In New Brunswick, the provincial government has said it will incur $90- million in additional costs to replace the power lost as a result of delays in $1.4-billion project at the Point Lepreau reactor, the first Candu 6 that AECL has undertaken to refurbish." (The Globe And Mail, Friday, February 13, 2009, By: Shawn McCarthy) Decommissioning The Canadian taxpayer will also be responsible for most of the costs of decommissioning the reactors and other nuclear facilities. There are no Canadian cost estimates available but the British Government's National Audit Office released a report on January 30, 2008 stating it will cost 73 billion pounds ($140 billion Cdn.) to decommission Britain's reactors and nuclear sites. Canada has a similar number of reactors and contaminated sites. Taxpayers will have to foot the bill to remediate the abandoned uranium mines in Canada whose owners simply walked away. Many other mines simply dumped their radioactive tailings in the closest lake. These radioactive tailings ponds are contaminating downstream environments. In most cases, the tailings ponds are contained with simple earthen dams. There have been more than 30 breaches of the earthen dams at Elliot Lake since they were first put in place. Radioactive Waste  The Canadian Government's estimate of projected cleanup costs has no basis in reality. They have allocated $240 million to clean up 3.5 million cubic metres of radioactive waste in Port Hope. By contrast, the Americans spent $4.4 billion on a similar sized, but far less complicated cleanup at the Fernald site in Ohio.  Radioactive tailings from the 12 mines in Elliot Lake were dumped into ten lakes. All the lakes are dead and leaching contaminants into the watershed all the way to Lake Huron. The Serpent River watershed has been destroyed. There is no cost estimate to fix this disaster. It will cost another $25 billion to dispose of spent reactor fuel currently being stored at reactor sites and probably $25 billion more to clean up Chalk River, Pinawa, Port Hope and other contaminated towns and mine sites. Cost of a Nuclear Accident The news gets much worse if there is a nuclear accident or terrorist attack. According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982), a major accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cost as much as $500 billion (in 1982 dollars or $1.1 trillion dollars in 2007) in damages while a severe nuclear waste transportation accident could cost as much as $271 billion ($610 billion in 2007).  For comparison, there was more than $350 billion in damages from Chernobyl in 1986 ($666 billion in 2007 dollars) and this was in a rural setting. What would the cost be from a major accident at a Pickering reactor which is sitting on Toronto's border with four million people? Affected Area of Accident A major reactor accident could contaminate more than 10,000 square miles of land. This is equivalent to the land from Valleyview to Peace River all the way to the B.C. border. 'Branding the Peace' would take on a whole new meaning in the event of a major reactor accident at Lac Cardinal. Russia's Chief Public Health Official and member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Gennady Onishchenko stated: "Some 4,343 towns and villages in 14 Russian regions with the total population of 1.4 million lie within the radioactive contamination zone 20 years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident." (Tass)  "Up to 359 Welsh farms are still operating under restrictions imposed in the wake of Chernobyl, more than two decades after the Soviet nuclear plant went into meltdown. The Food Standards Agency Wales revealed the figure before today's 22nd anniversary of the largest nuclear accident in history. Upland farms in Wales were caught out by unfortunate circumstances in the wake of the disaster. Heavy rain washed radioactive material from clouds onto fields. The radiation is absorbed from the soil by plants, which are then eaten by sheep." (April 26, 2008 by Darren Devine, Western Mail) What would the economic impact be if a large part of the Peace River region was contaminated from a nuclear accident? What is the yearly value of agriculture, the oil and gas industry and tourism? What will it cost to move 100,000 people to new homes? What hardships will these people face having to start over? Liability Insurance I was told I would need $3 million in liability insurance to rent a table at the mall to sell my book. A friend was told he would need $3 million in liability insurance to sell his turned wooden bowls at the fall fair. My 18 year-old Toyota pick-up had $2 million in liability insurance. I can understand the need for this much coverage on a vehicle because of the potential costs involved in a large accident or the possibility of personal injury. But I can't figure out what could possibly happen while my friend and I sat at tables selling bowls and books that could cost us $3 million.  I gave these examples to put the level of liability insurance required by some of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities into perspective. Cameco's Uranium Conversion facility in Port Hope is situated in the middle of town and in the middle of the harbour on Lake Ontario. Cameco processes large quantities of very dangerous industrial chemicals and radioactive substances; 4-6 million pounds of uranium on site at any given time. Cameco has $4 million in liability insurance on that facility. Zircatec manufactures fuel rods for nuclear reactors in the middle of a residential area. They also use large quantities of very dangerous substances including beryllium and enriched uranium. Zircatec is only required to have $3 million in liability insurance in place. It is absurd that these facilities are only required to have the same level of liability insurance as I need to sit at a table in the mall. No business in any other industrial sector can operate with this low level of insurance. Insurance Subsidies No insurance company in the world will insure the nuclear industry nor will they provide homeowner coverage in the event of a nuclear accident. Take a look at your homeowner policy and you'll see that there is no coverage if your home is impacted by a nuclear accident. As such, the Canadian government implemented the Nuclear Liability Act in 1976 to protect the nuclear industry.  The Nuclear Liabilities Act limited nuclear operators to $75 million in liabilities in the event of an accident. Bill C-5 has since been introduced to raise this limit to $650 million in the event of a large nuclear accident. The balance of the damages is the responsibility of Canadian taxpayers. This amounts to a massive subsidy to the nuclear industry and absolves them of any responsibility for an accident. No other industry is allowed to operate in this manner. Though $650 million sounds like a lot of money, It represents only one seventeenth of one per cent of the potential $1.1 trillion damages caused by a nuclear accident. In other words, if your $250,000 house was rendered uninhabitable, the nuclear company would only be required to pay you $148. The other $249,852 would be paid by Canadian taxpayers, if the federal government decides to pay at all. An accident of this magnitude would almost triple Canada's national debt in one day. The Nuclear Liabilities Act also prevents legal action against the suppliers of components to the nuclear reactors even if there were flaws and deficiencies. There is no incentive for the owners and suppliers to build the best facility possible because they are protected from prosecution. On May 6, 2008, Member of Parliament Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) rose in the House and spoke of his concerns about the Nuclear Liabilities Act. Mr. Bevington said: "Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and question my honourable colleague on one issue that he referred to. He said that this bill appears to be what the industry needs."  "The concern that we in the New Democratic Party have is not only what the industry needs but what the citizens of Canada need. What do they need from a nuclear liability act? What do they need that will protect them and ensure that when there is such a calamity in this country that the compensation is done in a fair, open and prompt fashion and that the amounts that are geared to be put forward are adequate. How does the bill guarantee the rights of Canadians in receiving the kind of compensation that could be applicable in the event of a nuclear catastrophe?" The simple answer is that there is no guarantee Canadians will receive fair compensation as it will be at the discretion of the federal government. As we have seen for the past 65 years, Canadian citizens always take second place to the needs and best interests of the nuclear industry. As evidence, the Veterans who were exposed to atomic weapons tests are still waiting for compensation after 52 years. Nuclear Subsidies The nuclear industry has never been able to operate without being heavily subsidized by governments. The current attempt to build nuclear reactors is no different than the last one. The 'pigs are already lining up at the subsidy trough'. Jerry Grandey, president and chief executive officer of Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp., was the first out of the gate after subsidies in a July 1, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Grandey complained that the Canadian government has fallen behind the Americans in providing incentives (read subsidies) to encourage the growth of the nuclear industry. Mr. Grandey obviously wants more reactors built as the company he runs is the largest supplier of uranium in the world. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and their partner, SNC-Lavalin are asking the Canadian government to provide loan guarantees at reduced rates to try to make their bid to build Ontario's reactors more attractive. AECL is also asking the government to cover cost overruns for the reactors they want to build. The Canadian taxpayer is already on the hook for any cost overruns for the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau and Bruce Power reactors. In 2007, the federal and Alberta governments both stated their opposition to subsidies. Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said: "The federal government will not go so far as subsidizing or providing a financial backstop for any AECL projects. We don't intend to do that. We've made that very clear". (June 24, 2007, Edmonton Sun, Alan Findlay) Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight was against subsidizing the cost of building the reactors in Alberta. Mr. Knight "vowed that his province would not be putting public money at risk. This is a market decision. The risk is borne by investors." (Edmonton Sun, June 24, 2007, Alan Findlay) Minister Lunn refuses to speak about specific requests for subsidies from AECL and SNC-Lavalin but he did say his ministry would be there to support their bid. Time will tell. Other Examples of Subsidies "Most recently, Ontario's Auditor General found that provincial price guarantees granted to the privately owned Bruce Power so it would embark on a $4.25 billion refurbishment of two units were found to be overpriced." (Edmonton Sun, June 24, 2007, Alan Findlay) "When subsidies are factored in, such as a rent reduction for Bruce Power and the government paying for Bruce's uranium fuel, the consortium is guaranteed between 6.3 and 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour for its electricity, McCarter concluded. That's well above the 4.9 cents average for the past five years and significantly above what private-sector experts believe the future price of electricity will be, he added." (National Post, March 15, 2008, Lawrence Solomon) Externalized Costs Some air pollutants in Ontario increased over 40% in 1997 when 7 nuclear reactors were shut down for poor performance and safety concerns. This increased the strain on already limited health resources in the province and surrounding jurisdictions. Ontario lost its AAA credit rating because of the collapse of Ontario Hydro which made the cost of borrowing money more expensive. The following is from Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) Report dealing with the cost overruns on the refurbishment of the Pickering reactors: "These facts are alarming, but they are not the only price paid. The delay in the return to service of Pickering A has aversely affected Ontario's electricity sector and pushed up prices for residential and business consumers. The costs and delays of the project have also reduced OPG's revenues, capital resources and corporate value. But, perhaps most seriously, faith has been compromised in the affordability and certainty of the supply of electricity vital to Ontario's citizens and businesses." (Report of the Pickering 'A' Review Panel, December 2003) "Two of the four reactors at the Bruce 'A' nuclear station have been restarted by the lessee, Bruce Power — but only at the cost of a sweetheart contract that relieves the private consortium of responsibility for radioactive waste and reactor decommissioning." (David Martin, Greenpeace) Future Reactors A recent statement by Canadian Treasury Board President Vic Toews to the Globe and Mail should be of great concern to Canadian taxpayers. "He (Vic Toews) said any new reactor sale will require Ottawa to backstop not only the construction risks, but potential cost overruns when the reactors have to be refurbished." (The Globe And Mail, Friday, February 13, 2009, By: Shawn McCarthy) The Canadian government plans to expand the nuclear industry on the backs of Canadians. They have little choice as the nuclear industry still can't pay its own way after fifty years of trying. Who Pays the Bills? I've asked the audience in presentations I've made in Northern Alberta during the past year if they're aware they've been subsidizing electricity for people in Ontario. I've yet to see a hand go up but I have seen a lot of scowls appear on faces. Albertans aren't very happy when they find out they've been paying for something they get no benefit from; nor would people from any other province or territory. Twenty of the twenty two power reactors in Canada provide electricity to Ontario residents. Canada's nuclear laboratory is located at Chalk River Ontario. AECL and the CNSC are both based in Ontario. Virtually all of the 30,000 nuclear related jobs outside the uranium mining industry are located in Ontario. In short, Ontario receives all the economic advantages that are available from the nuclear industry. Yet it is Canadian taxpayers from all parts of the country who've been paying the bills for the past fifty years. All Canadians will pay: – $20 billion in subsidies to AECL. – $20 billion of Ontario Hydro's debt forgiven by Canada.  – Cost overruns for refurbishments (AECL has the contracts). – Radioactive waste cleanup at all sites. – $680 million for failed Maple reactors plus pending $1.6 billion court action against AECL. – Future cost overruns from reactor construction and refurbishments. – 99.95% of the costs of a major nuclear accident. – Costs of potential court action for damage to people's health and property devaluation. When everything is taken into consideration, it is plain to see that all Canadians are paying the bills and assuming the risk for nuclear electricity and 30,000 jobs, all for the benefit of Ontario. Not Fair. All Canadians must become aware of the issues in the nuclear debate and step up to the plate. If not, our children and grandchildren will be paying our nuclear bills throughout their lives. Further Research Energy Probe and Greenpeace have compiled lists of nuclear costs you may want to refer to. There's an excellent paper titled: The Economic Cost of Nuclear Power by Richard Lance Christie from November 2007. End of Part 4