[cdn-nucl-l] Sierra Club vs AECL over Qinshan sale

["Brown, Morgan" <brownmj@aecl.ca>]

An interesting article in the Toronto Star on Saturday Nov 27 1999, at
http://www.thestar.com/back_issues/ED19991127/opinion/991127NAR01b_OP-CANDU2
7.html

Comments:
1) The Qinshan reactors are NOT "smaller, updated replicas of the Bruce and
Darlington nuclear generators".  They are stand-alone CANDU 6 units of  ~700
MWe (gross) each, not four-unit stations (915 or 935 MWe gross per reactor)
with a central vacuum building.

2)The CANDU core is not a "a steel honeycomb", but rather a set of 380
zirconium-alloy horizontal fuel channels in a steel calandria vessel with
steel end walls.  Perhaps a "steel and zirconium honeycomb" would have been
ok.

3) "Of 476 commercial nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, 30 are
CANDUs." "Two CANDU 6s have been supplying power in Argentina since 1984."  

There are 12 CANDUs in operation and 8 laid up in Ontario, 1 each in Quebec
and New Brunswick, 4 in Korea, 1 in Argentina (not two!), 1 in Romania (1
under construction in an on-again/off-again mode), two in India (with
another 7 copies or clones in operation and more under construction), and
one in Pakistan.  That makes 23 in operation, 8 in lay-up, and 7 clones in
operation.  There are a total of (I believe I've included them all) 428
commercial power reactors in operation (and laid up) around the world, not
476.  

4) The reactors represent a significant investment for the Chinese - they
are not about to manage them in a slipshod manner and lose out on their
investment.  And I'm always suspicious of claims that other countries
couldn't operate power reactors safely - it sounds as if the authors of such
statements think westerners are so very much superior.  Do such critics
think that Thailand, China, and Turkey don't have lots of bright, educated
and skilled people?  Don't underestimate a country or its people just
because they don't fit the western mold.

5) "AECL's boast of an accident-free record over 30 years is marred by last
month's leak of radioactive water from a heavy-water pump in one of the
South Korean plants".  AECL does not boast of an "accident-free record"
because there have been several accidents and incidents over the years
(burst pressure tubes, LOCAs, leaks in containment, etc., all with no health
consequences.).  It is assumed by reactor designers and operators that
accidents and incidents will happen, that's why there are all sorts of
redundant features and multiple barriers to mitigate the effects of any
incident or accident.  And even if there were no health consequences from
radiation, there would still be lots of features to protect the investment. 

6) At least the reporter said the "22 workers were exposed to minute levels
of radiation" at the recent incident at Wolsong-3, and "that leak got a lot
of media attention because it came just a week after a much worse accident
at a Japanese nuclear plant".  That's the only reason the Wolsong incident
got such coverage, because the media know the "nuclear" word is a great
attention-getter.

7) "In the latest deal, China was given 15 years to pay back the $1.5
billion, at an interest rate of 7.3 per cent."  Great, someone finally
mentions the OECD-approved loan rate, where Canadians get a return on their
investment (I wish I could find a GIC with that kind of return).  Plus,
Canada gets to employ lots of people and earn money in the process.  So
reactor sales are not "another subsidy to the nuclear industry" as some
insist on chanting.

8) "Similarly, in 1977, Pakistan was cut off for conducting nuclear weapons
tests after buying CANDUs through the General Electric Co.  Canada has never
formally acknowledged responsibility for the spread of nuclear weapon
technology and AECL likes to call the Indian and Pakistan reactors 'CANDU
clones.'"   Pakistan bought its one operating reactor, a 137 MWe CANDU, from
CGE.  The "clones" are essentially copies of the original two Rajastan units
built by AECL (RAPP 2 was completed by India after Canada halted all nuclear
cooperation with India).  The RAPP units were essentially copies of the 220
MWe Douglas Point CANDU prototype.  Note that India has done more than just
copied the RAPP units - they have modified the design and developed a lot of
their own technology in the process (see note 4).  And that technology
development included weapons technology - the Indians didn't get OR need
Canadian knowledge in developing nuclear weapons, they did it themselves.

9) "nuclear wastes are still in temporary storage, waiting governmental
permission to begin permanent disposal in deep rock locations, such as
abandoned mine shafts."  No one is suggesting using abandoned mine shafts
for permanent waste disposal - a repository would be an engineered structure
in a suitable geological location, not a "dump" as some are so fond of
repeating.  

10) "The (New York Times) article criticized CANDU 9s owned by what was then
Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation.  Each capable of
producing 1,000 megawatts, the CANDU 9s are a bigger, older version of the
CANDU 6s"  No, the C-9's are stand-alone reactors capable of producing 900
to 1000 MWe, and no C-9 has yet been built.  See note 1 for a description of
the Bruce and Darlington reactors.  Some C-6's are older and some are
younger than the Bruce and Darlington reactors.

A few more mistakes in the article, but shots given and taken by both sides.

cheerio

Morgan Brown
AECL

My opinions alone, so there!





A challenge to the way we sell reactors 
An environmental group battling CANDU project says Ottawa is putting a rich
deal above the law 
By Rosemary Speirs 
Toronto Star Feature Writer

IN SCENIC and hilly countryside midway down China's east coast, nuclear
experts from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are overseeing the construction
and commissioning of two CANDU 6 reactors.  Engineers have already bored the
channels through the rock to draw in cooling water from the East China Sea
and workers have poured the circular concrete walls that will enclose the
reactor cores. 

You'd never guess from the way the job is progressing that the Chinese
nuclear plants are the target of court action at home. The Sierra Club of
Canada has asked the Federal Court to order an independent environmental
assessment of the Chinese project. 
Such an assessment could stall or even halt construction. But to their
dismay, the environmentalists themselves have been stalled - for almost
three years. 

In that time, the two CANDU plants have been half completed. When finished,
they will be smaller, updated replicas of the Bruce and Darlington nuclear
generators that help to power Ontario's factories and homes.  One CANDU 6
reactor core, a steel honeycomb that will eventually hold the nuclear fuel,
has already made the trip by flatbed truck and ship from its Quebec factory
to storage in China. The second core is aboard a ship en route to Shanghai,
the nearest big port up the China coast. 

Early in 2003, the CANDU 6s are scheduled to start pumping 700 megawatts
each on to the Chinese electrical grid. AECL's nuclear enthusiasts say the
Canadian plants will supply a cleaner, more dependable power alternative to
the coal-fired generating stations that now rain soot on China's teeming
cities. 


 `Have they (critics of the reactor project) ever been to China? . . . When
people see the air pollution, they say they'll take cleaner air, even with
nuclear waste' 	
- Larry Shewchuk,  AECL spokesperson  	


The two Canadian heavy-water reactors are being built on the giant Qinshan
nuclear site, where Chinese authorities already operate one Chinese-designed
light-water plant and plan to expand to as many as 10 reactors.  Canada
fought hard to break into this power-starved Chinese market. During his
first Team Canada trade mission to Asia in 1994, Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien sealed the $4 billion deal with Chinese premier Li Peng.  AECL's
sales staff had done the advance work and president Reid Morden has
described the contract for the two CANDUs as a ``beachhead . . . in the
fastest growing nuclear energy market in the world.'' 
By this point, the China project is so far advanced that stopping it ``isn't
credible,'' says AECL chair Robert Nixon (a friend and appointee of
Chrétien). 

Trying to stop the unstoppable doesn't phase Elizabeth May, a lawyer and
environmental activist, who is executive director of the Sierra Club of
Canada.  In January, 1997, May applied to the Federal Court for a ruling
ordering the federal government to submit the Chinese reactor project to the
kind of independent environmental assessment that Canadian law requires.
``Canada has a legal obligation to conduct an environmental review under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which has a special section applying
to publicly funded projects outside Canada,'' says Andrew Chisholm, policy
adviser to the Sierra Club.  ``From an ethical standpoint as well, we have
an obligation to enforce the environmental standards we would use in our own
country.'' 
May had previously written to federal cabinet ministers Paul Martin and Art
Eggleton, contending that without the proper environmental assessment the
reactor sale would be illegal.  Eggleton eventually replied, arguing that
the reactor sale was not subject to the law. 

Eggleton and other cabinet ministers had signed a $1.5 billion loan to China
to help finance the reactor deal. The Chinese are using the money to pay
AECL and various Canadian contractors for their share of the work in
Qinshan.  AECL, which is a participant in the legal case on the side of the
ministers, has filed affidavits with the court arguing that Chinese nuclear
regulation meets international standards and that imposing Canadian
assessment would be an intolerable intrusion on China's sovereignty. 
Saddled with such a requirement, Canadian companies couldn't compete against
aggressive nuclear peddlers from France, Germany and the U.S. for a share of
the multi-billion-dollar Asian market.  (CANDUs differ from other reactors
in using natural uranium as the fuel and heavy water as the coolant.  Of 476
commercial nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, 30 are CANDUs.) 
Anti-nuclear activists point out that the United States has not allowed its
nuclear industry to sell to Communist China and they accuse Canada of
undermining its long-standing commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. 

Environmentalists don't trust China's record of toxic skies and poisoned
water. They cite the danger of nuclear accidents if slipshod operating
procedures creep in after AECL hands over the keys.  ``Nuclear-generated
electricity is not a sustainable alternative to coal,'' says a Sierra Club
news release.  ``The hazards posed by day-to-day operations, the potential
for catastrophic accidents and the inevitable problems associated with
radioactive waste disposal mean that Canada is bequeathing a legacy of
environmental problems to the people of China. ``The federal government
appears to have wilfully ignored the cost advantages and environmental
benefits of renewable energy and conservation measures both at home and
abroad.'' 

To which AECL spokesperson Larry Shewchuk replies: ``Sun and wind power are
clean and great, but they can't power large urban centres.'' 

The Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Co., after conducting its own environmental
reviews, concludes the Chinese coastal site is stable and there will be no
unfavourable environmental impact from the nuclear plants.  Water discharges
into Hangzhou Bay won't harm fish and shrimp, the Chinese maintain.  The
nearest human dwellings are 1 1/2 kilometres away and the town of Qinshan is
15 minutes down the road. Normal radioactive emissions from a CANDU 6 are
less than one-tenth China's national standard. 

Over-all, AECL, which participated in and monitored the Chinese review, says
it is a safe, environmentally friendly project, cleaner than the
Chinese-designed reactors sharing the site.  The question before the Federal
Court, however, isn't the soundness of the Chinese environmental review, but
whether the CANDU project must first meet the specifications of the Canadian
law, which is an independent process with public input.  Sources say the
government is worried the court's answer will be Yes - a ruling that could
have ramifications far beyond the sale to China. 

AECL is in the midst of bidding against German and French proposals for
another $4 billion reactor deal, this time to build two CANDU 6s in Akkuyu,
Turkey.  In August, 1997, federal cabinet ministers repeated what they had
done to sweeten the China bid and authorized a similar $1.5 billion loan for
Turkey.  At the time, top public servants warned the cabinet that the Sierra
Club court challenge could put the new megadeal at risk.  ``Justice has
advised that its case is not strong and that the Federal Court may well rule
in favour of the Sierra Club,'' the ministers were advised in a confidential
cabinet document written by officials in the Privy Council Office. 

AECL is also bidding on a research reactor in Australia and is promoting
more sales to China and South Korea.  Further down the road, the Canadian
nuclear agency hopes to bid to build nuclear plants in Thailand and
Indonesia.   Sources say the Liberal government is worried that an adverse
court ruling, by requiring an environmental assessment of the Chinese
reactor deal, would jeopardize the Chrétien government's ability to
fast-track future overseas megaprojects. 

To finance the $1.5 billion loan to China, the cabinet dipped into the
so-called ``Canada Account,'' which comes out of general government
revenues, but is administered by the Export Development Corp.  The EDC is a
45-year-old crown agency officially designated to provide financing to
Canadian exporters and overseas investors. When the EDC considers a project
too big and risky for its budget, the federal cabinet can override it and
draw money from the Canada Account. 

Billion-dollar loans flow from the account on the signatures of cabinet
ministers to sweeten foreign megadeals that wouldn't otherwise meet the
EDC's commercial tests.  May's affidavit specifically asks the Federal Court
to hold Martin, Eggleton and a couple of other top ministers accountable for
authorizing a Canada Account loan to China, while ignoring the law's
requirement for an environmental review. 

Chrétien has already tried a retroactive fix of this legal issue. On Nov. 7,
1997, in a move aimed at allaying Chinese government concerns about the
Sierra Club case, the cabinet passed a regulation exempting overseas
megaprojects from a publicly scrutinized environmental review.  The
regulation wasn't made public until Nov. 27, the day after Chrétien
announced that the sale of the CANDU 6s was final.  In another hurried move
shepherded by EDC chair Patrick Lavelle, (who was Ontario chair of
Chrétien's 1990 leadership campaign), the crown agency in March adopted a
system of environmental review to be applied to future overseas projects,
including nuclear plants. 

But the new review system was insufficient, according to a study authorized
by the foreign affairs department - the so-called Gowlings report.  The
Ottawa legal firm of Gowlings, Strathy and Henderson was retained by foreign
affairs to review the operations of the EDC, including its environmental
practices. The report, signed by Gowlings partner Guy David, said the EDC's
new environmental review would be an ``internal process'' without a clear
set of objective standards.  The Gowlings task force talked to Canadian
business leaders and environmentalists and found considerable support for
requiring overseas projects to meet environmental standards set by the World
Bank, which the report said still contain some ``gaps'' but at least are
more specific than the EDC's proposed guidelines. 

In future, the EDC should decline projects that don't meet agreed-upon
standards, the report said.  It noted that environmentalists have deplored
EDC investments in controversial projects such as the Three Gorges Dam,
which will flood a vast area of China, the nuclear plants in Romania and the
Omai mine in Guyana.  While the government works on its after-the-fact
fixes, Federal Court Justice Denis Pelletier has made several procedural
rulings, but has yet to deal with the substance of the Sierra Club's case
against the federal cabinet ministers. 

The court has a chronic backlog, which helps to explain why the wheels of
justice are grinding so slowly in a case with such large ramifications.  ``I
anticipated this case might take a year,'' says May. ``The federal strategy
apparently is to keep us in court as long as possible and avoid the day we
get to the actual issue. . . . ``It's like being in the Twilight Zone. But
we are hoping eventually to set an important precedent, even if the Chinese
reactors are already built.'' 

AECL's lawyer, Alan Hawryluk, agrees that the court case ``has left human
time'' behind.  But he says AECL has ``no long-term interest in dragging
this out. . . . We'd like the issue resolved and behind us.''   The reactors
being built in Qinshan are the most recent version of the CANDU 6, which has
operated relatively trouble-free for some years at Gentilly, Que., and Point
Lepreau, N.B.  Two CANDU 6s have been supplying power in Argentina since
1984.  One CANDU 6 is online in Romania and a second is under construction
there.  As well, four CANDU 6s operate in South Korea.  AECL's boast of an
accident-free record over 30 years is marred by last month's leak of
radioactive water from a heavy-water pump in one of the South Korean plants,
during which 22 workers were exposed to minute levels of radiation.

That leak got a lot of media attention because it came just a week after a
much worse accident at a Japanese nuclear plant in Tokaimura, during which
49 people were exposed to radiation.  AECL originally supplied
Canadian-designed nuclear plants to India, until India tested a nuclear bomb
in 1974.  Similarly, in 1977, Pakistan was cut off for conducting nuclear
weapons tests after buying CANDUs through the General Electric Co.  Canada
has never formally acknowledged responsibility for the spread of nuclear
weapon technology and AECL likes to call the Indian and Pakistan reactors
``CANDU clones.'' 

Over the years, Ottawa has sunk $5.5 billion into AECL for research.
Although environment groups argue this amounts to taxpayer subsidies of the
overseas sales, AECL replies that the sales are profitable and provide
thousands of high-tech jobs to skilled Canadians.  All Canada Account loans
to purchasing foreign governments have either been repaid or are being
repaid on schedule, Shewchuk says.  In the latest deal, China was given 15
years to pay back the $1.5 billion, at an interest rate of 7.3 per cent. 

Chrétien has suggested AECL's sale to China has positive side effects for
Canada, quite apart from the anticipated financial gains. He hopes Canada
will get credit for helping clean up Chinese air pollution under the
so-called Kyoto protocol on climate change, which would reduce carbon
dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels.  His sale of CANDU 6s to China
should be counted as part of Canada's pollution reduction pledge, Chrétien
has said. Canada would get credits for cleaner air in China that could be
added to Canada's balance sheet. 

Environmentalists object to the idea of trading pollution credits. As well,
they question how China will go about disposing of nuclear wastes from its
plants. ``Are they going to deposit it in Tibet?'' asks May.  Even in
Canada, AECL and Ontario Power Generation's nuclear wastes are still in
temporary storage, waiting governmental permission to begin permanent
disposal in deep rock locations, such as abandoned mine shafts. 

And while AECL has traditionally pointed to the success of the CANDU plants
in this country - agency chair Nixon calls CANDU technology ``the safest in
the world'' - recent troubles with Ontario's reactors have raised questions
elsewhere.  In December, 1997, the New York Times printed a harsh criticism
of AECL's nuclear sales under the headline Canadians export a type of
reactor they shut down.  The article criticized CANDU 9s owned by what was
then Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. Each capable of
producing 1,000 megawatts, the CANDU 9s are a bigger, older version of the
CANDU 6s. 

Following a scathing internal report prepared by American nuclear expert
Carl Andognini, who cited a list of safety concerns, Hydro had taken seven
of its 19 CANDU 9 reactors offline, the Times noted.  ``Yet the Canadians
continue to circle the globe trying to peddle the same reactors that have
proved so difficult to manage in their own backyard,'' the article said. 

Responds AECL's Shewchuck: ``The plants were not unsafe when they were taken
offline, but their performance was eroded to the point it was affecting
electrical output.''  He insisted the Ontario Power Generation reactors will
eventually go back online after being ``tuned up.''   Meanwhile, says
Shewchuk, Ontarians are suffering dirtier air because the agency has
switched to fossil-fuel generation to make up the electrical supply. 

In the same vein, he calls on critics of the CANDU sales to China to take a
hard look at the alternative of continuing to burn coal. ``Have they ever
been to China? . . . When people see the air pollution, they say they'll
take cleaner air, even with nuclear waste.''