Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Goderich Signal-Star, 1976-08-19, Page 5Atomic Energy official replies to Don McKee's findings' • As: 'a result Of recent terpretationsof the facts are communications from Don McKee, a Benrniller biologist;. concerning the nuclear question, a letter has , been received from A.R, ' Burge, • Senior Public •Relations Officer for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (That letter appearsin this week's. Dear Editor column.) Mr. Berge has pointed out that the account of a Chalk , River incident recounted by' Mr. Mckee was taken from a recent book called "We. Almost Lo Detroit", t�'ritten stDetro hXJohn T. Fuller.:.. Mr. Burge sent along ' a review of : that book, written. by Dr. C.A. Mawson, M.Sc.," Ph.D., who was •a formerly head of the Environmental Research Branch :of Atomic Energy of Canada. Ltd.; at. `Chalk River: ,In the interests of providing . Signal -Star readers with•both sides of :this most important debate, Dr. Mawson's review, which appeared- in Canadian Business; July 1976 follows: +++ "Anti-nuclear critics serve • a useful purpose because they may alert the "experts." to risks that professional tunnel vision or technical prejudice m.9y conceal;and they: alert_ politicians and• ad- ministrators to. ' _their responsibilities in the fi'Td of public safety; "The trouble with much of.. the anti -nuclear -lobby is: that' it does not protect its own credibility. It is not careful about its "facts". Statements' are made . which are riot fsupp:orteta,...by...any...veri.fiabie;_, evidence quotations are given -out-of-context, people` associated with : nuclear in- dustry • are said •to ' be dihonest,' evil or even mad. Most anti-nuclear writing is .full `: of-. • pejorative' Words, • quite different. " fuller- , believes •that "we aimeat lost Detroit, ,but: he produces no evidence that could lead to designed to set a mood• -. • words like ."deadly "an- nihilation", - "awe -sortie" • `eerie", "scary". ,• "The members .of regulatory '_'..bodies ar.e. g Y ,scientists, engineers arid administrators.. who " know a • great deal about their' subject and' when they,, " see misrepresentati'on of facts with which they are familiar, written in language that appeals to .the: ernotions rather than to.the intellect, they tend to.plage_little value upon it. This may som.etit/nes be a•rriistake, and it would be better for• the welfare of the community if the critics paid more attention.' to their credibility. ' • "A. recent book by John G. Fuller, We Almost Lost Detroit, (Readers Digest. Press, New' York, 1975.)-. "illustrates, • "illustr-ates,....these 'points. It is an impressive piece of research,' greatly ` aided by , the Freedom' of Infdririation- Act of the -US "Congress. The amount . of detailed in-. formation available to Y American writers is astonishing, extending from that conclusion, • • ' • "Many . writers • have claimed . that after the.: ac- cident at the Ferfni reactor in 1966, plans' were actually made to evacuate Detroit, Fullerdoes not go so' far. All he says is "Someone —no one remembers who phoned ,•. the local Monroe" County - Sheriff's. office and the state -Police..:..iie.a.dquartete _ .Lansing ...As'the afternoon of October 5 ,wore on, Sheriff Bud Harrington 'sat in his Miniature office in ---the Monroe Town Hall but no 'further phone call, came in. Captain . '.Buchanan of the' Michigan State Police hear.d no •more about the alert that day either," (p. 197 passim). "The only other -possible sources of the evacuation. story that. -I .can find are: "The threat of a secondary accident was, as McCarthy. was to say later,''a terrifying thought' (p. 203) and "The terrifying thoughts about. the -accident • at the Fermi Plant did` nothing to squash t;�'re 'enthusiasm of the sup- porters of fission power who countered rational questions with flimsy answers" (p. 221) (McCarthy was head of nuclear .engineering for .the project:), • `An . example of misun- derstanding of the facts oc- curs' in a generally excellent descriptit5n of the 1952 ac- • cident to the NRX . research -t[_eactUi:.-. at£raiiRiee "Then,four minutes after button- number 7; 'had been accidentally, pushed, a dull rumble was heard. The huge, four ton lidon the , reactor vessel, . called a gasholder, rose in the 'air....There was evidertc'e of, a hydrogen oxygen' explosion• inside the -r:eactor. .`.A post mbrtem "review _revealed that if one or more control' rod had jai- med, the ': increase .. in the - fission products releasedinto the air could have wiped out the bedroom village of Deep River and.-beyond))(p, X16 passim). . MAWSONTHERE "r was there at•the time, working . in my labot•atory, and I lived in Deep River. I know a good deal about the accident; Phave•talked to the • people in charge and I have read the:reports.. The gasholder was a gasholder, not the "lid on the reactor." It. held helium gas • under pressure : and the presslrre was provided by a. 4 -ton weight weight on the top, The tank was partly -dull and the ac- cident caused the gasholder to "rise" — i.e. fill up = but. the top did•not blow off. "The "lid on' the reactor" was not affected by the ac- cident. The. "hydrogen• oxygen explosion'•'•. is.. unknown to the reactor - • GODE.R.ICIISIGNA:L-S'A'AR:'i"HUR$PA'"'tx.ALii L%S 11; • sense to undertake the cost of installing a.. fuel ,processing plant and the special facilities needed tb . manage the resulting _high level wastes, However we already have ;a' good irocess for. Melting the. wastes into .glass blocks and this this has been tested by burying active glass'beneath the water . table at Chalk River. A recent report. on I5 years experience with this experiment shows that glass is an extremely, effective medium for retention of fission products, even if it is •-continuously , leached with.: - ground water, "Muth of the alarm about plutonium is due .to a misund-erstend-ing,. .Plutonium is only ex- ceptionally -dangerous when it airborn in smoke -sized particles, which can penetrate deep ,into the lung: It is absorbed very poorly from " the gut and it • is not transferred from soil to. plants to any signi ican extent:Once in the soil it is so firmly fixed that nobody has -ever been able to•measure the rate of movement of plutonium through the ground water.system. " • "To become airborn as sub - omicron particles, the plutonium would have to_be' subjected to a massive . ex- plosion or a very iiot fire, officialr•'eports .all 'the way down to private memoranda and recorded telephone Calls' and Fuller has. made 'skillful and sometimes - devastating use of his opportunities. . SOLID PIEcE-o •RE,SEARCII "Fuller is a well ,known novelist andplaywright and We , Almost Lost Detroit is. written like b a novel: Ho -Wever, it is; a'solid piece of; research and he gets most of his facts right. „Some of the. pejorative words that are routine requirement for anti- nuclear- writers crop up from ' time to time among the comments, but the recitals of the fact's are fairly free -from • rhe eric. Some of the details 4-are;istorted; buten this . is nearly always . 'due to; the kinds of mis-understanding that are bound to occur, when .. a literary man ventures into a' highly technical field. -The distortions are not deliberate and Fuller has doire an honest reportii g job which nobody in, the nuclear energy business shotild ignore,. • "It often happens that 'a Writer can get his facts right and still come to the wrong conclusion. The facts used by Gofman and Tamplin in their forecasts of radiation a .fects are mainly thele facts used by, health physicists every day in their job of radiation protection, but their in, supervisor, and Pthere•-is,no mention of Deep River in the "post mortem review." What is in the review is a Statement that if one, more_ control rod. had jammed, 'dire things might have happenedl This is • true the accidentwould have been much worse, tZut it still could•. not "have wiped out the bedroom village of Deep River and beyond." "The hazards ';that"- -use most of ' the worry ",about, nuclear power are °'(1) waste 'disposal (2) reactor safety and (3) plutonium separation, transport, storage and theft. ' Waste--disposal—is—not-at-, present a serious concern. in Canada because we bAee no .high-level processing-wtes r The .CANDU reactors do not use enriched uranium in the fuel, ' so there is no fuel processing plant in Canada apart from a small ex- perimental laboratory at Whiteshell, Manitoba. Research is, being done on fuel processing because someday it will likely be profitable to recover plutonium from spent fuel for use in' new fuel elements: Fuel containing plutonium has, in fact, been -successfully, tested in power reactor's, "U'Se of pluteniern: for • Canadian fuel would be • ' uneconomic at *the present time. The price of natural uraniurre will have to rise a good deal before it will Make. neither of 'which -is at all likely 'in a waste management area. Nobody in`' their right mind would disposeof undiluted plutonium in sufficient , amount to assemble by some accident . into ..a "critical mass that could go off like a nuclear weapon. Quite apart front reasons , of common'` sense, plutonium. is a very exPensive material w'hiolh is not thrown away in quantity. "When " we have a plutonium separation plant— •1990: , or. later •: - : it` will -probably -.-be ,:located in__ a_ complex containing •reactors and a fuel fabricating plant, so there is not likely to be. much :transportation , of plutonium " around the country. "The chief - fear associated with transport is theft by terrorists ' ,.or criminals Whomight make it into a nuclear weapon. This has been represented to be an easy job which anybody could do in their basement with a good kit of 'tools and a hen, " dbook on nuclear energy. • - "It is a bit more com- plicated than that, but•people who look after plutomium are aware of the dangers. It has been said that to prevent diversion, of plutonium -would require'a police state, but this is difficult to believe when. PEAR EDIT;OR (continued from page 4) c.he.on : yin attractive' surroundings,' with " such plosion lifting "the lid of the charming folk as Mrs. Jean. reactor" did :not ;in fact: Adams, 'yourself and Rob happen. It. was. a gasholder • Shrier was most enjoyable: - tank that was *.affected and The bus tour following was not the lid of the reactor, most informative and im= This is not to- saythat the - ~ d • • ..pressive proving-Goderach to • NRX reactor accident was be "the prettiest town -in' not a serious one. NRX was -Ontario." Goderich has been oneof •the"'first experimental - P wel'1 advertised in nay realm: reactors-to bebuiltanywhere--- of fam'ir"ly;---friends ; and in the world and it involved • a business associates. technology over the twenty- ' It.. was interesting reading five' years which have elapsed the editions. of both papers since that incident have made and being able to relate to. our industry into one of the places mentioned. :I was safest in the world. The power: particularly impressed with reactors being designed and the article 'On the Buses' by built to -day bear abbut as Rob Shrier. I second his much resemblance to NRX as admonition tip the town folk to a; Boeing 747 does to a Tiger support . this -effort and Moth aircraft • promote ' the delights of No one was killed or injured Goderich both 'for the benefit in the NRX accident. No one of the touristand themselves. • in Canada has ever been Once again may I express killed through exposure to my thanks to Mrs. Jean radiation from nuclearpower Adams, yourself and Rob for . stations and the safetyrecord a most enjoyable time man is: similarlyexcellent for the'Y y' , nearly20power •reactors. happy memories 'and � a treasured- memento of July operating throughout • the 22, 1976. world. No other large-scale' Ostler, indestry can lay claimtoMarjorie O , such "' a record. . Willow tler. In the' • eyes_ of nuclear .• critics such as Mr, McKee Happy . vi it ,, • any accident involving a •- r nuclear reactor . always Dear Editor: brings us to the brink of : Thank you so much for my catastrophe • -- _Such an copy of the Signal -Star which • :.;argument is not sustained by fact. Accidents there have been and they will continue to be unavoidable.' in this as in any other of man's ventures. But the duplication of safety systems and the provision of adequateprotective systems will certainlybe one of the in nuclearP �'owee lants'make ".highlights of my holidays this - p the. catastrophe •theory • n summer. My family and unsupportable one. '1 friends „have also learned - Off-Moree-than one occasivii quite, a bit about the „pier my colleagues. and I have tient town in Ontario" 'since :I tried to set the nuclear safety arrived home. ' question in perspective for - . Thanks also to Mrs. Jean Mr.. McKee. It seems We have Adams and. Rob .Shrier ,who arrived last week. It brought back many happy memories of my visit. to ;Goderich and the 'friendly people I met there. • Being selected as one of your "tourists of the. week,4. failed there but if others accompanied us to . lunch : at 'amon•g=.3mur. readers__uvoxTd. • the Candlelight Re;stauraxlt like factual information on ani on our• bus tour around the subject they have only to Goderich. You all provided Write to. such a warm welcome that Yours truly, I'm sure -whenever I visit - A,R. Burge Goderich again, I'll feel very Senior Public Relations ' much "at home". Thanks Officer, again to all of you. Atomic Energy of Sincerely, • - Canada -Ltd., Mississauga ' L5K 1B2 'ituat- trst Q yf • . Dear Editor: I would like to reply to last Dear Editor, weeks letter .from Mr, Ron Today the copies of The McIntosh of Bluew'ater'Cable Goderich Signal -Star and The TN. Mitchell Advocate arrived So youare frustrated,.and and with them came a.flood ;of :..concerned Mr. McIntosh, happy memories froth- my people won't listen to yoia and visit to Goderich and Mitchell if they, do, they; don't pay in.July. I think your weekly. attention and you feel that event of `Tourist of. the Week'you ard trot allowed to discuss is exciting —a lovely lun- things! Isn't this the way you t; • one considers thatlutonium • and enriched 'uranium P . have been shipped. around theUnited States for over . 30 Years -without -'`re requiring 'a dictatorship.q g QUASI -RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION "A great deal ; of 'the op- position to' nuclear power is. based, do ethical con- • siderations of a quasi - religious ,nature. . It does not matter how clearly the facts are stated or how - bl the • unan swerable arguments fpr nuclear rpoWer May seem' to be :on the basis of cost, safety or future power shortage. The critics will continue to believe in their hearts that it is sinful. I •once had _correspondence with .a very able journalist which . closed with her statement that "I am a • Christian: I believe that the atom Is fundamentally evil, and I shall..f ight it' with every weapon at, my disposal." There is no answer to that "Reactor. 'safety isvery sear is''aware'that"-aeeideri'ts will. happen, operators will make. mistakes;' des i ners are not • infallible, materials are not' :perfect and `,machines do ' break down, ' "The. 'committee has to weigh the. probability. on the. one hand that both .the ac- cident cident will happen, and at the same tifnethe safety systems will not operate, against, on "4 the other, the consequences of such an.: event. The con- sequences themselves in- volve probability. factors such as wind direction time o•f, Gay, arid.-ausceptibiTity of exposed people to radiation. damage. MUST BE A BALANCE "The •;magnitude of. these probabilities must be balanced against the. • ad= .' vantages to be expected from 'the naClear power station, but ., this a value judgement Gather than a scientific. judgement and it'must .be . made by the Atomic Energy Control B d` t he'Safety Com- mittee. difficult to • discuss with might be my little.Annie.": I1; might; rof course- Oddly enough it does not help to. point out that the chance that Annie will be' killed. in a road accident is one in . four thetisand per annum, or that in a natural` disaster such as an 'earthquake, hurricane or forest fire it is one.in one Million per annum. None of -these statements means very. march to hitt}. "The nuclear industry has' tp show. that 'the safety of nuclear power ° stations' . is "acceptable. If is possible to calculate roughly what- an acceptable risk is by seeing what risks 'people worry about and".what they do` not worry about. They 'do -worry, about being killed On the road, but . not . enough to demand that the . automobile industry should 'shut down. `They do• not . worry about being ; killed in a natural disaster. So, for a system that can =confer benefit,, 'on the community, " an acceptable risk should be somewhere' between 1,:9. -+ands 10-6. per annum. -The risk of death -tram nuclear accident is at least 100 times than 10:6 Pa: SELDOM MENTIONED BENEFITS "The anti -Nuclear lobby people who ,have' no con-. ception` of `probability theory'. When. the Reactor Safety • Advisory Committee ' con- siders ,an application for a license it. is concerned with the probability that an ` ac- cident could cause harm to the public or the operators..It "It is, almost impossible to convey the significance of a probability statement to, the public, If yd'u say that the probability ofdeath resulting from a reactor accident is one in_ a hundred million per annum, John Citizen is likely:. to reply . "Yes, but that one ill confer.' Critics even- 'claim. that it is.much. costlier than fossil -fueled power, which is' untrue, and `that -it could be replaced -thy fusion,. 'solar;; ' a1 ' or tidal- " "e erm wind, . g of power; which is visionary if we are. talking about the next 30 years; Apart :from lead times and capital. cos.ts,:. geothermal power is highly " polluting, solar and wind. power_ take up huge tr'act's of country for equivalent power -production, tidal: power is opposed': by the fishing ' in- dustry and fusion lies in the far future. 'Solar• and wind power "-can help for local applications' up to about one. megawatt, but beyond that are not feasible at the present tithe, whereas power needs are for today and tomorrow. ' seldommentions the benefits that., nuclear power can • "Mr. Fuller pins his faith on. solar :.energy and then- . • monuclear fusion, and other critics' believe that .all we need to do is ' to conserve energy and develop better coal burning' power stations - Proponents .of 'nuclear. power are -not ..against any of these so'lutions, to ' the ' energy problem but they disagree with •those ` who think" .no energy problem . exists. They do believe, however,that • nuclear power has its place in the energy . production • spectrim.": Don McKee Of Benmill'er has sent along his third and final "report" about what can happen in the nuclear energy industry. The first -.twoincidents reported by Mr. McKee took place, at Chalk -river. These four incidents : oc= curred outside Canada- three in the'USA and one in England. -r -F• -i- • ' • SLI REACTOR IDAHO FALLS., U.S;A: • This was a small light waterenriched uranium reactor designed to supply power to remote military bases. Towards the 'end of ' 1960 it had been showing several signs of malfunctioning and had been strut down- for 'routine over -haul'.. . °, January. 3, 1961, .the three man night maintenance crew was tocarry out. some final adjustments to the fuel rods. Shortly after they cam on duty „tie 'remote radiation alarms sounded. Emergency crews arrived to find no external; evidence of anything being wrong. The •building: was 'lit and ap=,. peared undamaged. They donned protective suits and breathing apparatus and entered the building. Their meters registered high levels of radiation: The inside of the building was a shambles -of twisted steel and debris. There was no sign of the operators. Werking•in lethal levels of radiation they• eventually discovered two of the crew. One was still alive the other obviously dead. The living operator' was, removed ori a 'stretcher' -end was rushed to a hospital. His body was intens•ively'radio: • active. Shielded by an X-ray screen a doctor pronounced him dead on arrival: His .body'was, returned - to. the reactor site:. The third • operator was eventually found- skewered by a; fuel rod to the ceiling some 20 feet overhead.- • • After verhead.- After stripping off their protective gear and washing, the rescue •crew was, dismayed to discover.. their bodies were Lynn Taylor Willowdale Thankyou giving a 'reading of 3 rads. They were rushed to the di'spensar'y .for further. deconliammatron. • Retrieval' of the two bodies was a hazardousand time consuming task. When . eveptually removed the bodies were so .intensely radio -active that they were.placed in the radiation -proof vault of the isolated chemical processing building. Conventional burial was out of e question. WINDSCALEv: N. ENGLAND For no understood reason this reactor -started to overheat in early October 1957;• This eventually led to a fire in the fuel core. causing dangerous amounts of radioaactive isotopes to escape: through the stack. • As the fire could not be controlled and a disaster-was:imminent,"it was: decided: to flood the core with water•Which would coinpletely destroy • the multi-million dollar reactor. Pastimes' for fnany, miles around -the reactor became dangerously 'con- taminated: Millions of 'gallons of milk were seized and -dumped into the Irish Sea. Thousands : of: cattle- were - slaughtered and buried. . During ' the ,peak of this incident ..an abnormally- high level' of radiationwas registered in the City of London, over 300 miles away. • - - Today the great stack and • cooling towers of Windsca'le stand 'sil'ent and useless, a monument of rnan's.inabi.lity to master his own nuclear technology. THE FERMI REACTOR_ LA:GOONA BEACH ' MICHIGAN,U.S:A ' • - The first fast breeder reactor 'was• located on the shores. of Lake Erie about '• • mid=way'. between:Detroit and Toledo. Completed" at a cost in' excess of $120 million, the reactor was plagued with defects and -malfunctions throughout its construction and early testing period. . Early in October .1966, after weeks of low level testing the heat out-putwas to 77•be. increased to the point where the -first 'electricity Could • be generated. Things Went far from smoothly.. There were numerous delays, some six hours after the 'operational:) at' testing had started part of the core began to register ab- normally high temperatures. Thera the radiation alarms,.went off. The P.A. system announced a " Class ' One emergency. Fission • products were • escaping--' from , ;• the reactor . vessel-, Affected buildings had to be sealedoff. - No ori kriew.th ec-cruse of the problem. Due' to. the use of molten sodium as heat transfer agent, breeder reactors cannot be "ra.pidly scram ed or turned off. All the: symptoms indicated. a- fuel 'melting situation..—When--this happen -s the --fuel.::. separation is lost, reactivity and heat. Production build up very rapidly 'with. catastrophic consequences. •. At this' stage .the surrounding fifty miles should have been evacuated as planned, but executing the plan was unthinkable. Where Could the population of -greater Detroit be sent and ac- • commodated? SuCh' an action could well -spell out doom to the nuclear industry. The reactor was eventually scram- med, but the crisis was far from over. There was a seriousdefect but any at - tempt' to diagnose the trouble could well. precipitate- .a melt down: The . reactor could not be reactivated nor could it abandoned. .. After • a month '9,f cautious tests` and consultation with :•world experts; ethe 'defect had still not beetidentified and it . - was decided to carry out a slow stage by • ..stage dismantling of the reactor core. This cos tlyand hazardous operation took. over six: months ,•,Drlring all; this period. the -possibility of ' a nuclear disaster persisted. While : Detroit Edison wanted.. to •• salvage "their investment and in fact started to build two light water reactors on- the same site, The fast breeder con- tinued to, be plagued, with mishaps in- cluding a majorexplosion when sodium came in contact with water.' . In 1972 the A.E.C. denied extension of the licence to operate the fast breeder, reactor; dismissed" the , events at Lagoona Beach' as `experimental' and announced the building of a new breeder reactor. at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, at an - estimated cost of $700 million. By 1974 the Fermi reactor had been reduced to .a 'fully decommissioned partly -disma ttled state. Its buildii1igs house some 30,000 gallons of radio -active sodium, and masses of radio -active hardware. The- 130 million dollar .in vestment is a complete write-off but it will demand continuous monitoring and care -taking., for . many generations to_ come. ; BROWN'S FERRY REACTOR •' ALABAMA, U.S.A. On March 22,"1975, a repairman testing i'or air leaks with a lighted;: candle .started what became a serious fire. This fire caused the simultaneous _malfun- ctioning " of • five independent safety' systems; an event the designers claimed, to be 'technically impossibl"e' A s a result • the reactor was on the verge of a 'boil- off' which could have lesl`to a core melt. • CONCLUSIONS Many other serious' nuclear,accidents have-happened-both-her-e-in-Canadaari& • elsewhere. Nearly all the accidents to. date have occurred ifi reactors that were relatively new. As reactors age, become more numerous and larger, as stock piles of.radio-active wastes increase','thg . ''• " Potential ,and magnitude of accidents must increase. The terrible' and•. long term con- sequences of a' nuclear disaster have simply been suppressed and ignored by • both the industry andsponsorirtg governments,. or dismissed 'With meaningless statistics. i' • have _ been treating your subscribers when they complain to you about poor picture quality? You say that people should express • their views and feelings, "that we should "spell it out for them" (the government leaders) Mr. McIntosh, for over two years your subscribers have been trying to spell it Mat to you, by,ncomplaints and op-, position torate increases that, they wanted better picture quality. • . You. - appear woreie ..that:. • theg overnment as yoiMpiit it, will censor out some American TV „stations and • claim that"' "the CRTC is telling Canadian people that they are not mature enough to chod'se and watch certain channels."' But isn't this exactly, what you have been doing Mr, McIntosh, when Bluewater•' Cable distorts pictureiquality and color; not only of American stations but also of our own Canadian ' stations, i to such an extent •:that they are often col* _ `• pletely'unviewable! Isn't this denying us a choice • o channels? Frankly we can't miss,what the are not :getting Itis usually not a question cif a choice of channels but which channel is,viewOle.on (c)ntinued on page I) •