Sierra Club of Canada Media Release

The Ontario government of Ernie Eves announced late on Friday May 30 the start of a much- delayed review on the refurbishment of the Pickering “A” Nuclear Generating Station. Restart of the problem-plagued nuclear station is now over three years behind schedule, and the cost has escalated from $800 million to an estimated final completion cost of almost $2.5 billion — three times the original estimate. Pickering has already been re-built once at cost of $1 billion after a disastrous accident in 1983. Ontario ratepayers are now paying a third time for this lemon nuclear plant. The station is the only commercial nuclear plant in Canada without two emergency shutdown systems.

Sierra Club of Canada has condemned the review as a whitewash which will undoubtedly conclude that despite a tripling of costs and serious time delay, the rebuilding of the Pickering A nuclear station is good for Ontario ratepayers.

The terms of reference for the review are restricted to determining the conditions for restarting the four Pickering A reactors. A meaningful review would consider whether there are more cost- effective alternatives; the risks of restarting the old reactors; and the likely performance and remaining life of the reactors after refurbishment
The head of the triumvirate review is former federal Tory Jake Epp, notorious for his support of nuclear power as energy minister under Brian Mulroney, 1989-1993. Epp was responsible for a significant increase in federal government subsidies for nuclear energy (see: Backgrounder: Jake Epp & Nuclear Power).
Another review member is Robin Jeffrey, a nuclear industry insider who oversaw the financial collapse of British Energy, the United Kingdom’s nuclear utility. He is the former construction manager of the Torness Nuclear Power Station in Scotland; the former Chief Executive Officer of Scottish Nuclear; and the former head of British Energy in North America (which created American nuclear company Amergen, and the Canadian nuclear company Bruce Power). Under his leadership, Bruce Power decided to refurbish and restart reactors 3 and 4 of the Bruce A nuclear station, shut down in 1998. Jeffrey went back to Scotland in July 2001 to become Executive Chairman of British Energy, the major United Kingdom nuclear company. He left British Energy in November 2002 following its financial collapse (in September 2002, the British government bailed out the company with 410 million pounds — $998 million CDN).
The third member of the review is Peter Barnes, a retired career bureaucrat who evidently can be relied on not to rock the boat.
The review has been sheltered from political accountability with an interim report in the fall, and the final report scheduled for December 2003. This was designed to allow the government to avoid taking a position prior to an expected fall election. In the meantime, Ontario Power Generation will continue to spend millions of ratepayer dollars and commit taxpayer obligations on Pickering A.

Sierra Club of Canada Policy Advisor, David Martin, stated:

“The Pickering nuclear review being conducted by the Eves government is a one-sided whitewash, but even a biased review can’t make a pig fly. The Pickering A nuclear station is a lemon.”

In its announcement of the review, the Eves government claimed that refurbishment of the Pickering A nuclear station will provide 2060 megawatts of “clean, reliable and affordable power”. David Martin stated, “The Pickering ‘A’ reactors are dangerous, hopelessly unreliable, and exorbitantly expensive. It’s time to pull the plug on this gold-plated nuclear boondoggle.”

In a letter to Ontario Energy Minister John Baird, the Sierra Club of Canada has called for:

replacement of the biased pro-nuclear review members, who have a history of financial mismanagement and support for high nuclear subsidies
appointment of objective review members
a revised mandate for the review to compare the cost of various energy alternatives and consider permanent shutdown of the Pickering A nuclear station
a halt to all work while the review is in progress
a final review report and government decision in September so that the people of Ontario can judge the government in the expected fall election

For more information:
Dave Martin tel: 905-852-0571 (Uxbridge, ON)
E-mail: nucaware@web.ca

Sierra Club of Canada Backgrounder — June 3, 2003

JAKE EPP & NUCLEAR POWER

Jake Epp is a former science teacher from Manitoba, who served as a Progressive Conservative member of parliament from 1972 to 1993. His riding of Provencher, Manitoba, was notable as the site of Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, owned and operated by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

When Jake Epp was appointed Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, he became a strong advocate for increased AECL subsidies and for nuclear power in general. AECL reported to, and was funded through the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources — this continues through the successor department, Natural Resources Canada. In an evaluation of Canadian energy ministers since 1965, nuclear industry insider Ken Smith described Epp as “strongly supportive” on uranium and nuclear issues (UNECAN News, January 29, 2002).

Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed Epp Energy Minister in January 1989, a post in which he served until January 1993.

In April 1990, Epp oversaw the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding between the federal and Ontario governments that saw a dramatic increase in the funding of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) through the CANDU Owners Group (COG), and committed the parties to seven years of funding. The move represented a significant change in policy for the federal Progressive Conservative government, which had previously advocated a reduction or elimination of subsidies for the nuclear industry. In its May 1985 budget the Conservative government (with Pat Carney as Energy Minister) set a total five-year cutback of $100 million to AECL’s subsidies. Jake Epp turned that commitment around.

Jake Epp is a man with his mind already made up on nuclear power…

“I want to maintain the nuclear industry. I want to make sure we do not lose the technology in Canada” (Jake Epp, quoted in the Globe and Mail, March 28, 1989)

“The Canadian government must give a clear indication of continuing support fir the nuclear option.” (Jake Epp, quoted in the Toronto Star, April 2, 1989, p. A14)

“We must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure confidence in nuclear power… The government sees the nuclear program as important to Canada from several perspectives — energy supply, environmental considerations, industrial development, and scientific research… This government is not about to allow such as successful venture to languish.” (Jake Epp, quoted in Nucleonics Week, June 22, 1989)

“I am out to change the negative attitudes that surround both AECL [Atomic Energy of Canada Limited] and the nuclear industry generally. I’ve put a lot of effort into this because I’m convinced it’s the way to go. But AECL and the nuclear industry don’t have friends in every corner and there have been very few cabinet ministers willing to tackle this nut.” (Jake Epp, quoted in Nucleonics Week, February 22, 1990, p. 6)

“Nuclear power is relatively clean, [and] remains an important element of our energy options for the future.” (Jake Epp, quoted in the Toronto Star, March 21, 1990)

“This will confirm nuclear power as an important energy option for Canada, providing significant economic, energy and environmental benefits through the 1990s and into the next century.” (Jake Epp, quoted in the Toronto Star, March 31, 1990, announcing dramatically increased subsidies to AECL from the federal and Ontario governments,)

“AECL now has a seven-year horizon and it’s about time. [the agreement signals] a government commitment to the whole technology of nuclear power. What we have now is a signal from the government that they see nuclear power as something not just for 5 or 10 years but for a generation.” (Jake Epp, quoted in Nucleonics Week, April 6, 1990, p. 4)

“With our efficient CANDU reactor technology and our abundant uranium resources, Canada can and must count on nuclear power…” (Jake Epp, October 22, 1990)

End

Sierra Club of Canada Backgrounder — June 3, 2003

TIME TO STOP THE PICKERING A REFURBISHMENT

The Pickering “A” Nuclear Generating Station was the first large-scale nuclear generating station built in Canada. The first two reactors at Pickering began commercial operation in 1971, with the other two units following in 1972 and 1973.The reactors are each 515 MW (net), a total of 2060 MW — less than 9% of Ontario’s peak electricity demand. All four reactors at the Pickering A station had to be re-built after a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) in August 1983. Ontario Hydro said the accident could never happen, but it did. It cost over $1 billion to fix, and the station was shut down in stages from 1983 to 1993.

On August 13, 1997, faced with the worst nuclear performance and safety problems in its history, Ontario Hydro announced that it would temporarily shut down the four Pickering A reactors and the three operating Bruce A reactors (one Bruce A reactor had already been shut down in 1995). It was the largest single nuclear shutdown in the international history of nuclear power — over 5000 megawatts of nuclear capacity. Ontario Hydro called for the “phased recovery” of its nuclear reactors, including “extensive upgrades” to the operating stations Pickering B, Bruce B and Darlington, before bringing the Pickering A and Bruce A reactors back into operation.

A controversial environmental assessment on the restart of the four Pickering A reactors was approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC — the federal nuclear regulator) in February 2001. The assessment deliberately excluded any review of economic issues, or cost comparisons of energy alternatives. The assessment also failed to deal with the possibility of a severe accident with radioactive fallout.

With the shutdown of the Pickering A and Bruce reactors since 1997, the overall nuclear power performance in Ontario has reached an all-time low. As a result, coal burning for replacement power has increased dramatically.

When the Pickering A reactors were first shut down at the end of 1997, the first reactor (Unit 4) was supposed to re-start in June 2000, with the remaining three to be restarted at six month intervals (to be completely operational by June 2002). A series of delays were subsequently announced, with extended periods of up to one year between restart of the four reactors. In its announcement of the Pickering review on May 30, 2003, the Ontario government revealed another delay, saying that reactor 4 will produce “significant power in July, and … full power in August”. No indication was given as to when the other three reactors would be restarted.

OPG originally estimated that the total cost for Pickering A refurbishment would be $800 million. In its Third Quarter Report for 2002 (October 2002), Ontario Power Generation revealed that the cost for Pickering A refurbishment had escalated to $1.025 billion, and that an additional $230 million would be needed to restart Unit 4 ($1.255 billion in total). However, at that time, OPG estimated that Unit 4 would be fully operational in March 2003, but that schedule has slipped to August, so presumably costs have increased. The Third Quarter Report for 2002 also suggests that the three additional reactors would cost $300 to $400 million each. Assuming a $1.2 billion cost, OPG’s total estimated cost for Pickering A refurbishment in October 2002 was $2.455 billion — three times the original cost estimate.

The four reactors at Pickering A have already been paid for three times. The initial construction, which began in 1964 resulted in commercial operation between 1971 and 1973 and cost $716 million in dollars of the year. The second payment for Pickering occurred from 1983 to 1993, after the disastrous pressure tube rupture of 1983, and cost about $1 billion. We are now paying for these lemon reactors a third time, which has cost at least $1.5 billion to date, and will cost at least $2.5 billion if the refurbishment plan is allowed to continue. Given the long history of cost overruns in the nuclear industry, this figure will certainly increase.

This money is being spent for an estimated ten additional years of operation. Despite the massive expenditure there is no guarantee that performance of the reactors will actually improve significantly. Prior to the August 1983 tube rupture at Pickering Unit 2, Pickering A’s performance was 86.8% Capacity Factor in 1982 (81% Capacity Factor lifetime). Capacity Factor is the percentage of perfect electrical output that was actually produced in a given time period. At time of the station shutdown in December 31, 1997, the station’s 1997 performance was 55.4% Capacity Factor (64.3% Capacity Factor lifetime). OPG’s cost/benefit analysis for the Pickering A re-start is based on the assumption that it can achieve an 86% Capacity Factor at the station after refurbishment. However, the best way to predict the future is to judge on the basis of the past. Based on past experience, a disastrous decline in performance can be expected despite the current round of massive expenditure on refurbishment.

An Outdated, Dangerous Prototype Nuclear Station

The Pickering A nuclear station was designed in the 1960’s as a four-reactor station to cut costs by sharing key safety systems such as containment and emergency core cooling. While shared safety systems cut costs, they also resulted in a loss of redundancy, thus increasing the risk of a serious accident. When the additional four reactors of the Pickering B nuclear station began operation between 1983 and 1986, containment and emergency core cooling were shared for all eight reactors, resulting in even greater risk.

The Pickering A nuclear station is particularly dangerous because it lacks second fast shutdown system, while all other power reactors in Canada have two systems. The single emergency shutdown system at the Pickering A station consists of shutoff rods that can be dropped into the reactor core. In 1977 the federal regulator required all reactors to have two separate fast shutdown systems, including the shutoff rod system and liquid ‘poison’ injection system, but excluded Pickering A from the requirement. This matter became particularly crucial after the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, when the regulator required that Ontario Hydro to examine the possibility of a dual mode failure, combining a loss of coolant accident with the failure of a safety system. Despite the creation of a new international standard, Pickering A was ignored. Although an enhanced monitoring system was retrofitted on the Pickering A reactors, Ontario Hydro was allowed to continue to them with only one emergency shutdown system. Continued operation of the aging reactors at Pickering is of particular concern because no other nuclear plant in the world is surrounded by as large a population as Pickering — about 2 million people within a 30 km radius. In the event of a catastrophic accident, it would be impossible to implement an effective emergency evacuation.

Conclusion

There are compelling economic and safety reasons why expenditure should be stopped NOW on the refurbishment of the Pickering A nuclear station. Unit 4 should not be restarted because of the absence of a second emergency shutdown system, and other safety problems associated with the aging reactor.

Despite the rebuilding of the Pickering A reactors after the pressure tube rupture in Unit 2 in 1983, performance declined to insupportable levels by the mid-1990s, eventually prompting the 1997 shutdown. A similar experience can expected after the current refurbishment. Ontario ratepayers have been punished enough for the high cost and poor performance of nuclear power. It is time to stop nuclear refurbishment and invest money instead in efficiency programs, renewable energy (particularly wind turbines), and in high-efficiency gas cogeneration. One billion dollars would have purchased 1000 megawatts of wind turbines. Although wind turbines function at a relatively low capacity factor because of wind availability, they are safer, cleaner, far more reliable and ultimately cheaper than nuclear power.

End

Letter from the Sierra Club of Canada to Energy Minister John Baird

SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA
c/o PO Box 104
Uxbridge, Ontario
L9P 1M6
Tel: 905-852-0571
E-mail: nucaware@web.ca

June 2, 2003

The Hon. John Baird
Ontario Minister of Energy
Heart Block, 4th floor
900 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2E1

Dear Minister Baird,

I am writing in response to your announcement on May 30th of a review into the delays and cost overruns in the refurbishment of the aging Pickering A nuclear generating station. As you know, restart of the problem-plagued nuclear station is now over three years behind schedule, and the forecast cost has escalated from $800 million to almost $2.5 billion — three times the original estimate. Pickering has already been re-built once at cost of $1 billion after a disastrous accident in 1983. Now you seem set on forcing Ontario ratepayers to pay a third time for this aged lemon nuclear plant. It is important to note that our concerns are not just financial — the Pickering A nuclear station is the only commercial nuclear plant in Canada without two emergency shutdown systems, and no other nuclear plant in the world is surrounded by as large a population as Pickering — about 2 million people within a 30 km radius. In the event of a catastrophic accident, it would be impossible to implement an effective emergency evacuation and health response.

The Sierra Club of Canada is extremely disappointed to note that the terms of reference for the review are restricted to determining the conditions for restarting the four Pickering A reactors. A meaningful review would consider whether there are more cost-effective alternatives; the risks of restarting the old reactors; and the likely performance and remaining life of the reactors after refurbishment.

We also believe that your choice of members for the review team is unacceptable. Jake Epp is particularly inappropriate to head the review, given his unambiguous support for nuclear power while federal energy minister under Brian Mulroney, 1989-1993. At that time, he was responsible for a significant increase in federal government subsidies for nuclear energy. Some background on Mr. Epp has been enclosed as evidence of his lack of objectivity.

Mr. Robin Jeffrey is also a completely unacceptable candidate for participation in the review, since he has been a life-long nuclear industry insider. He also seems a very poor choice, given the fact that as Executive Chairman of British Energy (the United Kingdom’s nuclear utility) he was in charge while it experienced its dramatic financial collapse last year. Just to emphasize his bias, it was under his leadership that Bruce Power decided to refurbish and restart reactors 3 and 4 of the Bruce A nuclear station, shut down in 1998.

It is reprehensible that you have sheltered the Pickering A refurbishment from political accountability with an interim report in the fall, and the final report scheduled for December 2003. This was undoubtedly designed to allow your government to avoid taking a position prior to an expected fall election. In the meantime, you will allow Ontario Power Generation to continue to spend millions of ratepayer dollars and commit taxpayer obligations on Pickering A.

We call on you to do the right thing. You must defend the interests of Ontario ratepayers, and help to repair the chaos for which you are responsible in the Ontario electricity sector. Ontario electricity policy needs a technology change — less unreliable nuclear power, and more efficiency and renewables.

At a cost of $2.5 billion and mounting, the refurbishment of the Pickering nuclear station is a significant part of Ontario’s electricity problem.

We ask you to make the following changes in the review of the Pickering A nuclear refurbishment:

Replace the biased, pro-nuclear review members, who have a history of financial mismanagement and support for high nuclear subsidies.
Appoint new objective review members.
Revise the mandate of the review to compare the cost of energy alternatives and consider permanent shutdown of the Pickering A nuclear station; the risks of restarting the old reactors; and the likely performance and remaining life of the reactors after refurbishment
Halt all expenditure on Pickering refurbishment while the review is in progress.
Change the schedule of the review to have a final report and government decision in September, so that the people of Ontario can judge the government’s actions in the expected fall election.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

David H. Martin Policy Advisor
Sierra Club of Canada

End

SCC > National > Media > News Release