Review of AECL's Environmental Statement:
A Submission to the Environmental Assessment Panel for Nuclear Fuel Waste
A critique by J.A.L. Robertson, M.A. (Cantab), F.R.S.C.
1996 September
The section of the EIS devoted to "Ethical Considerations of Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal" presents most ethical aspects reasonably well. However, there are some important omissions and a need for further discussion. This can be attributed to the fact that the nuclear debate has been largely concerned with technical factors. Nuclear proponents have, generally, been reticent in discussing the ethical aspects, and this has been misinterpreted as a lack of ethics on their part, and even as a purely mercenary attitude. In my view the reticence is due to diffidence in a subject for which they have no formal training. My experience, including several years membership of a Canadian Nuclear Association's committee concerned with ethics, convinces me that my colleagues in the Canadian nuclear industry have little to learn on practical ethics from the academics in this subject, and that they have no need to fear comparison with their critics.
I presented my own approach to the subject in a paper "The Geometry of Nuclear Energy: Getting the Right Angle on the Ethics" published in the Canadian Nuclear Society Bulletin, Vol.13, No.3 for Fall 1992. (A copy was submitted to the Panel under cover of my letter to the Chairman, dated 1991 December 8.) The title reflected the dichotomy of the technical and ethical aspects of the debate, complementing a paper "The Calculus of Risk: Differentiating and Integrating", presented to the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) Working Group on Terrestrial Disposal of Nuclear Wastes in Toronto a decade earlier. Good intentions are not good enough; they must be based on a sound understanding of the facts. One must not only do the right thing but also do the thing right.
For this submission, my comments adhere to the organization of the EIS.
Any literature survey of nuclear ethics yields a misleading impression that the subject is the private reserve of religions or academics. The brief references in the EIS to the Interfaith Program for Public Awareness of Nuclear Issues (IPPANI) review of 1985 conceal just how ineffectual such groups can be. IPPANI was sponsored by five religious faiths. Despite the fact that the Final Report endorsed to a very large extent the position of nuclear proponents, I was highly critical of both the the process and the organizers (not the panelists). This judgement is substantiated in a 35-page document "A Critique of the IPPANI Report: A Dissenter's View" of 1986: An appendix was devoted to "The Churches' Role at the Hearings", which I deplored. While the Final Report claimed success for the process, the hearings failed to achieve public awareness and the Final Report largely failed to address nuclear issues. As a single example of the failings, the Final Report addressed the question "Who makes decisions in the various nuclear areas?" without once mentioning the Federal Parliament or the Provincial Legislatures. From my personal involvement with IPPANI I concluded that the IPPANI process was based on the fallacies that faith can substitute for facts, and politics for ethics.
In any discussion of sustainability (p.141) agreement on the meaning of "sustainability", and the associated "conservation", is important but apparently impossible. Environmental conservation cannot be equated to preservation of the status quo. There is very little of Canada's "natural" environment that is unchanged by mankind, from Atlantic fish stock, through Ontario's lakes and the Prairies, to BC's forests. Only if we were to believe, like Voltaire's optimist, that "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" would it be defensible to resist any further change. Nature itself is in a constant state of flux. Sustainability therefore does not preclude affecting the existing environment, but requires that it be done in a responsible manner. This objective is sometimes expressed as leaving our world no worse than we found it: I prefer to express it as leaving our world in a better condition than we found it. This is the background to the discussion on "Energy and ethics" later.
At a detailed level, this section makes passing reference to assumptions that should be challenged:
In connection with the last item, there is a failure to note that although electricity consumers have been charged for wastes disposal the money exists only on the balance sheets of the utilities and not as real resources.
The EIS here fails to point out that making no decision is in effect a decision with its consequences; that with risks go opportunities as well as possible harm; and that the principle of sustainability implies recycling used fuel.
The EIS properly points out the universal dilemma of reconciling societal and individual rights, but fails to point out that while ethical principles are easy to formulate it is their application in practice that presents problems. I make the radical claim that the nuclear industry is ahead of the academics in addressing both these issues.
The ICRP's Optimization (ALARA) and Limitation Principles, extended to cover all relevant risks and not just the radiological risk, provide a compromise between societal and individual rights. These principles can be regarded as optimizing, not minimizing, the risk for the public benefit, considering technical, economic and social factors, while protecting the individual at greatest risk. In the jargon of academic ethics, this represents a combination of utilitarianism and individualism. To these two the Siting Process Task Force for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management has added voluntarism, by which individual communities are invited to state the conditions under which they would be willing to accept NIMBY-type facilities.
Distributional equity, noted here, is dealt with subsequently under its own heading. Here, as elsewhere, there are unchallenged references to demands for minimizing the risk without regard to the cost in dollars or lives. This issue has already been discussed under cost effectiveness (Section 3.1). To waste public funds and lives by making one sector much safer at the expense of others must be regarded as unethical.
The proposal that expenditures to reduce the risk should be proportional to the probability of harm is appealing to technocrats like myself, but is inconsistent with the declared intention of recognizing the public's perception of risk and not making decisions solely on the technical estimates. This is another aspect of the important issue of cost-effectiveness of AECL's proposed concept, addressed in Section 3.1 and high-lighted in the conclusions of this submission.
Here again (pp.147, 149 & 151) there is the unchallenged assumption that the risk should be minimized, not optimized, and now the idea is extended to the burden on future generations. What is missing here is a proper recognition that future generations benefit as well as suffer from our generation's actions. This is a difficult ethical issue for which there is yet no clear consensus, and the question of discounting future risk is particularly controversial.
In seeking a balanced view several factors should be considered:
The compromise proposed by the nuclear industry is that preventing the risk to future generations should be given a priority no less than that for the current generation. In the present context this means that the estimated risk to individuals in future generations should not exceed the current limit for individual risk; and that it should be made as low as reasonably achievable, economic and social factors (such as those given above) being taken into consideration. This formulation can be seen as an application of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", found in several religions.
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in a recent publication "The Environmental and Ethical Basis of Geological Disposal", has put it well:
"Those who generate the wastes should take responsibility, and provide the resources, for the management of these materials in a way which will not impose undue burdens on future generations."
Note the use of "undue", not "any".
Although there is currently no proposal to import nuclear wastes from other countries, a discussion of the ethics should acknowledge that, if the concept is judged to be safe in Canada, it would be unethical to refuse wastes from countries such as Holland for which disposal may be less safe.
Since one of the reasons advanced for rejecting imports is the perceived transportation risk, it would be illuminating to examine the actual deaths and injuries resulting from Canada's grain exports. These involve massive shipments through the transportation systems but there is no apparent resistance to these exports. Indeed, they are seen as thoroughly desirable and essential to our economy.
While I cannot claim any direct familiarity with aboriginal perspectives, from what I have read I consider myself to be in sympathy with them. My understanding is that these can be largely summarized by the expression "sustainable development", with all the difficulties in reconciling the two words that the rest of us experience. Along with the rest of our society aboriginals wish to improve their lot ("development") while living in harmony with their environment ("sustainability"). Following the earlier discussion of sustainability, AECL's proposed concept would seem to satisfy the principle in that, after closure, the surface site would be restored to an acceptable state, the repository would resemble a natural uranium deposit, and the potential hazard of surface-stored wastes would be eliminated.
Some aboriginals may feel that, since they do not benefit from being on an electricity grid, they should not bear any risk or inconvenience, however small, from disposal of the wastes. However, this ignores the fact that they, with the rest of us, have a real stake in a healthy economy which requires plentiful and affordable electricity, and on which all our health, education and welfare programs depend.
If it is accepted that there is no fundamental conflict between the proposed concept and aboriginal perspectives - and this is supported by the interest expressed by some aboriginal bands in the US and in Alberta in hosting a nuclear-waste repository - the ethical issue becomes one of how to implement the concept while protecting aboriginal values. To this end, "The Report of the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry" (concerning a proposed uranium mine in Saskatchewan) chaired by Mr. Justice E.D. Bayda is relevant and should be consulted. Also any lessons learned since from implementing the mine should be examined by the Panel.
The aboriginal belief that the responsibility for the future should span seven generations (7 x 60 = 420 years) corresponds closely to the period over which most of the radioactivity in the wastes decays to negligible levels. Thus those provisions of the concept that are designed to protect mankind and the environment for thousands of years can be viewed as exceeding aboriginal objectives.
Underlying many attitudes to the ethics of nuclear energy are fundamental differences in how our society should evolve. Sir Brian Flowers, in the 1976 report of the UK's "Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution" (one of more than thirty "Nuclear Energy Inquiries: National and International" reviewed by J.A.L. Robertson in report AECL-10768) suggested:
"Nuclear power has in some ways become the whipping boy for technological development as a whole .... Nuclear power provides a dramatic focus for opposition in some countries to technological development and we have no doubt that some who attack it are primariliy motivated by antipathy to the basic nature of industrial society, and see in nuclear power an opportunity to attack that society where it seems most vulnerable, in energy supply."
In this respect little has changed in the intervening two decades so that energy, and particularly nuclear energy, remain symbols and surrogates to some people.
Amory Lovins is perhaps the best known spokesman for what he termed the "Soft Path" characterized by opposition to nuclear energy and other examples of centralized institutions. Rather than try to summarize the debate here, I would refer the Panel to "Soft vs. Hard Energy Paths: A Series of Critical Essays on Amory Lovins' 'Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?'", published by the Edison Electric Institute as Electric Perspectives No.77/3. (The eleven essays included one by me, the only non-US author.)
Much of the opposition to nuclear energy by proponents of the "Soft Path" is based on a fallacy that has become virtually a mantra: "Conserve Energy!" This is unscientific, illogical, unwise and unethical.
As any scientist knows, the first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, tells us that people cannot conserve energy since nature has already done that. (Nuclear energy, in which small amounts of mass are converted into large amounts of energy, represents a pedantic exception but one which "Soft Path" proponents are unlikely to cite.)
More seriously, there is no good reason for conserving energy as such, in the sense of avoiding its use. To illustrate this point consider solar energy, such as sunlight, winds or tides. This energy will continue to exist and will eventually be absorbed into the environment whether or not mankind exploits it. Avoiding its use will not achieve any benefit. If solar energy were cost-free at the point of end use, there would be no questioning it.
The reason that we are not all using it to the exclusion of other energy forms is that it is not cost-free, because many other resources, physical and human, material and labour, are needed for its exploitation. Wise management of society will conserve all limited resources, not just one at the expense of others as a matter of dogma. In our economic system the dollar-cost of the various resources, allowing for all proper external costs, provides a rough and ready measure of their scarcity, and hence the extent to which they should be conserved. To use a more expensive energy form means that our resources as a whole are being wasted in some way.
The ethical argument against "Energy Conservation" is that its unthinking application would deny mankind a natural gift to counter starvation, slavery, drudgery, disease and other ills that afflicted our predecessors, and still afflict millions today. Abundant energy has liberated and emancipated us fortunate ones and should be available to others. The Industrial Revolution, despite all its abuses, was a boon to mankind from which we are still benefitting. True conservation should involve the stewardship of all resources, not energy alone.
Anyone using "Energy Conservation" as a reason to oppose nuclear energy should be asked why energy should be conserved. The reasons given should then be used as a checklist against which to judge the acceptability of nuclear energy and available alternatives.
Canada, along with other nations at the World Commission on Environment and Development, subscribed to the principle of sustainable development. Adequate, affordable, clean energy is the key to sustainable development. A denial of nuclear energy would result in increased pollution of the environment from burning coal, and harm to the economy that would hinder development. A major reason advanced for opposing nuclear energy is the alleged environmental harm from the used fuel wastes. If the Panel endorses AECL's claim that these wastes can be disposed of safely, this objection will be removed.
If I am passionate on the subject of energy, it is because of personal experience. At the end of World War II I was in the Indian Army serving in South-East Asia Command. This afforded me the opportunity to appreciate in human terms the value of a single light bulb in a dwelling, and of a single water-pump in a village; and conversely the hardship resulting from the absence of these simple appliances in a country subject to Japanese occupation. On my return to the UK in 1947 I found myself in a decade of energy shortages that left vulnerable individuals in an advanced society actually dying of cold and industry restricted to a three-day week. These experiences influenced my career decision on graduating to get involved in research into the exploitation of nuclear energy. On coming to Canada in 1957 I was greatly impressed by how Ontario Hydro's program of rural electrification had benefitted the bulk of Ontario outside the big cities. More recently, I compare the lives of my mother and one of our daughters: I remember my mother, a doctor's widow, washing clothes on a scrub-board in the kitchen sink; our daughter is able to combine a career with family-care largely thanks to the availability of electrical appliances.
The Panel's terms of reference exclude, among other issues, "military applications of nuclear technology". Nevertheless, several of the submissions to the Panel at the scoping hearings contained allegations that nuclear energy encouraged the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not only did the Panel accept these submissions, it published them under its own imprimatur. The situation is akin to that in a court of law when one lawyer makes an allegation ruled inadmissible: the jury is instructed to disregard it but the harm is done and the other side is denied any right of rebuttal.
In the expectation that the issue will again be introduced in the submissions on the EIS, I consider it reasonable to anticipate the usual allegations.
The alleged connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons has been examined by several inquiries. The subject index for report AECL-10768 identifies eleven that deal with this issue to some extent. Reasonably typical are the conclusions of Mr. Justice Bayda:
"We are satisfied that a nation would not likely use its present domestic nuclear power reactors as its source of fissile material for weapons. Besides the lower cost of small separate facilities ... the nation could maintain greater secrecy and cause less disruption to her electrical supply by using small facilities intended for weapons production within her military establishment ....
"In the final analysis, the controlling factor in determining whether a nation will acquire nuclear weapons is not the ready availability of nuclear materials but the political will of that nation ....
"Terrorism involving nuclear materials will not be prevented by withholding from the world market the uranium which Saskatchewan has to offer. Nor will the incidence of such terrorism be reduced, even fractionally, by that withholding."
My own position is that from a practical and ethical standpoint civilian applications of nuclear energy help to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Here I will confine myself to a few simple assertions:
The justification for these assertions can be found in my paper "Preventing Nuclear Weapons Proliferation: A Positive Factor for Peace", published in The Energy Newsletter, Vol.3, No.3, 1982 October (reprint provided with this submission).
Any discussion of the ethics of nuclear energy should include consideration of the ethics of those who oppose it. My contention is that the employment of means that cause unfounded fear; that exploit subconscious association of ideas; and that deny the opportunity for challenge or rebuttal, are unethical.
The street theatre that the Panel allowed to disrupt its scoping hearings in Ottawa was a despicable example. Those present were subjected to scaremongering of a ghoulish nature while thousands of Canadians were slandered without the chance to defend themselves.
The ethics of the media is also at issue here. Those who control what is transmitted by the mass media wield tremendous power without any balancing responsibility. The use of illustrations and video-clips without any justification, and especially cartoons, are cowardly in exploiting a privileged access without fear of challenge. Media star David Suzuki has promoted his anti-nuclear beliefs on televison and in print without revealing that he was a director of the anti-nuclear organization "Energy Probe", in contravention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "Journalistic Policy".
The discussion in this section of the EIS is summarized in the eight principles on pages 155 and 156. As a succinct basis for decision making they represent a good draft, but they should be open for revisions and additions. For instance, I would insert "undue" in the fifth, so that it would read "The waste ought to be dealt with in a way that is not an undue burden on future generations". This proposed revision reflects my argument that future generations derive some benefit from our actions and so should not be entirely protected from obligations.
The most important omission from the EIS section on ethics is any discussion of the question "How safe is too safe?". It is one that the Panel must address in view of the requirement in its terms of reference to "review the safety and acceptability" of the concept. This issue has already been discussed in Section 3.1 of this submission.
I also submit for consideration two further principles. The first of these would provide a basis for protection of people and, incidentally, the environment: "The risk for people should be optimized for the public benefit, considering technical, economic and social factors, subject to an absolute upper limit to the permissible risk for any individual". My use of "optimized" rather than "minimized" is deliberate, for reasons already discussed. It directly opposes the use of "minimizing" and "minimize" on page 158, and "minimize" and "the best that can be done" on page 160. Similarly, "Safety would be top priority" (p.157) is nonsense and should read: "Adequate safety would be an essential requirement".
The other possible addition would, if agreed, greatly simplify application of other principles: "Any very small risk, comparable with other very small risks ignored by our society, should be ignored in policy decisions concerned with the disposal of nuclear wastes". This is termed the de minimis principle from the legal equivalent de minimis non curat lex - "the law does not concern itself with trifles". My contention is that this principle would merely reflect everyone's rule of thumb for day-to-day living, and would avoid a waste of society's resources that could be much better expended elsewhere.
The NEA's Radioactive Waste Management Committee, in the publication already cited, concludes that the method of disposal proposed in the current EIS is ethically justified. While inviting the Panel to endorse this finding, I would word the conclusion more strongly: not to endorse the concept as acceptably safe would be unethical. The only ethical question is whether it is too safe, i.e., using resources better deployed elsewhere.
| Go to Contents of Ethics of Nuclear Energy |