NB Telegraph-Journal | Readers' Forum
As published on page D7 on July 21, 2004

NUCLEAR POWER
Safety always comes first at Lepreau

Larry Lack's letter, "Nuclear power isn't 'indispensable tool" (July 16) claiming arrogance in the nuclear industry amounts to nothing more than a slap in the face to the many dedicated employees who every day make safety their number one priority at Point Lepreau. Engineers at the plant are bound by the law that governs their profession to "hold paramount the safety and welfare of the public."

To dismiss the continued operation of western designed reactors as arrogance is to absolutely ignore the circumstances surrounding the Chernobyl disaster. In my opinion there is no justification for Chernobyl but there are reasons why it happened and each was a situation unique to the Russian design and operation. This is not foolishly saying that there is a zero chance of an accident in a western designed reactor but it is saying that the specific reasons for the Chernobyl accident absolutely could not have happened here. Unfortunately, they are quite technical and take rather longer than a newspaper letter to describe fully and as such are conveniently ignored by some people looking to shut down western reactors.

First, the design of the RBMK-1000 reactor was faulty. By having a Void Coefficient that varied greatly with reactor power the design was inherently unstable. Second, the operators were able to override the safety systems. At the time of the accident practically all control rods were removed from the core. Third, the accident occurred during a test of the turbine which was poorly conceived and carried out. Fourth, the emergency scram rods which would shut down the reactor took 20 seconds to operate and their design was such as to drastically increase local reactivity in the core, compounding the original problems. Fifth, the operators and engineers were very poorly trained and in Canada would have at no time been on the job. Sixth, the safety culture at the Russian plant was non-existent.

Safety was not a priority and continued operation of the reactor took precedence. As mentioned above Canadian operators and engineers make safety their number one priority to the exclusion of profit or production. The Chernobyl plant would have been shut down by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for its unsafe practices and quite possibly not even been licensed because of its lack of passive and active safety features.

Even if all these things went wrong two other factors stand out. Chernobyl did not even possess a containment building. This would have kept the explosion (it was a steam explosion, not a nuclear one) within a concrete and steel shell several feet thick and would have prevented most of the disastrous effects. Also, another peculiar feature of the RBMK-1000 is a graphite moderator. During the disaster this caught on fire and is responsible for the more widespread distribution of radioactivity. In Canada the moderator is water, not prone to catching on fire.

This is, of course, only a brief treatment of the issue but it is plain to see that the basis of the claim that nuclear plants in Canada are safer than Chernobyl is not arrogance at all. It comes from an examination of the facts about how these plants are built and operated.

ANDREW DALEY
Rothesay
Via e-mail