The Beryllium Fiasco

When a nuclear safety regulator ignores international standards and licenses the manufacture of uranium dioxide fuel 25m from the junior playground of a school, it’s natural to ask if the license hearings were fair.

Given all that happened with beryllium prior to the rendering of this decision, it is understandable that Peterborough residents would be extremely upset about a CNSC decision awarding BWXT an expanded 10 year license.

The beryllium mess started when a local resident took the time to statistically analyze the CNSC’s data and found increases in beryllium that would have meant that kids at a playground only a few metres from BWXT’s beryllium stack may have been exposed to dangerously high levels of beryllium.

The CNSC had failed to do its job - to protect local residents. Moreover, scrutiny of the CNSC’s work exposed some disturbingly poor science. For example, CNSC staff didn’t bother to include controls in their “monitoring” program. In fact, to call it a “monitoring” program is inaccurate, as CNSC staff did not monitor, they tested. Monitoring involves looking for trends in data.

There was no hint of criticism of the “monitoring” program at either the hearing or in the decision itself.

In rendering its decision, the CNSC abandoned its beryllium test results from 2014-2019. The CNSC allowed BWXT to expand its license without independent monitoring. This means that there was no independent evidence that children were safe from BWXT’s activities. 

We expected that it would be reasonable for the CNSC to limit the terms of the license until science had an opportunity to clarify what was happening with beryllium. This did not happen.

The Token Radiologist?

Decisions are decisions -  there’s a winner and a loser. But this decision was different as CNSC decisions go. There was a dissenting voice, which doesn’t usually happen. 

The dissenting voice came from Dr. Sandor Demeter. His opposition to BWXT’s license application to process uranium dioxide into fuel pellets can be summarized as follows; 

1. The “potential inequitable increased exposure to the vulnerable population given the proximity of the Prince of Wales Public School” violates the ALARA principle. The “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” principle is encoded in the CNSC’s regulatory documents. 

2. On the point of “justification”  Dr. Demeter states “BWXT has not provided justification that would override the need to protect the more vulnerable population of Peterborough, and that it is therefore more justifiable to conduct pelleting in Toronto than in Peterborough.” Here, Dr. Demeter invokes the internationally acknowledged standards of the ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) to protect the vulnerable. 

3. Dr. Demeter also acknowledges the precautionary principle; “moving the pelleting operations, adding radiation doses and UO2 air and effluent emissions in a site which has an adjacent vulnerable population, is not acting in an abundance of precaution.”

In response to the “ALARA principle”, the majority decided “very low levels of environmental releases and doses to the public would not have an impact on the health of persons and the environment”. In other words, it doesn’t matter that kids are a vulnerable population, a “little” radiation won’t hurt anybody let alone the growing body of a junior kindergarten student.

In response to point 2 - “justification” the CNSC ruling states “The majority is of the view that BWXT is entitled to determine how best to conduct its business”. A corporation is not entitled under CNSC regulations to conduct its business as it sees fit.

And with respect to point 3 “the precautionary principle”, the majority writes “ the precautionary principle is not being neglected in this matter as there would not be serious or irreversible damages.” In opposition to Demeter’s beliefs, the majority believes that the increased exposure poses such a small risk that we don’t need to worry about it.

Given the pages and pages of regulatory documents that are intended to guide CNSC decisions, how is it possible to have such diametric views expressed by commission members?

Perhaps the answer is in their educational and professional background. The following table summarizes qualifications;

Clearly, Dr. Demeter was uniquely qualified to speak to health concerns in BWXT’s application. But, how can we ignore the composition of this commission? How is it that in a hearing where engineering challenges were minimal and where there were obvious concerns about the proximity of a school and residential housing, only one CNSC member was qualified to speak about the health risks posed to children and the community?

Does having three former employees of the nuclear industry lend itself to fairness? Does the educational and employment background of commission members affect their perception of risk? The majority decision to allow BWXT to process uranium dioxide into nuclear fuel 25 metres from the junior playground of a public school would indicate that it does.

CARN worked very hard to educate Peterborough about BWXT’s desire to move their pelleting operations to Peterborough and sold citizens on the CNSC process. More interventions were presented at this CNSC hearing than had ever been presented before. Senior CNSC staff told CARN members that this was the best hearing that they had ever attended. They said the quality of intervention was unprecedented. But the decision, as rendered, cannot help but make us feel that there were fundamental issues with the composition of this commission and its ability to render a fair decision. It has made us believe that we were mistaken in thinking that a fair decision was possible.  

This decision should concern all Canadians as we move into a period of unprecedented industrial and political promotion of nuclear energy.