.png){kind=logo}
G21-P053 Banning Reprocessing of High-Level Nuclear Waste/Irradiated Fuel in Canada
Submitter Name
Ann McAllister
This proposal was discussed in the workshop during Phase 2 of the VGM. However, there was not enough time for this proposal to be voted on in plenary by the members during Phase 2. Therefore, this proposal will not be included in the ratification vote.
Proposal
Canadian Greens will support a ban on all technologies and methods for reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel, as well as commerce in, and transport and use of, irradiated fuel and fissile materials to protect humanity and the biosphere from contamination and the fabrication, proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.
Objective
To protect the health, environment and security of present and future generations by banning the reprocessing of high-level nuclear waste (irradiated fuel) and extraction of plutonium, uranium and other fissile materials from that waste; as well as to prohibit the commerce and trade in, and transport and use of, high-level nuclear waste for reprocessing purposes.
Benefit
Protect humanity and the biosphere from: a) hazards from accessing irradiated fuel for reprocessing; b) new forms of difficult-to-manage nuclear wastes created during reprocessing; and c) sabotage or theft of, transport of, and commerce in irradiated fuel and extracted fissile materials that could be used in nuclear weapons.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
Health and environmental risks associated with spent fuel reprocessing. Edwards, Gordon: Health and Environmental Issues Linked to the Nuclear Fuel Chain. Section C. 24. Biomedical effects of fission products. http://ccnr.org/ceac_C.html#table.20
Paragraphs 1 to 3 explain how reprocessing irradiated, or waste, fuel releases radioactive gasses and dust that are extremely difficult to contain, and the health harms these emissions can cause.
Economic and environmental dangers from reprocessing nuclear fuel. Ramana, M.V. Lesson from India: why reprocessing spent fuel from nuclear reactors makes little sense. 2015. The Economic Times.
Accident risks, unmanageable amounts of effluent, and the exorbitant costs of building and operating reprocessing plants have caused most nuclear nations, except Russia and India, to move away from reprocessing nuclear fuel.
Ramana, M.V. and F. von Hippel: China must avoid costly trap of reprocessing nuclear fuel. 2013. China Dialogue. https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/6200-china-must-avoid-costly-trap-of-reprocessing-nuclear-fuel/
China should not reprocess nuclear fuel because it is prohibitively expensive, does not significantly reduce the amount of radioactive waste, and produces wastes that are extremely radiotoxic and hard to manage.
Contribution of commerce in plutonium to nuclear weapons. Edwards, Gordon: Proposed nuclear projects in New Brunswick would revive dangerous “plutonium economy”. 2020. NB Media Coop.
Paragraphs 10 to 12 explain why reprocessing irradiated nuclear fuel is so hazardous, polluting, and destabilizing to national and international security.
Contribution of waste fuel reprocessing to making nuclear weapons. Edwards, Gordon: “Concerns about the plutonium economy”. Excerpts from Flowers, Sir Brian: “Nuclear Power and the Environment”, 1976.
http://ccnr.org/Flowers_plute.html
This report’s conclusions are relevant today as federal and provincial governments advance policies to develop and export small modular nuclear reactors domestically and internationally, and extract uranium and plutonium in New Brunswick.
Green Value(s)
Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability, Social Justice, Non-Violence.
Relation to Existing Policy
Adds to current GPC policy 1998 - Environment.
Share