The Role Of History In The Regulation Of The Nuclear-Fuel Cycle

Introduction Men like physical power because it gives control over nature and over other men. Physical power comes in two common forms: explosive and non-explosive. In both forms, the most powerful devices yet invented make use of nuclear energy: on the one hand, the hydrogen or fusion bomb, and, on the other hand, a nuclear power plant. For some nations, nuclear power offers a measure of independence not otherwise available in a time of diminishing and unevenly allocated fossil fuels. Consequently, it has great attraction. Unfortunately, the application of nuclear energy (especially fission energy) to either explosive or electrical power entails a singular risk, that of injury from ionizing radiation, both natural and induced; this risk is found in all stages of the nuclear-fuel cycle, from mining of fissionable materials to the disposal of wastes produced in the "burning" of nuclear fuels. The health costs of nuclear power were not fully assessed in the early stages of the development of nuclear technology and some of them were not properly guarded against, either in the USA, which led the world into the nuclear age, or in Canada, which followed an independent path. What I shall do in this paper is to sketch the history of nuclear regulation in our two countries, to point out what I consider similarities and differences, and to suggest that regulatory history, as perceived by a concerned public, has a great deal to do with what is possible today and probable tomorrow, in other words, with public acceptance or rejection of the nuclear option. The U.S. situation As we sow, so shall we reap. In the USA, further expansion of the nuclearpower industry has been almost stymied by government actions that reflect mounting public concern. There is no national storage facility for spent reactor fuel and it has been decided not to reprocess it; consequently, existing power plants are about to choke on their own wastes. Since the Three Mile Island accident, no new nuclear plants have received operating licenses, although several are ready to start up. The uncertainty of future government action has caused the abandonment of plans for a number of new nuclear plants. In addition, many research projects related to medicine and agriculture, which produce low-level radioactive wastes, are about to be shut down for lack of licensed disposal facilities. Some would maintain that this situation has come about because of the low benefit-to-cost