Many Pickering residents have expressed concern, even fear, about the ongoing operation of the Pickering Nuclear Power Generating station.
“Dumb and stupid idea” – Joe P., Pickering resident
“Stupid and dangerous” – Mike B., Pickering resident
“Amazing government shortedness in the face of potentially catastrophic accident” – Richard Szpin
_______
Consider the following essay:
A Critical Assessment of Safety Concerns:
The Aging Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station stands as one of the oldest operating nuclear facilities in the world. As this aging infrastructure continues to operate well beyond its originally intended lifespan, legitimate concerns about safety, structural integrity, and the potential consequences of continued operation have intensified. This article examines the many-faceted dangers associated with the Pickering plant’s advanced age and explores why these concerns demand serious consideration from policymakers and the public.
Historical Context and Extended Operations
The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station began operations in 1971, more than 50 years ago. The facility was initially designed with an operational lifespan of approximately 30 years. However, through various refurbishments and life-extension programs, the plant has continued operating far beyond its original design parameters. Units at Pickering have undergone multiple extensions, with some units operating until their decommissioning and others receiving approval for continued operation into the 2020s.
This extended operation raises fundamental questions about material fatigue, component degradation, and the applicability of 1960s-era design principles to modern safety standards. The original engineers could not have anticipated the stresses and degradation patterns that would emerge after five decades of continuous neutron bombardment, thermal cycling, and mechanical wear. What seemed like conservative safety margins in 1971 may prove inadequate when applied to a structure operating in 2025.
Material Degradation and Structural Integrity
The most pressing concern regarding the Pickering station involves the inevitable degradation of critical materials and components. Nuclear reactors operate in extraordinarily harsh environments characterized by intense radiation, high temperatures, and corrosive conditions. Over decades of operation, these factors take a cumulative toll on the physical infrastructure.
The reactor pressure tubes, which contain the nuclear fuel and primary coolant, represent a particular vulnerability in aging CANDU reactors like those at Pickering. These tubes are subjected to neutron irradiation that gradually changes the crystalline structure of the zirconium alloy from which they are manufactured. This process, known as neutron embrittlement, makes the material increasingly brittle over time. Additionally, these tubes experience a phenomenon called “creep,” where they gradually elongate and sag under sustained high temperature and pressure conditions.
Dangerous degradation of the infrastructure a the nuclear station
The combination of embrittlement and deformation creates a scenario where the pressure tubes become simultaneously weaker and more susceptible to catastrophic failure. While monitoring programs exist to track these changes, the measurements are necessarily limited to sample locations and may not capture localized weak points. The consequence of a pressure tube failure could range from a small leak requiring plant shutdown to a more serious breach that could challenge multiple safety systems simultaneously.
Virtually every major component in an aging nuclear facility faces similar degradation concerns. Concrete structures experience radiation-induced damage and chemical degradation. Metal components throughout the primary and secondary cooling systems undergo corrosion, erosion, and fatigue cracking. Cables and electrical systems deteriorate, becoming brittle and potentially unreliable. Instrumentation drifts out of calibration or becomes obsolete, sometimes requiring creative adaptations to maintain functionality with equipment that may no longer be manufactured.
Obsolete Design and Modern Safety Standards
The Pickering plant was designed according to the safety philosophies and regulatory standards of the 1960s. While these were appropriate for their time, our understanding of nuclear safety has evolved dramatically over the subsequent decades, informed by operating experience, research, and unfortunately, by accidents at facilities like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.
Modern nuclear plants incorporate multiple layers of passive safety systems that don’t require electrical power or operator action to function. They feature robust containment structures designed to withstand a broader range of potential accidents, including aircraft impacts and extreme natural disasters. Contemporary designs also emphasize defense-in-depth principles more comprehensively than earlier generations of reactors.
Pickering facility relies on outdated safety systems
The Pickering facility, by contrast, relies more heavily on active safety systems that require electrical power, pumps, and valves to function correctly. While backup systems exist, they represent older technology with inherent vulnerabilities. The containment structures, while adequate for design-basis accidents, may not provide the same margin of safety as modern designs when confronting beyond-design-basis scenarios—events that were not fully considered when the plant was originally engineered.
Out of date, obsolete dependencies
Furthermore, the control systems and instrumentation at Pickering, despite upgrades, fundamentally reflect analog technology from an earlier era. Modern digital control systems offer superior monitoring, faster response times, and better integration of safety functions. The challenge of maintaining and operating aging analog systems, while training new generations of operators primarily familiar with digital technology, introduces additional human factors risks.
Geographic Vulnerability and Population Density
The location of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station amplifies concerns about its continued operation. Situated within the Greater Toronto Area, the plant lies in close proximity to Canada’s largest metropolitan region, home to millions of people. The population density within the potential evacuation zone far exceeds that surrounding most other nuclear facilities worldwide.
Emergency responses never tested, never confirmed
In the event of a serious accident requiring evacuation, the logistical challenges would be immense. Major highways could quickly become congested, preventing timely evacuation. Urban density means that many residents live in high-rise buildings, complicating shelter-in-place directives and evacuation procedures. The presence of hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and other institutions housing vulnerable populations creates additional complications for emergency response.
Lake Ontario contamination
The proximity to Lake Ontario adds another dimension of concern. The lake serves as a source of drinking water for millions of people and supports important ecosystems and fisheries. Any release of radioactive materials could contaminate this vital resource, with consequences extending far beyond the immediate accident site. Remediation of such contamination would be extraordinarily difficult and expensive, potentially affecting water supplies for communities along the lake’s entire shoreline.
Any accident at Pickering facility would be catastrophic
The economic implications of an accident at Pickering would be catastrophic. The Greater Toronto Area represents a significant portion of Canada’s economic output. Disruption or evacuation of this region, even temporarily, would have nationwide economic repercussions. Property values, business operations, and the broader economy would face impacts that could persist for years or decades.
Regulatory and Oversight Challenges
While the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) maintains regulatory oversight of the Pickering station, the challenges of regulating an aging facility should not be underestimated. Inspectors and regulators must make decisions about acceptable risk levels for components and systems operating well beyond their original design life. These decisions necessarily involve extrapolations from limited data and engineering judgment calls that become increasingly difficult as facilities age.
The nuclear industry has developed sophisticated predictive models and inspection techniques for aging management, but these tools have limitations. Not every component can be inspected directly without significant plant modifications or shutdowns. Some forms of degradation may not become apparent until failure occurs. The cumulative effects of multiple aging components interacting may create emergent risks that are difficult to model or predict.
Profit vs Risk
Additionally, there exists an inherent tension between the economic interests of plant operators, who benefit from extended operations, and the safety imperative that should govern all decisions about nuclear facilities. While regulators strive to maintain independence, the pressure to avoid costly early shutdowns can influence decision-making processes subtly. The political dimensions of closing a major electricity generation facility add further complexity to what should ideally be purely technical safety decisions.
Alternative Energy Considerations
The continued operation of Pickering must be evaluated not in isolation but in the context of available alternatives for electricity generation. Ontario has made significant investments in renewable energy infrastructure, including wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Natural gas plants can provide dispatchable power to supplement variable renewable sources. Energy efficiency improvements and demand management programs can reduce overall electricity consumption.
Carbon emissions vs risk of a nuclear accident
While nuclear power provides reliable baseload electricity without carbon emissions, these benefits must be weighed against the risks associated with operating an aging facility in a densely populated area. The cost of life-extension programs, ongoing maintenance, and eventual decommissioning must be compared to the cost of replacement capacity from other sources. When the full lifecycle costs and risks are honestly assessed, the case for continued operation becomes less compelling.
Electricity innovations demands policy considerations
Moreover, the electricity sector is evolving rapidly. Battery storage technology is improving dramatically, addressing one of the traditional challenges of renewable energy. Grid management tools and smart grid technology enable better integration of variable sources. Distributed generation reduces reliance on large, centralized plants. The electricity system that made sense when Pickering was designed differs substantially from the system that exists today and that will exist in the future.
Lessons from History being ignored
The history of nuclear power includes several accidents that have shaped our understanding of what can go wrong. Three Mile Island demonstrated how equipment failures combined with operator confusion could escalate into a serious accident. Chernobyl showed the catastrophic consequences of inadequate containment and poor safety culture. Fukushima revealed how natural disasters could compromise multiple safety systems simultaneously, overwhelming defenses that seemed adequate under normal circumstances.
These accidents occurred at facilities that were, in their time, considered safe and that had passed regulatory reviews. They remind us that our understanding of risk is always incomplete and that unexpected interactions between events can exceed design assumptions. An aging facility like Pickering, with its accumulated degradation and obsolete design features, may be particularly vulnerable to such unexpected scenarios.
The precautionary principle suggests that when dealing with potentially catastrophic consequences, we should err on the side of caution. The benefits of continued operation of Pickering must be substantial and clearly established to justify the risks to millions of people living in proximity to the facility. As the plant ages further, this calculus becomes increasingly unfavorable.
Conclusion
The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station represents a significant challenge for Canadian energy policy and public safety. Its advanced age brings material degradation, obsolete design features, and increasing uncertainty about the reliability of critical safety systems. The facility’s location in Canada’s most densely populated region amplifies the potential consequences of any accident, creating risks that extend far beyond typical industrial hazards.
While the plant has operated without major incident for decades—a testament to the dedication of its operators and the robustness of its original design—past performance cannot guarantee future safety. The accumulated stresses of five decades of operation create vulnerabilities that increase over time. Material science tells us that components do not improve with age; they degrade, sometimes gradually and predictably, sometimes rapidly and unexpectedly.
The decision to continue operating Pickering or to proceed with its planned shutdown involves complex trade-offs between energy security, economic considerations, and public safety. However, given the magnitude of potential consequences and the availability of alternative energy sources, a strong case exists for prioritizing safety and proceeding with decommissioning according to established timelines. The risks associated with extended operation of such an aged facility in such a vulnerable location may simply be too great to justify, regardless of short-term economic or energy supply considerations.
The legacy we leave for future generations should include responsible management of nuclear facilities, including the wisdom to recognize when aging infrastructure has reached the end of its safe operational life. For the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, that time has arguably arrived.
Bottom line
The Pickering facility has served Ontario well for over five decades but continuing to push the boundaries of its design life while millions of people live in potential harm’s way represents a risk that deserves the most serious scrutiny and, ultimately, a decision that prioritizes long-term safety over short-term convenience.
_____________________________Richard Szpin
Protected by WP Anti-Hacker
Leave a Reply