November 9, 2016 - Submissions to the Expert Panel, November 9, 2016

On November 9, 2016 members of SOS Great Lakes contributed to the review of the Environmental Assessment and presented to the Expert Panel. 

About the Environmental Assessment Review: http://eareview-examenee.ca/

Submissions to the Expert Panel: http://eareview-examenee.ca/submissions-received/

  • Jill Taylor's Submission (President, SOS Great Lakes): 

http://eareview-examenee.ca/view-submission/?id=1482519062.4828

  • Rod McLeod's Submission (Director, SOS Great Lakes): 

http://eareview-examenee.ca/view-submission/?id=1481122183.4676

http://eareview-examenee.ca/view-submission/?id=1481122089.1196

  • Eugene Bourgeois's Submission (Director, SOS Great Lakes): 

http://eareview-examenee.ca/view-submission/?id=1483027342.8058

http://eareview-examenee.ca/view-submission/?id=1481051019.9913

 

 

Share:

October 5, 2016 - Great Lakes Public Forum--Jill Taylor, President, SOS Great Lakes

Introduction

SOS Great Lakes, is an organization of Canadian and American Citizens dedicated to keeping the burial of radioactive nuclear waste out of the Great Lakes Basin. We are not anti- nuclear, but are deeply opposed to the reckless plan of the Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) to construct a deep geological repository for up to 400,000 cubic meters of Low and Intermediate Level nuclear waste on the shore of Lake Huron at the Bruce Nuclear Plant. This project, if approved, could begin before 2020. I will refer to this as “the plan”. 

The burial of this vast quantity of radioactive nuclear waste would result in a continuous risk of radiotoxic poisoning of Lake Huron, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River System. The OPG Plan should concern this Forum for at least 3 reasons: 

  1. These Radionuclides Are Persistently Destructive: the extremely destructive character of this waste, the persistence, likely migration, and the long residence of its contaminant properties, (stated by OPG to last over 100,000 years); 
  2. The Plan Violated the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA): OPG and the Federal Joint Review Panel (JRP) failed to follow the governing legislation in multiple ways on several occasions; to date, the Minister responsible for CEAA has failed to take appropriate action in response to these violations; 
  3. Deeply Flawed Science: both OPG and the JRP failed to rely on evidence based science. What they did use was demonstrably unreliable. 

 

1. Persistently Destructive

You have said in your Progress Report that you are interested in chemicals that are persistent: no substance is more persistent than the radioactive intermediate and high level waste, in combination with our waters. “Over 100,000 years”, exceeds the definition of ‘persistence’, and cannot be ignored. 

Since the DGR idea was hatched in the 1990s, international experts have consistently derided the science and lack of common sense of a DGR on the Great Lakes, saying that the DGR will NOT be able to contain nuclear waste and prevent the contamination of the ecosystem, including the Lakes and the people around it. Yet, the Ontario and Canadian Governments continue to allow consideration of this plan long past its best before date, if it ever had one. 

2. Multiple Violations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 

 

In a direct affront to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, OPG refused to consider alternate sites in addition to the sedimentary geology of the near shore environment of the Bruce. The Minister asked OPG for further and better information about alternate sites. OPG rephrased the Minister’s question and said it would provide a response to its rephrasing by December 2016. 

Citizens groups such as ours have advised the Minister of multiple other violations of CEAA. To our knowledge, the “alternate site violation” is the only one to which the Minister has responded publically. 

OPG has stated that not only will the DGR leak, but that their storm water management system to protect the ground water and Lake Huron in an unplanned event is totally insufficient to handle extreme weather events. In another affront to logic, OPG refused to consider that climate change, including already dramatic patterns of Great Lakes weather and precipitation, would increase the risks to public safety or the environment as they might act on the DGR, or have an effect on plans for emergency management of accidents and malfunctions during the 300 years of institutional control. 

During the Joint Review Panel hearings in the fall of 2013, thousands of pages of testimony were read into the record by citizens, politicians from Canada and the US, scientists of all stripe, including nuclear specialists and former OPG employees, economists, geologists, conservation advocates, sociologists, doctors and indigenous people that refuted the logic and safety of the proposal for the deep underground dump on the shore of Lake Huron in sedimentary rock. 

Evidence of improper adjudication and presentation of evidence, financial coercion by the proponent and the denial of international obligations were rampant. 

We have filed an application for Judicial Review (JR) against the Canadian Government, CNSC and OPG, to challenge JRP’s acceptance of the OPG Nuclear Waste Dump Plan based primarily on these multiple violations. CEAA requires the Minister to either reject or accept the plan. If she rejects it, a Judicial Review Application is moot. If she accepts, the JR is converted automatically to a JR of her decision. 

We believe there are ample environmental protection public policy reasons why this matter should never have to go to court.

 

3. Deeply Flawed Science

Every day, new evidence emerges exposing even more faults in the OPG DGR plan, and its woefully inadequate ‘science’. OPG has acknowledged that the physical structure and storage vaults of the planned repository will disintegrate after construction, and that radionuclides will eventually leak into the water and environment. They say it is not if, but when the repository will leak. 

The gravity of this and similar statements in their EIS persists despite tragic failures elsewhere. This year, there was a collapse of a tunnel during an underground scientific pre- test of similar DGR in sedimentary geology in France during which a worker was killed and others injured. In 2014, in Carlsbad New Mexico the DGR that was the design model for the DGR 1 here at the Bruce Plan was closed following radioactive releases into the environment and underground fires that threatened the lives of workers and the public. 

Internationally, the concept of DGRs is in trouble! Multiple other accidents and closures of DGRs challenge the idea that a DGR will ever be built that is successful. 

Conclusion

The regulator, CNSC, has demonstrated bias and protection of industry in its monitoring and categorization of radionuclide emissions into the environment, including into the water of the Great Lakes. Relying on reductive methods they are not diligent in reporting of contamination that in other jurisdictions would be unacceptable. It is imperative that an un-biased party acknowledge the danger of radionuclide contamination and list radionuclides as a chemical of mutual concern. This action must have an effect on the CNSC and the nuclear industry to provide transparent monitoring and emergency planning. It must influence the development review of nuclear projects as a binational concern, and provide sustainable and precautionary protective measures for all sites on the Great Lakes. 

We also ask the Canadian and U.S. Governments to work together to stop the OPG plan, - a plan that was, and is, ill-conceived and does not follow the obligations of binational environmental protection about which you so proudly speak in this Forum. 

By doing so, you will join: 

  • More than 154 municipalities that have signed petitions against the plan, 
  • The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors who have thrice passed resolutions opposing the plan, and
  • 98 percent of all Canadians and Americans who responded to a letter writing campaign initiated by the Canadian Government in Sept 2015 to express their views about the decision to build this deeply flawed nuclear waste repository. 

 

We urge the Executive Committee of the Great Lakes Forum to list radionuclides as a chemical of mutual concern and immediately act to oppose the OPG’s plan for a Nuclear Waste Dump at Kincardine. 

To view a PDF of this document, click here.  

Share:

October 5, 2016 - Great Lakes Public Forum--Eugene Bourgeois, Director, SOS Gret Lakes

Good afternoon,

 

My name is Eugene Bourgeois and I am a retired sheep farmer living in Inverhuron, home to both a nuclear power plant and the proposed Deep Geologic Repository for low- and intermediate-level nuclear wastes, right here beside and below Lake Huron.  

 

It is surprising to me that radionuclides are not already Chemicals of Mutual Concern in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement under Annex 3, as recommended by your own Nuclear Task Force 20 years ago.  

 

We learned in the late 1880’s that when we use our rivers as sewers innocent people die.  We were reminded of this recently in Ontario when Walkerton’s water was contaminated by farm sewage and a number of people died.  In each case, the solution to pollution was believed to be dilution.

 

The National Academy of Sciences has established that there are no known safe concentrations of exposure to radionuclides and so, has adopted a Linear No Threshold standard.  The recent KiKK study in Europe demonstrated the strong statistical correlation between exposure to chronic low doses of ionising radiation and childhood leukaemia, effects that increase the closer one lives to a nuclear power station, even when these are operating as permitted.  Even without this, we still manage to be exposed to the harmful effects of chronic, low doses of radiation from both cosmic and solar sources, each of which can cause sickness and death.  

 

During the Hearings for DGR, we learned that OPG’s long-term plans for this radioactivity is for it to be discharged into the groundwater and from there to Lake Huron.  It claims this won’t happen for more than a million years, similar to WIPP.  WIPP failed catastrophically after only 15 years.

 

In the 1950’s, expectant mothers were X-rayed to determine the relative health of their babies.  It was only after Alice Stewart organised the Oxford Survey in England and analysed these data that she showed X-raying foetuses itself led to early childhood death.  Buster Brown shoes offered to X-ray your feet when I was a child and many of those adolescent boys who did so are sterile today.

 

The Great Lakes are the source of drinking water for more than 40 million Canadians and Americans. Water is something each of us needs every day of our lives.  Mothers need it to mix baby food for their children.  It was a mere 75 years ago that we first split the atom, setting the stage for nuclear power production.  In every case our initial concerns about the impacts of exposure to ionising radiation have been far too liberal to safeguard people.

 

Radionuclides must be included and listed as Chemicals of Mutual Concern in Annex 3.  Without having a clearly identified understanding of them and their inventories we will not be able to research their potential adverse health effects on the populations who live near and rely on the Great Lakes for water.  

 

Thank you

To view a PDF of this document, click here. 

Share:

October 5, 2016 - Great Lakes Public Forum--Ellen Dailey, Director, SOS Great Lakes

Good afternoon Mr. Goffin, Mr.Davis, and fellow panelists.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my comments to the International Joint Commission (IJC) and to aid in the efforts to meet the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.  

 

A number of challenges threaten the sustainability of the Great Lakes. These include toxic chemicals, such as legacy contaminants and substances of emerging concern.

 

The websites of both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada state that chemicals of mutual concern are those that originate from anthropogenic sources and that are potentially harmful to human health or the environment.

 

According to the IJC, hundreds of chemicals have been identified in the Great Lakes ecosystem. As of 1994, 362 contaminants had been confirmed as being present in measurable concentrations in the water, sediments and/or in the tissues of fish, wildlife or humans. At the time of the 1994 report, 126 of these substances had been linked to toxic effects on various life processes.

 

Some of these chemicals have been labeled “critical” and “priority contaminants” based on factors such as presence and ambient concentration, degree of toxicity, persistence in the environment, bioavailabilty, and the potential to bioconcentrate and bioaccumulate in the Great Lakes environment.

 

Yesterday I brought to your attention two reports that were prepared for the IJC in the 1990s about radionuclides in the Great Lakes. Today I would like to elaborate on this topic and why it is imperative that radionuclides be included in Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as a Chemical of Mutual Concern.

 

The “Inventory of Radionuclides in the Great Lakes” (1997) study concluded that radionuclides were present in the lakes and that the majority were from anthropogenic sources. The study also indicated that the radionuclides are bioavailable, toxic, persistent in the environment, and have the potential to bioconcentrate and bioaccumulate.

 

The IJC’s Nuclear Task Force noted that the bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and transfer factors used to describe the cycling of radionuclides and their transfer along exposure pathways to biota, including humans, came from the long history of work done in oceans, estuarine, and river environments. Comparable studies for the Great Lakes freshwater environment were virtually nonexistent. Yet for the Great Lakes, the need for transfer factors that describe lake environments is critical.  

 

Toxicity of radionuclides

 

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), World Health Organization (WHO), and the American Cancer Society websites point out that exposure to ionizing radiation carries health risks. The review also states that some populations are more sensitive to the effects of radiation exposure such as women, children and, of course, the fetus.

 

The health risks include cancer, hereditary effects, cataracts, cardiovascular disease and stroke, immune effects, premature aging, radiation sickness, and death. Cancers associated with high dose exposure include leukemia, multiple myeloma, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophageal, ovarian, stomach, and thyroid cancers. Literature from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also suggests a possible association between radiation exposure and skin, prostatic, sinus, laryngeal, and pancreatic cancers.

 

Leukemia, a type of cancer that arises in the bone marrow, and thyroid cancer are among the most common radiation-induced cancers.  The reason for this may be sensitivity of the cell line or the cell’s propensity for uptake of a given radioactive element.  The thyroid gland normally takes up iodine and bone takes up strontium. Each of these elements has a radioactive isotope produced by nuclear fission and is found in the Great Lakes.

 

Thyroid cancer is known to be prevalent in the Great Lakes basin population. According to the Canadian Cancer Statistics 2013 report, the incidence rate for thyroid cancer is increasing. Furthermore, the increased incidence observed is more than the increase being seen with other major cancers. There was a 6.8 percent per year increase in males since 1998 and a 7 percent per year increase in females since 2002.

 

Less known are the potential hereditary effects of ionizing radiation. Potential hereditary effects include congenital malformation, cognitive impairment, microcephaly, growth restriction of the fetus, prematurity, infertility and pregnancy loss, including miscarriage, fetal death, neonatal death and infant death. In addition, ionizing radiation may increase the risk of cancers and other health problems in future generations due to the subtle ongoing biological impacts that may become pronounced and irreversible over time through genetic mutations. The insidiousness of radiation injury is seen in its propensity to present only after irreversible genetic damage has already occurred over an unknown period of time.

 

The BEIR VII report on health effects of ionizing radiation concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of radiation induced solid cancers in humans.

 

Human activities, both historic and current, have altered and will continue to impact the Great Lakes ecosystem and the biological diversity it sustains.  Ontario Power Generation (OPG)’s proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) has the potential to leak radionuclides into the Great Lakes, and will likely leak, as no other DGR in the world has been successful in containing the toxic wastes it stores. The radioactivity and long-term toxicity of these lethal wastes could threaten present and future generations.

 

The Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report yesterday citing the CNSC for not providing appropriate inspections to ensure that nuclear facilities are meeting the regulatory requirements. It is imperative that a binational group be able to look at the data to determine what is truly happening with radionuclides in the Great Lakes.

 

We look to the continued comity between our two countries to motivate Canada and the United States to add Radionuclides to the list of Chemicals of Mutual Concern under Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

 

 

To view a PDF of this document, click here. 

 

Share:

July 27, 2016 - Open Letter to Minister Catherine McKenna Signed by SOS Great Lakes and 46 Other Public Interest Groups

Lake Superior Wetland in the Abbaye Peninsula Michigan

Lake Superior Wetland in the Abbaye Peninsula Michigan

SOS Great Lakes was among 47 organizations in the United States and Canada signatory to an open letter to Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, regarding OPG's response to the Minister's request for additional information about the DGR plan.

Read the letter below:

 

July 14th, 2016

Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
 

Dear Minister McKenna,

Thank for your letter of July 4, 2016 in which you respond to Nuclear Waste Watch’s joint letter of November 19, 2015 concerning the Deep Geologic Repository Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste (the Project) proposed by Ontario Power Generation.

We appreciate both your response and your interim actions. In particular, we were very encouraged by the directions set out in your letter of February 18, 2016 in which you requested that the proponent, Ontario Power Generation, provide additional information on three aspects of the environmental assessment:

- technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the Project,
- cumulative environmental effects of the Project, and
- an updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effect under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

As you note in your letter to Nuclear Waste Watch, on April 15, 2016 Ontario Power Generation (OPG) wrote to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) outlining its intended approach to responding to your request for additional information, and indicating OPG’s intention to provide a response by the end of 2016.

In your letter of July 4th you state that “Ontario Power Generation also noted it intends to file the requested information by the end of 2016,” (emphasis added).

In fact, Ontario Power Generation states in their letter that they do not intend to respond as directed by you. Rather than the requested information, they intend to provide you with yet another set of reports that attempt to side step what is required of them.

More specifically:

Your requirement: A study that details the environmental effects of technically and economically feasible alternate locations for the project, with specific reference to actual locations that would meet Ontario Power Generation’s criteria for technically and economically feasible.

OPG’s Response: OPG has interpreted this request as follows: OPG will assess the environmental effects of two technically and economically feasible geologic regions in Ontario for a new low and intermediate level waste (L&ILW) disposal facility.

OPG has clearly stated they intend to do something other than what you have required of them, i.e. they intend to provide a conceptual comparison, rather than an assessment based on actual locations and stated criteria. If allowed to go this route, we anticipate that OPG will provide you with another iteration of the generic evaluations they provided the Joint Review Panel during the extended hearing, after the Joint Review Panel directed them to conduct a study of alternate locations. While the Joint Review Panel failed to require OPG to follow their direction, as Minister it is essential that you hold them to a reasonable standard of performance.

Your requirement: An updated analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the Project in light of the results for the Phase I Preliminary Assessments undertaken by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which identified three potential host communities that fall within the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

OPG’s Response: OPG will assess the cumulative effects of a hypothetical used fuel repository on the L&ILW DGR, within the boundaries of the DGR study area for those communities that are active in the NWMO siting process and which lie within the Saugeen Ojibway Nations (SON) traditional territory (i.e. HuronKinless and South Bruce

OPG is misinterpreting your direction. Simply put, OPG is proposing to assess the effect of one of their projects on another of their projects, rather than doing a cumulative effects study of the two projects in combination (OPG has majority control of the NWMO and owns 90% of the wastes that are subject of the NWMO project; the NWMO is the technical manager for OPG’s proposed DGR for low and intermediate level wastes). OPG’s proposed approach will not provide the information you required in your letter of February 2016.

As outlined in our joint letters of 19 November 2015 and of 6 February 2016 and in many additional public interest submissions, the Joint Review Panel recommendation that you approve Ontario Power Generation’s proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes was in error. Ontario Power Generation failed to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012), the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines, and the JRP Agreement (as amended), including in the following areas:

- not identifying and evaluating a reasonable range of functionally different “alternatives to” the DGR; 
- failing or refusing to conduct an appropriate site selection as an important component of adequately identifying and evaluating “alternate means” of carrying out the DGR; 
- making insufficient information available to identify and evaluate the likelihood and/or significance of the DGR’s environmental effects; 
- not providing enough information to allow evaluation of mitigation measures that will be effective in preventing significant adverse environmental effects that may be caused by the DGR; 
- not providing information at an appropriate level of detail that would allow evaluation of the adequacy of the follow-up program for the DGR; and
- not meeting the information requirements necessary to demonstrate that the DGR meets the sustainability purposes and precautionary requirements mandated under CEAA. 

We appreciate that the direction you provided Ontario Power Generation in your February 2016 letter was an effort to have OPG address some of their repeated failures to meet the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. However, as evidenced by their response of April 2016, it appears that OPG continues to be unwilling or unable to meet those requirements.

In planning subsequent procedural steps in the review and federal decision-making with respect to this Project, it is imperative that you and your office pay careful attention to the details of Ontario Power Generation’s response and place it within the context of their pattern of nonconformance with both the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the directions of the previous Joint Review Panel. In addition, there are other gaps in the OPG application which must be filled prior to any approval being possible, such as repository and shaft collar design, final waste characterization, baseline health studies, etc.

In preparing this letter, we consulted with the 179 individual intervenors, intervening organizations, and co-signors to Nuclear Waste Watch’s joint letters of November 2015 and February 2016 on the advice we would provide you with respect to the review process following OPG’s submission, now expected by year-end of 2016.

The following points summarize our collective advice:

a) The Joint Review Panel appointed in 2012 is now functus with respect to their responsibilities and mandate under CEAA 2012; 
b) Indigenous peoples, past intervenors in the review process and the public more generally must be consulted on the OPG response and other related matters prior to the issuing of your decision statement; 
c) Direct consultation by you as Minister is the most appropriate course of action under these circumstances;
d) Given the technical nature of the decisions to be made and in light of your Government’s commitment to making decisions based on sound science, we encourage you to seek – in particular – the advice of the Minister of Science, the Hon. Kirsty Duncan;
e) There may be a role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in acting as support and secretariat for the actual consultation activities (e.g. discussion documents, public meetings, webinars, etc.), based on your direction and requirements.

We remain committed to working with you and other elected officials to achieve an informed outcome of this review process. Thank you for your continued consideration.

Respectfully submitted on July 14th, 2016 by the undersigned organizations:

Algoma Manitoulin Nuclear Awareness Canada 
Algonquin Eco-Watch Canada 
Bluewater Coalition Against Deep Geological Repositories Canada 
Bruce Peninsula Environment Group Canada 
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Canada 
Canadian Environmental Law Association, Theresa McClenaghan Canada 
Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario Canada 
Citizens Network on Waste Management Canada 
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes U.S. 
Concerned Citizens of Big Bay (Michigan) U.S
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County Canada 
Council for Public Health in Mining Communities Canada 
Council of Canadians Canada 
Council of Canadians, Peterborough and Kawarthas Chapter Canada 
Don't Waste Michigan U.S.
Don't Waste Michigan- Sherwood Chapter U.S. 
Durham Nuclear Awareness Canada 
Fairmont Minnesota Peace Group U.S. 
FLOW (For Love Of Water) U.S. 
Friends of Bruce Canada 
Grand River Environmental Network Canada
Great Lakes Environmental Alliance Binational 
Greenpeace Canada Canada 
Huron Environmental Activist League U.S.
Huron-Grey-Bruce Citizens' Committee on Nuclear Waste Canada 
Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative Canada 
Lambton Shores Residents Against the Nuclear Dump on Lake Huron U.S. 
National Council of Women Canada 
Northwatch Canada
Nuclear Hotseat U.S. 
Nukewatch U.S. 
Ontario Clean Air Alliance Canada 
Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee Canada 
Prevent Cancer Now Canada 
Provincial Council of Women of Ontario Canada 
Redwood Alliance U.S. 
SOS Great Lakes Binational 
Save Our Sky Blue Waters U.S. 
Sierra Club Nuclear Free Michigan U.S.
Sierra Club US U.S. 
Southampton Residents Association Canada 
Stand Up/Save Lives Campaign U.S. 
The Inverhuron Committee Canada 
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy U.S. 
Uranium Watch U.S. 
Watershed Sentinel Educational Society Canada 
Zero Waste 4 Zero Burning Canada

 

Click here for a PDF version of this letter

Share:

July 27, 2016 - SOS Great Lakes' Submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's Review of Environmental Assessment Processes

Red Dusk Over the River in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan

Red Dusk Over the River in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan

 

The Canadian federal government is reviewing the environmental assessment processes established by the government of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2012. The existing environmental assessment legislation was used by the Joint Review Panel on the OPG DGR to give the project a stamp of approval despite the huge gaps in OPG's plan and clearly biased role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the review process.

SOS Great Lakes is participating in the public consultation on the review of environmental assessment processes. Below is the text of the letter sent to the CEAA on July 20.


Review of Environmental Assessment Processes
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3

SOS Great Lakes (SOSGL), formerly known as Save Our Saugeen Shores, Inc. commends the federal government for proceeding with the long-promised and highly anticipated review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) and related regulatory processes.

SOSGL is an organization opposing the deep burial of nuclear waste in the Great Lakes Basin, currently focusing on OPG’s plan to construct a deep geological repository (DGR) for nuclear waste by the shore of Lake Huron. SOSGL maintains that nuclear waste should not be buried anywhere in the Great Lakes Basin due to the potential for contamination of the world’s largest supply of fresh water. In spite of this risk, a Joint Review Panel (JRP) under CEAA 2012 approved the DGR plan after what we argue was a deeply flawed review process.

Our participation in OPG DGR EA review process involved multiple written and oral presentations. The research and analysis we have conducted is extensive and includes expert legal and scientific opinion. Our experience at the hearings and concerns over the independence and quality of the JRP Report led to our filing for a Judicial Review in 2015.  We believe this body of work and our direct experience with the EA process would be of benefit to the upcoming review of the 2012 CEAA and the EA process. 

We broadly concur with the concerns regarding the Expert Panel’s draft Terms of Reference (TOR) raised by CELA and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. Additionally, based on our particular experience, we have specific concerns with respect to the new EA regime: the scope of EA powers; scientific verification / scientific process, sustainable development; use of Adaptive Management Measures, the partiality of industry regulators; and the need to consider catastrophic events.

In our engagement in the JRP for the OPG DGR, we observed that key issues of purpose, need, alternatives to, and alternative methods were routinely ignored, and that the OPG was given a stamp of approval without demonstrating that the DGR was necessary; that it had selected the best possible location for the DGR; or that it had chosen the best available method of nuclear waste storage. To remedy this, we recommend that those key criteria be enshrined in legislation and that EA be empowered to stop projects that don’t meet the criteria.

SOSGL is concerned with the project-level focus of EA in the TOR. This is a critical flaw which discounts a more holistic approach to EA that recognizes the interdependence of natural systems and the cumulative, ecosystem-wide effects of EA decisions. In SOSGL’s experience, OPG was allowed to move forward with its DGR plans despite inadequately accounting for the cumulative effects of the project (a deficiency that was acknowledged by Minister McKenna in her letter requesting additional information from the OPG in February 2016). SOSGL supports the establishment of strategic- and regional-level EA planning as well as cumulative effects assessments in the new EA regime.

Additionally, SOSGL is concerned with the appropriateness of EAs conducted by entities such as the CNSC. Over the years, we have observed a too-close relationship between the CNSC and the industry which it regulates, including a documented instance of a CNSC executive who was integral to the appointment of the JRP expressing bias in favour of the project at a secret meeting. Our experience has lead us to question the competency of industry regulators such as the CNSC to undertake impartial EAs. The Expert Panel should consider stripping away these entities’ current EA responsibilities and vesting them in another body (e.g. the administrative tribunal outlined in CELA’s submission).

Finally, in SOSGL’s experience the JRP allowed OPG to “screen out” many potentially catastrophic events that could affect the DGR and endanger the drinking water of over 40 million people. For the limited number of events that OPG was required to consider, the JRP failed to require OPG to adequately describe the magnitude, geographic extent, timing, duration, frequency and degree of irreversibility of any of them. We believe that the interpretation of the legislation which allows for such laxity is fundamentally at odds with the precautionary principle. Accordingly, SOSGL supports a new EA regime which takes seriously low-probability catastrophic events.

In summary, the CEAA review process presents an opportunity to develop new, forward-thinking legislation that results in an impartial EA process that reflects the government’s policy objectives in the areas of climate change; transparency and accountability to the public; the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples, and sustainable development. SOSGL is looking forward to participating in the review process and working toward the next generation of EA legislation.

Yours truly,

Jill Taylor, President

 

Click here for a PDF version of this letter.

Share: