Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Commission d’examen conjoint PMD 11-P1.164 File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2011-02-21 Edocs:36814445 Written submission from Mémoire de Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Lake Ontario Waterkeeper In the Matter of À l’égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment pursuant to the L’évaluation environnementale, en vertu de la Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a environnementale, du projet d’Ontario Power Project that includes site preparation, Generation qui inclut la préparation de construction, operation, decommissioning l’emplacement, la construction, l’exploitation, and abandonment of up to four new nuclear le déclassement et l’abandon de jusqu’à quatre power reactors at its existing Darlington nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires sur le site de la Nuclear Site located near Oshawa, Ontario, centrale nucléaire Darlington près d’Oshawa in the Municipality of Clarington and a (Ontario), dans la municipalité de Clarington, et Licence to Prepare a Site application for the une demande de permis de préparation de Project under the Nuclear Safety and Control l’emplacement, aux termes de la Loi sur la Act. sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires. Public Hearing Audience publique March 21, 2011 Le 21 mars 2011 Joint Review Panel Hearing Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant: Environmental Assessment and Licence to Prepare a Site Written Submissions of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper !!!!! !!!!!!!Lake Ontario Waterkeeper !!!!!!!410 - 600 Bay Street !!!!!!!Toronto, ON M5G 1M6 !!!!!!! !!!!!!!Mark Mattson !!!!!!!Counsel for Lake Ontario Waterkeeper !!!!!!!Tel: 416-861-1237 !!!!!!!Fax: 416-850-4313 CONTENTS OVERVIEW 1 FACTS 2 Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a charity participating in this process in the public interest. 2 Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant would be a major development on the shore of a precious, threatened lake. 3 The Proposed New Nuclear Power Plant at Darlington is a major undertaking. 3 In anticipation of this important process, Waterkeeper has been preparing for years. 4 Lake Ontario is an irreplaceable and threatened source of life, beauty, and recreation. 6 The Local and Regional Study Areas are saturated with pollution sources. 7 ISSUES 10 The Environmental Assessment Report 10 The Nuclear Safety and Control Act licencing decision 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. What should the Joint Review Panel recommend to the Minister and the Responsible Authorities with respect to the environmental impacts of the project? 13 A.1 Will the project cause significant adverse environmental effects? 13 Harmful impacts on fish and fish habitat resulting from the project constitute adverse environmental effects. 15 Most of a new plant’s environmental impacts will affect the most productive and valuable habitat type in the lake: nearshore habitat. 15 Once-through cooling is the most destructive option with respect to Lake Ontario. 16 Impacts from once-through cooling will be amplified at the new plant due to dramatically higher flow rates. 17 Impingement will kill from 23 to 46 thousand fish each year. 18 Entrainment rates will be more than 66% higher than at Darlington NGS. 20 Heated water discharge can affect fish health, fish habitat, plankton, and benthic organisms. 22 Fish habitat will be destroyed by the construction of cooling water intake and discharge structures. 25 Boating is restricted in the area around once-through cooling structures. 25 There are alternatives to once-through cooling. 26 Lake Filling will result in the permanent loss of nearshore fish habitat. 28 There are alternatives to filling in the lake. 29 Pollution from the project may cause adverse environmental effects. 31 Preparation, construction and operation of the project may pollute the air and water. 31 The project will contribute significantly to existing pollution sources in the area, increasing the load of cumulative effects. 35 Incompatible land use on the adjacent St. Marys Cement property may cause adverse environmental effects. 37 Uncontained waste may cause adverse environmental effects. 38 The EIS is incomplete and does not represent adequate provision for the environment. 39 The bounding scenario does not provide a basis to conclude that OPG will make adequate provision for the protection of the environment. 41 Potential emissions to air and water have not been identified and addressed. 42 Air dispersion modeling is incomplete and does not reflect potential impacts. 46 Sampling parameters must be established based on provincial and federal law. 48 Effective water quality monitoring plans are missing from the EIS. 50 Effective stormwater quality monitoring is essential, and missing from the EIS. 53 A.2 Are measures available to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental effects of this project? 55 Closed cycle cooling, used in conjunction with the best available fish protection technology, could avoid many of the adverse effects associated with once-through cooling. 56 The existing CN rail line could be relocated to prevent lake filling. 57 The proposed site layout could be reconfigured to prevent lake filling. 57 Fish habitat compensation is not mitigation and should be a last resort. 58 A.3 Can the significant, unmitigated environmental effects resulting from the project be justified in the circumstances? 60 The adverse environmental effects of the project cannot be justified based on failings at other sites. 61 B. Should this project be granted a Nuclear Safety and Control Act licence to prepare the site? 62 B.1 Will OPG, in carrying out the activity, make adequate provision for the protection of the environment? 63 B.2 Are any terms or conditions on the license necessary for the purposes of the NSCA? 64 CONCLUSION 65 APPENDIX A: Expert Reports _________________________________ OVERVIEW ! Lake Ontario Waterkeeper makes this submission to share our vision of a swimmable, drinkable, fishable lake with the Joint Review Panel. We offer our knowledge and expertise to help ensure that this Panel’s decision reflects and contributes to a healthy, celebrated, and shared Lake Ontario. The proposed Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant is a major project that will sit on the north shore of Lake Ontario for at least the next 130 years. Lake Ontario’s ecosystem is inundated with historic and ongoing pollution stressors. A source of drinking water, aquatic habitat, and recreation, the importance of the lake necessitates precautionary decision-making. The Joint Review Panel has two interconnected decisions to make at the end of this hearing, each with serious implications for the health of Lake Ontario. Both decisions hinge on the adverse environmental impacts associated with the project and whether they can, and have, been addressed. Ontario Power Generation bears the onus of proving that the new nuclear power plant will not adversely impact the environment in any way that cannot be mitigated or justified. OPG must prove that it has made, and will continue to make, adequate provision for the protection of the environment. OPG has not discharged this burden. OPG expresses a preference for once-through cooling, the most destructive cooling technology option available from an ecological perspective. OPG commits to filling in up to 40 hectares of Lake Ontario with excavated soil and rock. OPG fails to provide details on the contaminants that will be emitted from the plant, the regulatory standards that will be applied, or the monitoring plans that will be developed. OPG does not adequately consider the available mitigation measures or alternative means of carrying out the project. OPG does not justify the need for this project. This project will result in significant adverse environmental effects that will not be mitigated and cannot be justified. The seriousness of the potential impacts, combined with the lack of detailed plans to address those impacts, shows that OPG is not prepared to make adequate provision for the protection of the environment. The project cannot be approved or licenced as planned without causing irreparable harm to Lake Ontario. 600 Bay Street, Suite 410 Toronto, ON M5G 1M6 416-861-1237 [email protected] www.waterkeeper.ca Proud member of Waterkeeper Alliance 1 ___________________________________ FACTS Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a registered Canadian charity that works to protect and celebrate the Lake Ontario watershed. Waterkeeper is participating in this hearing process in the public interest, to share our expertise and our vision of a swimmable, drinkable, fishable lake with the Joint Review Panel. Ontario Power Generation’s application to construct and operate a new nuclear facility on Lake Ontario is a major undertaking. Due to the magnitude and longevity of the project’s potential environmental impacts, this review process has continued to be a major priority for Waterkeeper since comments were first solicited in 2008. Lake Ontario is an irreplaceable resource. It is the source of drinking water for millions of people, the site of recreation, transportation, and a diverse aquatic habitat. The lake is inundated with pollution sources, both historic and ongoing. Through decision-making that relies on science and precaution, Waterkeeper believes