Oral Presentation Written Submission from Durham Nuclear Awareness
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CMD 21-H4.37 File / dossier : 6.01.07 Date: 2021-05-03 Edocs: 6555086 Oral Presentation Exposé oral Written submission from Mémoire de Durham Nuclear Awareness and Durham Nuclear Awareness et the Canadian Environmental l’Association canadienne du droit Law Association de l'environnement In the Matter of the À l’égard de Darlington New Nuclear Project Projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Application to renew the nuclear power Demande de renouvellement du permis de reactor site preparation licence for the préparation de l’emplacement d’une centrale Darlington New Nuclear Project nucléaire pour le projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Commission Public Hearing Audience publique de la Commission June 10, 2021 10 juin 2021 DURHAM NUCLEAR AWARENESS & THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION Comments on Ontario Power Generations Nuclear Power Reactor Site Preparation Licence for the Darlington Site Hearing Reference: 2021-H-04 Prepared by: Kerrie Blaise, Legal Counsel Expert review by: M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security May 3, 2021 May 3, 2021 Senior Tribunal Officer, Secretariat Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street, P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9 Sent by email [email protected] Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Durham Nuclear Awareness & the Canadian Environmental Law Association’s Comments on Ontario Power Generations Nuclear Power Reactor Site Preparation Licence for the Darlington Site (Ref. 2021-H-04) I. INTRODUCTION Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) together with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) and the expert review by Dr. M.V. Ramana,1 submit this intervention in response to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) Revised Notice of Public Hearing dated March 1, 2021 requesting comments on Ontario Power Generation’s request for a renewal of its nuclear power reactor site preparation licence (herein “site licence”).2 A hearing for this licence renewal application is scheduled for June 9-10, 2021. DNA and CELA’s (herein, “the intervenors”) intervention considers the CNSC's jurisdiction pursuant to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which requires that in making a licensing decision, the CNSC ensure the adequate protection of the environmental and human health. In meeting this objective, per section 24(4) of the NSCA, the intervenors’ findings and concerns are itemized below. Our recommendations, including suggested licence and licence condition revisions are summarized in Appendix A. 1 M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and a Scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies 2 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Revised Notice of Public Hearing (Ref. 2021-H-04), online: https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/the-commission/pdf/RevisedNotice-PublicHearingPFP-OPG-DNNP-21-H4-Rev1- e.pdf Canadian Environmental Law Association T 416 960-2284 • 1-844-755-1420 • F 416 960-9392 • 55 University Avenue, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2H7 • cela.ca CELA and DNA Intervention - 2 II. INTEREST AND EXPERTISE OF THE INTERVENORS i. Durham Nuclear Awareness Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) is a citizens’ group with a longstanding interest in the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. DNA was first organized in 1986 in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster and born out of a need for people in Durham Region to come together, learn & empower themselves. As a volunteer group of concerned citizens, DNA dedicates themselves to raising public awareness about nuclear issues facing Durham Region, and fostering greater public involvement in the nuclear decision-making process. DNA has appeared on numerous occasions before the CNSC and has a lengthy history lobbying for critical public health and safety measures, including improved emergency planning and baseline health studies, and setting standards for tritium in drinking water. DNA continues to advocate for upgrades to nuclear emergency plans to ensure the protection of communities in the event of a nuclear accident. ii. Canadian Environmental Law Association CELA is a non-profit, public interest law organization. CELA is funded by Legal Aid Ontario as a speciality legal clinic to provide equitable access to justice to those otherwise unable to afford representation for environmental injustices. For nearly 50 years, CELA has used legal tools to advance the public interest, through advocacy and law reform, in order to increase environmental protection and safeguard communities across Canada. CELA has been involved in number of nuclear facility licensing and regulatory matters before the CNSC including federal environmental assessments. CELA also maintains an extensive library of public legal education materials related to Canada’s nuclear sector on its website.3 iii. Dr. M. V. Ramana Expert review of this submission was provided by M. V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia. M. V. Ramana has extensive knowledge and expertise in the nuclear non-proliferation safety risks of reactor designs and accompanying adverse environmental effects. His research interests are in the broad areas of international security and energy supply, with a particular focus on topics related to nuclear energy and fissile materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons. He combines technical skills and interdisciplinary methods to address policy relevant questions related to security and energy issues. 3 Canadian Environmental Law Association, online: www.cela.ca CELA and DNA Intervention - 3 III. PRELIMARY MATTERS & PROCEDURAL CONCERNS A. Adopting pre-hearing procedures would aid the CNSC in characterizing this licence request The intervenors are not aware of any process which sought to define the issues before the CNSC at this licensing hearing. Thus, we submit our comments provided within this intervention are directly relevant to the proceeding and within the scope of the CNSC Staff’s and Commissioners’ review. To clarify the scope of this hearing, the intervenors recommend the CNSC conduct a pre- meeting conference or discussion, which seeks input on issues to be discussed. Preliminary meetings are a widely used practice in anticipation of tribunal proceedings.4 Not only would the CNSC, as a quasi-judicial tribunal, benefit from a pre-meeting conference, whereby the scope of the proceeding could be narrowed or expanded, upon input from the regulator, proponent, and intervenors, it would provide demonstrably clearer guidance to intervenors regarding the acceptability of their submissions. Issue identification is critically important, not only to ensure the efficient and best use of intervening parties’ time, but to ensure matters of critical importance are not deemed out of scope and thus dismissed. While issue identification can require a significant amount of time, a clearer sense of the issues and providing the public an opportunity to comment advances procedural fairness. Therefore, as there has not been a public scoping of issues, whereby the CNSC staff, licensees and intervenors can weigh in on the issues which should frame the report, we submit DNA and CELA’s comments provided herein are not out of scope. Recommendation No. 1: The CNCS should provide a pre-hearing opportunity where CNSC Staff, licensees and intervenors alike can weigh in on the issues which should frame the licensing hearing and accompanying documents. Given the trend to longer, 10-year licences, soliciting public comment on the scope of issues which they believe are critical, would provide a starting point for early public engagement. B. Transparency and disclosure of documents of critical value should be a priority in all licensing hearings In many prior submissions to the CNSC for the Darlington site, the intervenors have requested the CNSC direct the public release of studies and accident modelling.5 We again bring this concern to 4 Jerry DeMarco and Paul Muldoon, “Environmental Boards and Tribunals – A Practical Guide, 2nd Ed” (LexisNexis: 2016), p 78. 5 See for instance: DNA Request for Ruling (19 August 2015); DNA Submission to CNSC for the Application to Renew OPG’s licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (CMD 15-H8.29) at p 6 citing September 21, CELA and DNA Intervention - 4 the attention of the Commission in regard to the ongoing non-disclosure of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Response Plan (PNERP) Technical Study from the Office of the Fire Marshall and Emergency Management (OFMEM). Since 2019, CELA has been requesting the CNSC direct CNSC Staff to obtain the PNERP Technical Study from OFMEM and make it publicly available.6 Critically, the PNERP Technical Study may have implications for decisions relating to the suitability of sites for new nuclear developments. We are very dismayed that despite President Velshi’s inquiry about the timing of the Technical Study’s release at the regulatory oversight meeting for nuclear power plants in both 20197 and 2020,8 the technical study is yet to be released and made publicly available. Based on recent correspondence, we understand the PNERP Technical Study is with the CNSC but will not be publicly released until the summer of 2021.9 The importance of this study to public health and safety cannot be diminished. As the