Review of "Additional Information" Provided by OPG on Proposed DGR for Nuclear Waste
Thanks to the many replies and several sign-ons to the draft letter circulated last week offering advice to the Canadian federal minister of the environment on the conduct of the review of the "additional information" Ontario Power Generation was to have provided by the end of 2016 about their proposal to bury nuclear waste beside Lake Huron.
The feedback on the draft letter was diverse and divergent - all good, but illustrating that there is more than one way up the mountain, and different approaches even when we have a common goal. Some of the feedback suggested making the letter more focused, while some thought it should be broadened; some thought the tone was too harsh, while others thought it should be tougher. Good reasons were offered for each approach, and they all worked. But working to a consensus would have taken a bit more time, and given that it's likely to have more effect if we get our advice in on how the public review of the "additional information" is conducted before that "additional information" is posted, it seems like the most time effective means of going forward is to share the points suggested and encourage individual letters. So let's do it!
Brennain
WHO: Write your letter to the federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change or to the President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Better yet, write to both!
WHAT: Advice or recommendations on how the review of the "additional information" to be provided by Ontario Power Generation should be conducted. Click HERE for the letter from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Ontario Power Generation in September 2016 providing some information about the review.
WHEN: Today! Ontario Power Generation was to have filed their "additional information" by the end of 2016. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will lead the review, which will involve government agencies, the public, and Indigenous communities, but has not yet released details about the conduct of the review.
WHY: In September 2016 the federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change announced that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be leading the review of OPG's additional information, but no additional details have been released. It is important that the Minister and the Agency hear now that the public wants to be engaged, and what that public involvement should look like. Who better to tell them than you, the "public" who will be participating in the review?
Ontario Power Generation's "additional information" was to have been provided to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by the end of 2016. The reports will be posted on the Public Registry so check there before writing if you want to note in your comments whether the reports have been posted or not. Other postings you might want to review as you write your letter are:
- September 2016 letter from CEAA to OPG about the review
- April 2016 letter from OPG to CEAA about their intended response
- February 2016 letter from Minister to OPG requiring additional information
Write your letters to one or both of the following:
Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Include any combination of the following points in your letter, stated in your own words, as well as any additional points or suggestions you may wish to add:
OPG’s reports must be studied carefully and consulted on fully
A full and fair consultation must be conducted before a decision is made
CEAA and the Minister should seek independent science and technical advice
The review must be given adequate time
The review must include the public and Indigenous communities in a manner that is appropriate to their circumstances
There must be an opportunity to pose questions to OPG both in writing and in direct questioning of the experts or spokespeople OPG brings forward
The process must be transparent and open; it must not include closed meetings or off-the-record discussions between the Agency and OPG, OPG and CNSC, or between the Agency and CNSC
Important gaps in the information about the proposed Deep Geologic Repository and its potential effects must be addressed, including gaps not addressed by the Minister’s February 2016 request for additional information from OPG
You may wish to open or close your letter with some description of your interest in this review, and the experience or perspective you bring. This is not essential, but might help convey as sense that there is a broad constituency concerned about this project.
December 2016 Update/Backgrounder | In February 2016, the federal minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna directed Ontario Power Generation to carry out additional studies to support OPGs controversial plan to bury radioactive wastes beside Lake Huron. It was at least the third time around the block for one of the studies - an assessment of alternate locations - after the requirement for an evaluation of alternatives having been included in the initial guidelines for the review, then the subject of information requests from the Joint Review Panel, and then specific direction from the Joint Review Panel to produce a study of alternate locations (a requirement that extended the hearing into 2014).
OPG presented an initial outline of their intended filing in meetings with "stakeholders" on November 11th and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on December 2nd, but have remained coy as to whether they are going follow the Minister's direction to produce a study of actual alternate locations, or are going to try once again to slide through with a generic composite description of what an alternate location could be like. As of noon December 28th the OPG reports have not been made available. The reports will be posted on the public registry.
Further Back Background: In May of 2015 a panel appointed by the former Conservative federal Minister of the Environment Peter Kent and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2012 provided the Minister with its final report on the review of Ontario Power Generation’s proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes. The Joint Review Panel (JRP) recommended that the federal minister approve the proposed repository, despite the expert evidence they heard throughout the public hearings about numerous technical uncertainties, and an incomplete plan. The review panel effectively delegated the most important parts of the assessment to bureaucrats within the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, after additional research has been done. Visit Nuclear Waste Watch to read more. Read JOINT LETTER
This email is being sent to a combined list of those who intervened in the hearing of OPG's proposed deep geologic repository and those who signed on to joint letters - facilitated by Nuclear Waste Watch - to the Canadian Minister of the Environment calling on the Minister to reject the project.
Add new comment