Commission canadienne du sûreté nucléaire
Symbole du gouvernement du Canada
Passer au contenu | Passer aux liens institutionnels

Commission canadienne du sûreté nucléaire

Liens institutionnels

La Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire désire remercier tous ceux et celles qui ont fourni des commentaires au sujet de ce document d’ébauche. 

Lisez plus au sujet des initiatives d'amélioration des examens préalables des évaluations environnementales à la CCSN.

Des commentaires de 18 parties intéressés ont été reçus.  Pour fins d'information, les commentaires reçus ont été affichés en anglais, la langue officielle dans laquelle ils ont été soumis. Toutefois, il se peut que les soumissions aient été légèrement modifiées lors de la conversion HTML. Le nom de la personne ou de l'organisation ayant soumis un commentaire a été affiché alphabétiquement ci-dessous.

Pour lire les commentaires soumis, veuillez cliquer sur le nom de la personne ou l’organisation.

Adamson, Bill (Dr.) – habitant de la ville de Saskatoon en Saskatchewan  

So, the CNSC staff have been doing a “program review” for three years and they give the public 29 days to respond to it!. Moreover, they use the devious tactics of putting these proposals out for review during the summer months when many people are away on holiday. They really do not want to hear from the public!  It slows them down and makes complications! They carefully craft their arrangements to maintain their unilateral and monopolistic style. Everyone can see through the charade.

We read, “CNSC staff has already incorporated  the effectiveness to be gained with the Integrated Approach to these three (major) project plans. . . “ (p. 14)

Again we read, “The decision making process has been captured in the Draft

Joint Review Panel Agreements for OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository and Bruce Power’s New Power Plant project.” (p.35)  They are not even waiting for public feedback or Commission approval. They assume that the process is going along the way that they propose...

They complain about the long time that the present process requires. It seems to me that the time allotted for public consultation is more usually the 30 days rather than the 40-75 days specified on their chart. (p. 13) They do not say why it takes the staff so many days to prepare Guidelines and Technical Reviews and Hearings!

It seems that the CNSC is morphing into a new creature, writing its own ticket, reshaping its identity, and promoting itself for new nuclear expansion, and without legislative authorization.

We read: “between 2003 and 2004, after the coming into force of the amended CEAA, the Commission had a great deal of input into the current EA guidelines.”

(p. 8). Where are the checks and balances? Why is not the CEAA specifying the guidelines and requirements for the assessment process, rather than the CNSC telling the CEAA what it is going to do? Why is the CNSC the Regulatory Authority (RA) for so many operations with its own jurisdiction? Why should the Staff be the ones to make decisions about the “appropriateness of public participation? (pp. 16, 20)Are they not likely to have a vested interest? Are they not likely to obviate and smother the potential of a nuisance critique from outside their tidy system?

Again we read: “This ‘Commission decision section’ of the document is intended to effectively replace the typical ‘CNSC Record of Proceedings’ which is usually issued 30 to 45 days after a hearing.” (p. 17) So this means that the public will get summary statements of the Commission, but will not get to know the details of a project under review?  The EA Guidance Document for Screenings will tell about the requirements of the CNSC, but does not say it will give the proponents’ specific details about the environmental impact of a project.

Categories of Small, Low Risk  or Large, Complex Projects

Why will the categorization of small or complex screenings be left to the

“in-house” CNSC staff? (p. 16). Are there no outside checks and balances? Should there not be a “second opinion” by a member of the CEAA? It seems like the CEAA is being sidelined in the whole process of doing environmental assessments of uranium/nuclear issues.! (p. 20)

Pickering B refurbishment may be a large and complex project, but I am not convinced that Decommissioning of a heavy water plant with all its cumulative radioactivity is a small and unimportant issue. (p.5)

I have a problem with his document in the way it gives weight in the categorization process to “public participation” and “low-levels of interest or public concern.” (p. 18) The CNSC holds unrealistic expectations of this factor.

We all know that not many citizens regularly scan their computer monitors to learn of the recent Bulletins released by the CNSC. If they do notice a contentious or dangerous issue, it is a challenging task to master the chemistry, physics, and radioactivity of the project, its consequent impact on the environment, and then to make a significant intervention!  Does the CNSC expect a few volunteer citizens to monitor all the efforts of a large staff of paid employees?

Moreover, the time frame of 30 days is very limiting for busy people with all their other involvements. The CNSC staff make it difficult for public input, and do not really want much of it, or else they wouldn’t use VACATION time to ask for a response in 30 days on a document which it took them three years to concoct!

Yet, if a lot of people do not yell “bloody murder” then the item is rated as of low consequence. Rather ridiculous is it not?

There could be an item of chemical or radioactive impact on the people or the environment, which the citizens of the public do not notice, or do not make intervention, but that is not to say the item is of small or low risk. (p. 19)

This practice of using public participation as one of the bases for categorization is a  serious flaw in this proposed process!  One would think that the technical, chemical, and radioactive dangers of uranium processing would be of paramount concern, without wondering if members of the public noticed it! This item of

“public participation” is mentioned some 9 times in the document, indicating  the  undue weighting given to this item by the CNSC staff.

(pp12,16,18,20,22,26,34,40,43)

With his questionable approach, it seems to me that the CNSC is trying to quietly slide through the environmental issues of the Caribou Project under the umbrella of the McLean Lake Project. One would think that a new ore body like the Caribou Project would be subject to all the environmental scrutiny like the one at Midwest Project. Moreover, I am not convinced that the decommissioning of the NRX Ancillary buildings is a small, low risk item after years of cumulative radiation exposures at that site. We need to remember that uranium processing

Is radioactive and therefore dangerous to humans and the environment, and is not be  sloughed off easily as a small, low risk item.

These are the kind of problems that arise when a monopolistic system like the CNSC sets its own procedural guidelines, and does the policing of its own efforts. There is too much conflict of interest going on here. There is so much emphasis on speed, efficiency, shortening of datelines, lowering of risk categories, and

 increased production, that the so-called “safety”  and  “precautionary “ factors may be neglected.   There need to be more checks and balances by the CEAA and Environment Canada.

Dr. Bill Adamson

Énergie atomique du Canada(EACL)

  • Commentaires

AREVA Resources Canada Inc.

  • Commentaires

Corporation Cameco

  • Commentaires

Canadian Nuclear Association

Subject: Comments on the Process Improvement Initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments

at the CNSC

On behalf of the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the CNSC’s proposed Process Improvement Initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments. In general, the CNA strongly supports the intent of the document, namely a streamlined process matching the complexity of the process to the complexity and risk of the project. That being said, the CNA submits the following comments for the CNSC’s consideration:

Section 1

This section could be strengthened by an introductory explanation on the interpretation and application of the proposed criteria and process in order to ensure standard application of guidance.  A summary statement affirming that if a project does not follow the stream-lined screening process then by default it follows the integrated screening process would also help clarify decisions.

Section 2

The CNA would like to see some clarification as to which department within the CNSC (Directorate of Environmental and Radiation Protection or the Project Officer under Directorate of Nuclear Cycle and Facilities regulation) is responsible for making the determination on which process a project falls under.

The CNA looks forward to having an opportunity to review and comment on the “Scoping Information Document” as this is a key tool for implementing the proposed changes.

Sub-Section 2.1

CNA members are concerned that the requirement to meet all criteria to be considered a small or lower-risk project is not flexible enough and that the criteria are so wide-ranging that it will be difficult for many projects to undergo the streamlined process.

There is some concern within the CNA with the use of interest or public concern as part of the criteria. According to Section 2.2, the CNSC staff, on a project by project basis, determines the appropriate level of public participation. It would be more appropriate for the components of interest and public concern to be captured in Section 2.2 and focus criteria for Section 2.1 on technological and environmental-effects components.

The CNA would also like to suggest that specific consideration of radiological risk by a primary consideration. Many EA’s trigger a screening level assessment due to being within a site rather than any real risk.

In addition, the CNA recommends that an appeals process be put in place to address any disputes that may arise over the screening track determination.

Sub-Section 2.2

The CNA strongly urges the CNSC to differentiate between local public concerns and interest and those of national and international groups who oppose all nuclear projects due to a strong ideological view rather than environmental concerns over a specific project.

Sub-Section 2.3

It is not clear if staff intends to prepare a separate EA screening report. This would represent duplication and add to the duration of the process. While the RA has specific duties it is not clear a separate report is needed. Steps should be taken streamline documentation.

Sub-Section 2.4

As stated previously, the CNA looks forward to having an opportunity to comment on the new scoping information document.

Section 3

The CNA supports an integrated approach to combining licensing and environmental assessment processes however we would like to recommend allowing some flexibility to account for circumstances when technical licensing documentation cannot be submitted with the EA submissions. This flexibility would allow the licensing documentation to be submitted shortly after the EA submission and allow the process to re-align in the future. The proponent could indicate this with rationale at the beginning of the process.

Section 4

The CNA has always supported the delegation of authority to staff as a way to streamline small low-risk projects and allow the Commission to focus on larger more complex projects. We would support further delegation of authority wherever possible and appropriate.

As indicated earlier, the CNA strongly supports the objectives of this Improvement Initiative and appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CNSC’s proposal. We look forward to the implementation of these proposals (and suggestions) and would be pleased to assist wherever possible.

Sincerely

Steve Coupland
Director, Environmental Affairs
Canadian Nuclear Association

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

Several of our affiliate organizations have received a Draft text of a publication ³Process Improvement Initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments at the CNSC.²

Can you explain to me how the CNSC decided that it would be more appropriate to go to some of the affiliates of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples rather than with the national representative body?

Can you also explain the rationale that CNSC used to arrive at the conclusion that Aboriginal organizations could carry out this work at no cost to the CNSC?

Thanks

Alastair MacPhee
Congress of Aboriginal Peoples

Environnement Canada

General:

  1. We do anticipate receiving referrals from CNSC in the future we're interested in tracking the outcome of this.
     
  2. Isn't the aboriginal consultation process for CNSC going to be undertaken by a group within the MPMO?
     
  3. There is no mention of the Interim Approach to Scoping.  Does this not apply to CNSC?
     
  4. There is repeated mention of 'the Commission', but there doesn’t seem to be a description of the membership.
     
  5. Interesting that a 'CNSC designated officer may also be an RA under the CEA Act' (pg 5).
     
  6. The main benefit of the initiative will be in cutting back the time it takes to approve small scale nuclear projects, from 2 to 2.5 years, down to about 8.5 months max.  The proportional benefit to larger projects is not as great, generally chopping one year off the approval process.  We agree that the proposed streamlining is a desirable approach but caution the CNSC that, regardless of the expected reduction in review and approval time, the document should stress that project specific timelines may change based on issues raised and the review agencies' capacity to deal with them.

Specific:

Page 27 "EA Guidance Document for Screenings" 

Question: Can it be confirmed whether EC was consulted in the preparation of that document and could we request a copy?

Page 32 “integrated Approach to Complex Screenings”  'when not to use'. 

Question:  What timelines would be followed for a complex screening that can't be integrated?  Perhaps an example could be provided.

Timelines:

  • Panel review of a nuclear power plant 30-36 months
  • Complex/multi-jurisdictional screening under the integrated approach 12-20 months
  • Current approach of a screening level EA + licensing 22-32 months.

It should be made clear early in the document that the time lines apply when the materials are in the hands of the GoC, and that the clock stops when materials go back to the proponent. 

Page 35: Who is “CMD”

2.1 Criteria for Smaller or Lower-Risk Projects

Page 18: (Second item in the table) “The existing facility and its projects have had very low levels of interest or public concern”

This may knock out a large number of benign projects that, regardless of other facility related issues, have little or no environmental consequences.  For example, Chalk River Labs has had a lot of publicity related to shortages of radioactive isotope supplies for medical scans.  By the proposed criterion, no project at Chalk River, not even fences, river bank stabilization and storage buildings, can be subject to the streamlined process.  We suggest this condition be reworded to better ensure that small, innocuous projects are captured.

Smaller low-risk screenings will fall under the Streamlined Approach for Small Screenings. Low risk is defined as:

  • Not requiring a provincial EA
  • Related to an existing licensed facility
  • The facility has low levels of public interest/concern
  • The facility has undergone existing EAs and the site is well characterized
  • Adequate environmental performance record
  • Known technology
  • No new project-environment interactions
  • Requires mitigation with which the proponent has familiarity
  • Does not impact aboriginal or treaty rights or titles.

3. Integrated Approach for Complex Screenings

  1. In the absence of a Joint Review Panel, the two nuclear new-builds would have been subject to a comprehensive study under CEAA.  Therefore, they should not be listed as examples of “complex screenings” but “complex EAs”
     
  2. CNSC is applying the Integrated Approach to all complex screening EAs. The integrated approach is a parallel review of technical EA information and licensing documentation, producing one consolidated document containing the EA Screening Report and License Application Assessment Document. Bruce Nuclear is one of three MPMO projects that CNSC has used the integrated approach.
     
  3. The new CNSC EA guidance documents for screenings contains a number of requirements for conducting technical studies including:
    • describing the project and existing environment
    • identifying project-environment interactions and adverse effects
    • determining whether those interactions could result in a significant adverse environmental effect, taking into account mitigation measures
    • determining the potential for cumulative effects
    • determining the temporal and spatial scope of the EA, etc.

Hal Leadlay
A/Manager, Regional Programs and Liaison
Environmental Assessment Division
Environment Canada / Environnement Canada

Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), Port Hope

General purpose of document:

FARE agrees with staff that the current EA process is in need of improvement. The “improvement initiatives” detailed in this document are apparently designed to achieve “improved efficiencies … while ensuring the continued transparency and openness of the current EA process.” While we accept that as a worthy goal, we question some of the assumptions and supporting documentation that seem to have shaped the staff’s conclusions. We shall comment on these first, then advance some suggestions for ensuring public input and transparency. We urge the Commission to amend this document accordingly.

Comments:

  • On page 43,staff comments that “each proposed change to the current EA process represents a considerable improvement in terms of Screening-level EA timelines, resulting in a more effective and efficient use of resources by all parties involved.” We beg to differ with the last phrase, and urge that it be deleted. Most of the “efficiencies” are at the expense of input by the public, and in the case of many small projects, public input could be eliminated entirely. The second major change is to reduce the time staff has to review EA information supplied by the proponent from 90 to 145 days (which is the time allotted to this task now) to 30 to 45 days. These are certainly improved timelines, but they will not necessarily result in better decisions.
  • On page 14, staff mentions that it received “feedback from some stakeholders on the strengths and weaknesses of the current EA process.” The implication is that some of that feedback has been solicited from members of the public. But we are not aware of this. We are puzzled that these wholesale changes to the EA process were not discussed with the NGO stakeholder group that the CNSC formed more than a year ago, apparently in an effort to improve liaison with the public. We trust that this is an unfortunate oversight. We strongly suggest this document be reviewed by the NGO group before any action is taken by the Commission.
  • Staff is proposing that public hearings be cut from three (one on EA guidelines, one on the EA screening report, and one at licensing) to one or none. The implication is that the time devoted to public consultation and hearings is the biggest factor in delaying EA approvals now. However, that is not borne out by the examples in Appendix D (page 58): The EA for the decommissioning of the heavy water upgrading plant at Chalk River took more than 6 years, but 3 years was spent preparing the screening document and another 30 months was spent by the proponent in carrying out its EA. The EA for the Chalk River fuel packaging and storage facility took more than 3 years, but 30 months was spent carrying out the studies and producing the screening document; only 3 months were spent getting public comment and holding hearings. The EA for Cameco’s increased production at Blind River took nearly 3 years, but doing the EA and preparing the screening document took 30 months. We do not see any clearly argued case for cutting back or eliminating public hearings on EAs.
  • On page 12, staff asserts that “there have been no significant Commission changes to EA guidelines for screenings since early 2004.” That is probably because staff has shown itself to be impervious to most of the changes suggested by members of the public.  This was noted by one intervenor in the recent EA for Zircatec Precision Industries’ SEU proposal  in Port Hope. The EA screening report contained 64 pages of public comment on the guidelines, but staff agreed to change two words. This was even noted by one of the Commissioners, after an  intervenor commented that “the Commission’s new EA rules are clearly not working.”
  • On page 18, where the criteria for “smaller or lower-risk projects” are listed, the bar seems to be set too low. For example, if a proponent has “an adequate environmental performance record,” it could be exempt from public hearings if it met all the other criteria. This is not good enough. What is an “adequate” environmental record? This should be changed to “superior,” or it should be tied to the CNSC’s grading system – B or better. Furthermore, on page 19 you list existing projects that would qualify as a smaller project. They include GE-Hitachi’s proposed addition of a low enriched uranium fuel bundle manufacturing line. This implies that the similar application by Zircatec Precision Industries, which recently was approved by the Commission, might also qualify as a small project not requiring public hearings. Yet the Commission was forced to reverse itself and allow public hearings on Zircatec after the Municipality of Port Hope and several citizens petitioned for them. This is evidence that the CNSC staff is a poor judge of the level of public interest in a project.
  • On page 20, staff suggest that seven criteria be used to decide whether a project requires public participation. It adds: “The public participation criteria above would be used by CNSC staff to recommend to the Commission the need for, the type and the breadth of public participation opportunities to be provided on a project-per-project basis.” The document is silent on what steps the staff will take to ascertain whether those criteria apply. We wish to say very strongly that we have very little confidence in the ability of staff to recognize when, for example, “there is existing or likely public interest.” We offer suggestions for addressing this in the following section.
  • On page 21, not enough attention is devoted by staff to making the public aware of a proposed project. The guidelines now say “CNSC staff posts appropriate notices on the CNSC’s external website, as well as on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR), as per CEAA requirements, to indicate the availability of EA documents for public comment. CNSC staff also recommends that proponents always provide information to the public on their proposed projects.” In fact, this does not always happen, and that is not how FARE learns about new projects. We learn about them through special mailings by staff to members of the public who intervened at previous hearings for the proponent. We are worried that this informal and rather fragile system will be jeopardized by a new EA process that cuts back on public interventions. Our suggestions for correcting this follow.

Suggestions:

  • Because of strong public interest and the significance of the work they will entail, we strongly urge the CNSC to add two Port Hope projects to the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO). They are the Port Hope Area Initiative, the largest clean-up of radioactive waste in Canadian history, and the upcoming Vision 2010 decommissioning of two-thirds of the buildings at Cameco Corporation’s Port Hope Conversion Facility, one of the few nuclear facilities in the world that has no buffer zone.
  • In view of our comments in 1.6 above, we suggest the staff be required to follow this protocol before deciding if a project merits public participation: (a) Advertisements are placed in local media announcing a new project and inviting the public to say whether they have interest in commenting; (b) Individual mailings to all previous intervenors; (c) Posting of all documents, including screening reports, on the CNSC website (the excuse for not doing so has been that they could not be translated, although many other commission documents get translated and posted; we should not have to write to request copies be sent to us); (d) Hearings for EAs and licensing should be held in or near the host communities whenever possible. This would recognize the reality that many public intervenors are volunteers or workers and find travelling to Ottawa a deterrent to participation.
  • Staff is proposing that, if public comment is warranted at all, it be limited to one hearing to consider both the EA screening document and the licensing. This will double the amount of information to be considered during the comment period, but that period will be only 30 days. The public comment period should be lengthened to 60 days.
  • See comment 1.2 above. Any changes to the EA process should be discussed by the NGO stakeholder group before any action is taken by the Commission on this staff report.
  • FARE would like to state very strongly that unless the CNSC makes changes in the proposed new protocol for EAs, it could prove to be detrimental to public participation in the regulatory process, and detrimental to public trust in the impartiality of the CNSC.

Gouvernement du Saskatchewan,Départementd’évaluations environnementales

  1. The shorter timelines anticipated in relation to the proposed new processes will be appreciated by proponents and will bring the timeliness of the CNSC processes closer to that which is comparable for our usual processes in Saskatchewan.  The proposed improvements appear to be being achieved through reasonable and defensible means predicated on a sound policy analysis of the CNSC process.
     
  2. One of the key change initiatives discussed in the document is creation of a streamlined process for those projects triggering CEAA that are deemed to be non-complex in nature.  The criteria being proposed to define such projects can be found on pg 18.  As written, we would never find ourselves in a cooperative EA with the CNSC where they are running the proposed abbreviated process since one of the criteria for excluding a project from application of this abbreviated process is that the project has also triggered a P/T EA.  Where Saskatchewan requires an impact assessment to facilitate a minister's decision on a development project, it will have been determined that there is a likelihood for significant impacts to arise from the project and as such, on the face of things it would seem, that the circumstances would not be consistent with those that the CNSC is targeting for their streamlined new process.  IT is possible however that what is at issue within provincial jurisdiction might be more complex and warrant an impact assessment whereas what is at issue within the CNSC's jurisdiction might be straightforward in its resolution and therefore be a candidate, from the federal perspective alone, for more streamlined treatment.  Alternately, it is possible that the matters at issue for each jurisdiction are, respectively, "non-complex" and equally candidates for similarly streamlined processes that may exist within the provincial process (e.g., changes, which I anticipate will comprise many of the candidate projects, which may be subject to section 16 of  The Environmental Assessment Act, SK but due to their nature are deemed suitable for approval through section 16(2)(a)).  Although the review would be multijurisdictional (i.e., both federal and provincial EA legislation would apply) the circumstances may still be consistent with the CNSC process being the streamlined case within a cooperative assessment under our bilateral agreement with Canada.  Perhaps in the case where, for the CNSC, all the criteria on page 18 are met except that there is also a P/T trigger for a decision under EA, (ie., they would otherwise be pursuing the proposed abbreviated process) the CNSC should initiate some discussions with the P/T involved to explore possible cooperative scenarios before before making a decision to exclude the project from application of this streamlined process.
  3. It would be useful if the CNSC could find a different label for what they are calling their "integrated process" (e.g., a "combined process").  Theoretically speaking, integrated processes in the practice of EA generally are those which attempt to integrate all relevant factors (i.e., socio-economic, cultural and ecological) methodologically in an impact assessment functioning as a form of sustainability appraisal or at the least are those which attempt to bring these relevant study streams into a common analytical framework.  The "integrated process" being proposed here is not such a process but rather one that attempts to address two questions before the commission in one process step.  It may be confusing if a term that has meaning, generally, within the practice of EA is otherwise used within an particular application of EA (the situation that comes to mind is CEAA's use of the term screening to describe a type of impact assessment where this term generally is understood to be the EA process through which it is determined whether an impact assessment is in fact required for a given project!) 

Randy Seguin, Director, Environmental Assessment

Knight, Eleanor -  habitante de la ville de Saskatoon en Saskatchewan

There are areas of concern in this draft. Given that the CNSC has been directed to “streamline” Screening EAs and the ensuing licensing process it is imperative that the preservation of the environment be foremost in the planning. Only through an EA process can this be achieved. The licencing process is a completely different process. To conduct an EA concurrently with a licencing process compromises the objectivity of the EA and the ability of the CEAA and CNSC to fulfill its mandates to protect the environment. Furthermore, the public’s rights, responsibilities and access to full, clear information must be recognized and preserved while making any changes to these processes.

I am concerned about the Criteria for Lower-Risk Projects when CNSC uses the example of the development of the Caribou uranium deposit at McClean Lake operation as being a “small, low risk project”. The proponent would be able justify the benefit of a diminished, speedy EA process since the project definitely would be “related to an existing licensed facility and represents an incremental project to the overall facility.”  It should never be said, however, as suggested in section 1.5, page 11, that the Caribou project could “bring improvements to the environment and to the health and safety of workers or the public” nor that it is not “a priority from a proponent’s operations, compliance or business stand point.” since the proponents motive clearly is to mine uranium and make money the quickest, easiest, most efficient way.

The draft states that “Proponents prefer to apply their few EA and technical resources on major projects with greater perceived benefits”. Mining uranium at Caribou IS a major project because there definitely are ‘projectenvironment interactions’ which are recognized as having potential negative effects. Moreover, the government sees that this is major in the very fact that it is a project considered under the Major Project Management Office. To say that this project does not introduce any new project-environment interactions that do not already exist is stretching it. There will be a new hole in the ground giving off quantities of radon gas and radioactive dust to the air, as well as various toxic substances into the earth and water. Quality of worrisome toxic substances may be the same as before but quantity matters in mining uranium because negative effects are accumulative and long term.

I am concerned that one of the Criteria for Lower-Risk Projects is that “the existing facility and its projects have had, very low levels of interest or public concern.”

First, that could never be said about the McClean Lake operation where the Caribou project is proposed and, secondly, the intent of the various laws that govern the environment is to protect the environment. The public have a role contributing to the discussion of protecting the environment but a low number of, or no, interventions is irrelevant to evaluating a project’s risk of threat to the environment.

On page 12 of the draft CNSC staff and the Commission note a paucity of comments on the majority of small projects at the EA stage, and in some cases, public hearings of the Commission. I must say that the general public is not being informed of the issues and it is very difficult for those of the public who are already engaged in getting the EA and licencing process information to keep up to date.  The government must recognize the time, energy and economic demands of the volunteer public contributors. Some of us choose our battles. Having few contributors does not mean that there is no public interest or concern.

CNSC complains that comments at the EA Guidelines and the Screening Report stages “are similar (if not identical) to those filed as hearing interventions” and “this duplicate information does not add significant new evidence to be considered by the Commission.”  As an intervener I know the frustration of not having any response and feeling not being heard the first time so, knowing that my points are important, I try again. I know, however, that my honest, well intentioned questions and comments contribute to the discussion despite sometimes being over ruled in the CNSC’s Track Report or the Record of Proceedings and Reasons for the Decision. It is heartening when some of the same concerns show up in other RA’s comments on the Technical Report (i.e. during the Midwest EIS process).

The draft states that the present process allows five public participation opportunities per project, regardless of complexity, for a total of 5 to 9 months for consultation and comment review and the time allowed for public participation is 40 days. The whole time I have been doing this, it has been 30 days or less. The public consultation activities by the proponent are “discretionary” and give biased information. The CNSC website needs to be more informative and user friendly if the public is depending on it to inform it of assessment and licencing issues.

I am concerned that in Section 2, page16 it is stated that “the level of public participation must be ascertained, based on the type of project (smaller or more complex), and the decision on the appropriateness of public participation must be made by the Responsible

Authority (RA), under the CEAA, at the earliest stage of the EA process.”  That sounds very arbitrary and untrustworthy with regard to the public. The public must be part of the process, must know the “type and the breadth of their engagement” within the law, have access to all pertinent information and arguments for and against a project during all stages of the decision making process and have the time scheduled to respond in all the project assessments and licencing processes. The public has something valuable to contribute in deciding the Scope of a proposed project and that right must be preserved in the Ministerial Guideline document.

I am concerned that this new decision-making process would replace most of the EA hearings for Screenings.

I am concerned that a screening-level EA for “small projects” requires that very few technical studies be conducted.

I am concerned when one of the Criteria for Lower-Risk Projects is that “it does not trigger a provincial or territorial requirement for an EA (i.e., the EA is not multi-jurisdictional)” yet the Caribou project is sited as an example that has that criteria. Is the province of Saskatchewan not involved with environmental standards and requirements with projects that mine uranium and would therefore be an RA for a required Caribou project EA?

I am concerned when one of the Criteria for Lower-Risk Projects is that “it would likely require only those mitigation measures for which the proponent has a demonstrated familiarity (i.e., no unfamiliar risks)” Mining uranium has negative effects that can not be mitigated no matter how familiar the proponent is with the risks. The Caribou project can not be considered low risk. The burden to the environment of the development must be studied and the possible cumulative effect of it in the local and far field environment over the long term must be acknowledged. This requires a clear-eyed, mathematically correct EA.

The EA process in Canada appears to be in a state of atrophy while the “streamlining” is being figured out (At the Scoping Hearing in August last year, Areva had expected to start work on the Caribou project this June) and one wonders what the benefit is. It appears that the motivation is that the industry objects to "too many assessments" that cost of time and money and the CNSC objects to being bored with the public interventions. Do these draft proposals actually solve the delay of a proponent starting a project when part of the problem is the necessary slowness and caution of government bureaucracy? Having deadlines won’t protect the environment if the time necessary is ignored.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

  • Comments

Manitoba Conservation, Section d’évaluations environnementales et autorisation de permis

Environmental Assessment and Licensing has no comments on the document.

Tracey Braun, M.Sc.
Director
Environmental Assessment & Licensing Branch
Manitoba Conservation

Municipalité de Port Hope, Ontario (Commentaires soumis par Jacque Whitford Limited)

  • Comments

Ontario Power Generation

  • Comments
  • Attachment

Saint John Citizens Coalition for Clean Air

These comments are offered by the Saint John Citizens Coalition for Clean Air an environmental non governmental organization a member of the New Brunswick Environmental Network. Our area of purpose is advocating for clean air. Over the years I have submitted interventions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the federal regulator to ensure Nuclear facilities are operated at the highest level of safety. Having the Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Generation Station within our region about 40 Km from the City of Saint John we have had a great deal of confidence in this Agency its independence, transparency and exceptional level of thoroughness in carrying out its mandate to ensure Canadians are kept safe in the operation of nuclear facilities.

Unfortunately our confidence was shaken last year when the Government of Canada specifically Minister of Natural Resources fired the former Director, Ms. Linda Keenan because she was exercising her legislative mandate to protect the public as has been the pattern for years under her leadership the public felt reassured that no stone was left unturned in the pursuit of safety during the reviews hearings and processes with Canadian nuclear facilities. Our experience has been with the Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Power Station during the Licensing Renewals and other regulatory reviews.

It is clear to us that the Government does not share the view of millions of Canadians that the CNSC was doing a good job with the existing initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments at the CHSC. This perception is reinforced over two developments (1) politically interfering with the CNSC as the Director was doing an excellent job trying to protect Canadians and (2) the establishment of the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO). Its mandate in Section 1.1 was to improve the performance of the federal-regulatory system for major natural resource projects (including those projects related to nuclear facilities etc.) in collaboration with other federal departments and agencies. “We conclude such departments and agencies include Privy Council, Prime Minister’s office and others all under Ministerial authority.

We would not be so cynical had the government and Minister of Natural Resources had not interfered with the CNSC as it fulfilled its legislative responsibility to ensure all steps were taken to ensure public safety and remove risk from the Chalk River operation. The secondary impacts of Chalk River being shut down because they neglected to follow CNSC orders on a safety back up was not the responsibility of CNSC. The Government and Minister fired the head of this safety regulator as a scapegoat to shift blame and attention on the fact that this facility failed to implement a safety directive ordered by CNSC.

As far as we are concerned this MPMO is a government response to fast track these environmental assessment stages, regulatory permits and authorizations required for operations to commence through to follow-up monitoring.

The fact that this MPMO has “requested” (lets be honest the word should be “ordered”) that regulatory agencies improve their processes to achieve a 24 month regulatory process from the initiation of an EA to the issuance of a license. This is shockingly fast when one of the projects is a refurbishment or new nuclear power facility like what is proposed for a second nuclear power facility here in New Brunswick (Pt. Lepreau II).

Most Canadian and yes Americans are under the understanding that permitting such nuclear facilities takes 10 years because the environmental and safety reviews have and should be so thorough.

Perhaps some major resource projects developments could be processed in this 24 month regulatory period but certainly not ones that fall under CNSC such as the building operating a Nuclear Power Generating Plant such as Pt. Lepreau II.

I am absolutely shocked and dismayed that such a expectation has been placed on the CNSC in carrying out its all important safety mandate.

I cannot feel assured that public safety will not be compromised due to these process improvements initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments at CNSC.

The other GOC streamlining commitments noted are other “drivers” that will put pressure on CNSC to streamline environmental assessments at the CNSC.

The title refers to Screening Environmental Assessments but the MPMO has indicated its intent to track complex Screenings comprehensive studies and review panels. It looks like this 24 month time frame includes all the processes and not just Screening processes.

With all these external political driven externals as a backdrop context we are very concerned that the public interest for environmental protection and safety could be weakened.

You cannot shortcut or streamline important regulatory processes from a regulator whose mandate is to protect and keep the public safe from harm. We submit that streamlining processes under the title of Process Improvements Initiatives for Screening Environmental Assessments at the CNSC will not serve the public interest or their “drivers”.

1.3 Overview of Current Process:

What is wrong with a one size fits all approach to its Screening level EA’s?

Granted, no distinction is made between complex and smaller, lower risk projects and yes there is no adjustment of the EA decision making process or public participation process in consequence.

Currently it’s a level playing field with a thorough public review with opportunity for public participation. A project may be “small or not complex in your determination but for people, environmental potentially impacted in a community the worry, concerns and issues can be large and complex for them. These may be “improvements” in your estimation but set backs and poor process for the public impacted.

You may place a value judgment on these changes as an improvement but as far as this environmental network is concerned these changes do not automatically translate into an improvement. That is your analysis, the jury is still out on whether these changes are an improvement or not.

RE: P. 5, Example of Screenings

Reference to mining and milling of an ore body is an area of potential interest here in New Brunswick as uranium companies are doing exploration in the province unsettling thousands of property owners and the public over the possibility that a uranium mine will be pursued here in New Brunswick. People will not be satisfied if there is an external fast track timeframe put on the environmental process such as mentioned by MPMO along with these proposed initiatives.

1.5, Issues with Current CNSC Approach to Screening EA’s

The Draft documents acknowledges strengths of the current process noting it is a robust predictable process that is well understood by stakeholders and provides many opportunities for public consultation. We particularly value the latter “provides many opportunities for public consultation”.

Resources:

Just because the government does not provide the required resources to adequately cover all the projects is no reason to streamline and fast track the current process.

You are assuming that many small projects are tying up or using CNSC resources when they would be better suited to using those resources for large scale complex projects with potential for significant interactions with the environment.

The fact that CNSC and the Commission typically receive few or no comments on the majority of small projects at the EA stage, should not be an indicator that the current process is inadequate or not valued. That problem is related to a lack of awareness understanding or opportunity from the public that the CNSC has failed to address in its work places to help and support the public to participate more fully.

1.6, Lets fix it the proposed change initiatives are really aimed to “enable CNSC to meet its timeline commitments to the MPMO and fulfill the requirements of Government of Canada on streamlining regulation. As far as our ENGO is concerned this is the driver and small less complex projects will be impacted with a faster process that will … the kind of thoroughness we have come to expect from the CNSC. The outcome of such changes will not be an improvement from our perspective.

2. Pre

I do not like the replacement of the current EA Guidelines with this new tool “Scoping Information Document.

2.1, You are basing your conclusion on a false premise especially as you look into the future. You conclude “smaller or lower risk projects typically have very low levels of public interest if any at all.

As issues related to all nuclear projects including small ones gains public attention with the overall interest in nuclear as an energy source in society you can be assured that low level of public interest will and has increased gaining much more public scrutiny.

Just take a look at the Chalk River fiasco a relatively small operation or look at the public outcry over uranium mine exploration going on in New Brunswick. Even small low risk projects are moving up on the public radar screen. The environmental community in Canada is anti-nuclear and continues to enter the public debate. Canadians themselves are looking at this nuclear re… as an energy source to combat air pollution such as smog and now greenhouse gas problem CO2 emissions. Granted this Section 2.1 Criteria for Smaller or Lower Risk Projects is not about the larger Projects such as the later but anything to do with nuclear including waste management aspect is increasingly higher on the public consciousness. So you must be careful of assumptions of “very low levels of public interest “if any at all”.

If I am correct then one of you checked off criteria.

“The existing facility” and its projects have had very low levels of interest or public concern would not be checked off.

That means you will need to be prepared for a different process from the Screening Level EA.

If your assumption and conclusions are correct then what you propose appears acceptable.

One of the next sections 2.2 Criteria For Public Participation in Screenings needs to be carefully studied by this writer before any endorsement or acceptance is given under “Streamlined Approach for Small Screenings”.

2.1 Criteria for Smaller or Lower Risk Projects

An example (AREVA Resource Canada Inc.) is given. It appears that the mining industry is pushing to use lakes in Canada for toxic waste dumps from their operations. It appears from what was recently reported Globe / Mail that both

2.2 Criteria for Public Participation in Screenings

P. 34/ 3.4 Responsibilities for Integrated Approach

CNSC Staff Responsibilities

I object to the discretionary judgment of CNSC notifying interested members of the public of this process, if public participation is deemed appropriate (as per public participation criteria) to enable meaningful and complete interventions of the EA and the License Application Assessment Document. So long as the Public Participation Criteria are used as a guide it will satisfy our concerns that discretionary decision making would not weaken public participation.

It appears that under Public and other stakeholders “there could be advantageous for the intervenors to have opportunities to provide comments on both the EA Screening Report and the Licensing Application Assessment Document at the same time.

Although such an Integrated Approach in your estimation would make for an efficient public consultation process this does not mean that the public intervenors share this conclusion.

Yes under the current approach similar (but not identical or the same) comments are often filed in both separate EA and licensing instances. You seem to conclude that there is no efficiency in the current Approach. Having the two separate approaches (separate EA and licensing instances) have unique value.

More intervenors could come forward with the two approaches. Secondly different kind of intervenors and public members come forward with their special area of interest and expertise.

When you take this Integrated Approach you shut out or exclude these other intervenors who may be interested in the EA Screening side and License Application Assessment Document.

When it comes to public scrutiny and transparency you cannot apply efficiency streamlining and integrated approaches the same way you build a car on the assembly line when “efficiency and no duplication is predominant driven.

3.5, Commission Decisions P. 35

I cannot understand how you can expect the technical review for EA and the licensing information to be bumped in together in the EA Report and a CMD for the Commission’s consideration.

There are uniquely different reports and decision making outcomes. Past practice has seen EA process identify all kinds of issues that are often different from licensing matters. For example issues of an aging work force and stress of operators in a facility is the kind of issue you may see in a licensing decision compared to interaction of a valued environment components (VEC’s) with the facility.

We believe licensing processes approvals decisions should be separate from EA Screening Report which is usually at the front end of the process compared to licensing aspects at the back end. A lot can happen, change from the EA Screening Report to the Licensing period.

Issues not covered at the front end EA Screening period could be picked up and identified later by intervenors at the Licensing Hearing or process.

Commission’s Prerogative

Pleased to see the Integrated Approach does not in any way fetter the Commission’s prerogative to determine that the evidence presented during the EA/licensing consolidated hearing is insufficient to proceed to licensing. We also pleased to see the Commission could request additional information to be considered in another hearing or other type of proceeding, at a later date.

P. 36 Section 3.6 Efficiency Gains

I like the way 3.6 compares the Current Approach to Integrated Approach with difference noted re timeframes.

I object to the reduction from 60 days for Traditional EA Guidelines to Scoping Information Document of 15 days at difference of 45 days.

Our experience has shown that the public need these 60 days to review and prepare comments on EA Guidelines. We believe the EA Guidelines are critically important because they identify the areas, issues that the Proponent have to make sure gets covered in the EA Assessment reports.

A good example of why there should be no reduction in this time period is the Canaport Repsol LNG Storage and Processing Facility approved several years ago. The guidelines in that Project were very comprehensive because the public raised so many issues that the Minister accepted into the Final Guidelines. I realize that Project was not under CNSC mandate but there were related CEAA legislative roles, relationships etc.

Its absolutely shocking and unacceptable that the current Public Participation on Guidelines now at 40-75 days to a Integrated Approach known as Public Participation on Scoping Information Document 0-75 days will see that reduced from 40 to 0 days.

The time period is clearly reduced. This is terrible. EA Guidelines Hearing currently 100-145 days gets this Integrated Approach known. Commission Decision on Scoping Information Document of 21 days a difference from 79 to 124 days. That is not as bad a reduction but still a reduction which we object.

We notice the Technical Review experts who review EA Information still get 90-145 days no change. But when it comes to our turn to have “a kick at the can” we the public interest get shafted and short changed.

Now you know we were suspicious of these “efficiency changes”. These will benefit the Proponents, industrial interest as well as government interest to speed up approvals.

When it comes to the Environmental / Licensing processes, impact analysis and public participation so important these days it not prudent to reduce these review periods in the name of efficiency or in your term an Integrated Approach.

We are not happy with these changes that reduce the public participation on Guidelines Screening etc. This is particularly problematic and untimely at this time as society is more attentive to CNSC Regulatory approvals on projects involved in nuclear materials, pollution waste, etc. As Ontario gears up for new facilities refurbishments, NB same for a possible 2nd Nuclear Power Plant, exploration companies on the look out for exploration mining uranium etc. Yes there is more interest on nuclear to combat smog causing pollution as well as ways to prevent CO2 from being admitted in electrical generation plants.

This however cannot be at expense of careful yes time consuming reviews and deliberations where public are given lots of time to participate.

5 Recommendations to the Commission

We do not agree with your staff recommendations that the Commission Approve initiatives.

You made this value statement that proposed changes to current EA process “represents a considerable improvement in terms of Screening level EA timelines resulting in a more effective and efficient use of resources by all parties.

How can you conclude that reducing time period for public participation will be more effective. Quite frankly, you have no right or moral authority to tall us the citizens of Canada who are impacted by these various projects that your proposed changes will result “in a more effective and efficient use of resources by all parties involved”. You can speak for yourself as a regulatory body and its looks like you want to speak for the Proponents major industrial energy Corporations, but please do not draw your conclusion to the parties that represent the public, public interest and ENGO’s who make up “the parties”.

How you can draw these presumptive conclusions without testing them or even waiting for the public comments period to end is the height of adacity.

You have concluded “every initiative in this document aims to improve efficiencies (time and resources) for Staff the Commission Proponents and the public as well as improve the effectiveness of the EA process.

You have no right to include the public in your conclusions.

Lets be honest about this efficiency streamlining exercise you are proposing is the result of this major Projects Management Office (MPMO recently established “to improve the performance of the federal regulatory system for major natural resource projects in collaboration with other federal departments and agencies”.

We are gravely concerned about this office undermining weakening public scrutiny of projects big or small that come under your mandate.

For years CNSC was satisfied with the regulatory review process, periods etc. Its only since the Government set up this office and started interfering with your agency (Linda Keenan Affair) that you folks commenced these proposed changes.

We do have faith, confidence or trust in these changes in that they will be in the public interest to ensure safety and environmental protection. Sorry we and I bet thousands of the public members are not convinced with your conclusions.

As noted above any time the public notice consultation period is reduced as is the case in these changes its bad news as far as the public and community members groups are concerned. Yes, the former system may not have been as “efficient” but it provided the public and yourselves with lots of time to be engaged so that at end of day solid decisions were made that we had confidence in and example Pt. Lepreau Refurbishment / Licensing review period. This new system will rush your decisions and deprive the CNSC from all that thoughtful careful (yes longer) time needed to provide input. We go on the assumption that when you are dealing with nuclear based projects longer and yes perhaps inefficient at the end of the day translates into safer more environmentally responsible projects all to the public interests.

You should have had workshops, teach ins in these nuclear provinces where millions of people live under the impacts of these current and new Projects to come. Sending this document out in the summer vacation period looking for comments is inadequate and shows poor judgment along with disrespect to the public interest parties.

Second Recommendation: We are very worried that these new proposed changes will shorten your time period for you to make reflective and thorough decisions all in the interest of “streamlining” or “efficiency”.

Comments on Section 2.2 Criteria for Public Participation in Screening

There is no provision in these changes for “intervenor funding” to allow public, ENGO’s the resources to be able to meaningfully participate by being able to cover expenses. We note CEAA of course does have participate funding provisions under Comprehensive Studies / Reviews and Panel Hearing Assessments.

The CNSC needs to broaden and make provisions for intervenor funding for many of these processes and public participation activities. There is something wrong somewhere when ENGO’s groups like ourselves as intervenors, participants have to rely on collection pop bottles to raise funding so we can “participate” in CNSC processes. Please do something to broaden or enhance funding for public interest groups under Public Participation opportunities. Thank you.

What about the Office of Privy Council criteria for public participation no reference to that must be followed in regulatory reviews etc.

We have problems with the Responsible Authority’s discretionary judgment in 18(3) CEAA the need for and level of public participation in Screening level EA’s.

In these Public Participation Criteria listed what is new, changed? The list been changed with these new proposals? We certainly agree with the criteria list but question is what if any have been deleted from before?

Types of Participation Opportunities

There needs to be more direction given on the types of opportunities or form they should take.

You need to spend more time to enhance broaden and nurture public participation opportunities. It is valuable input that will help you made good decisions.

“CNSC staff also recommend that proponents always provide information to the public on their proposed protects”.

In Conclusion,

  • Our environmental public interest groups is opposed to any changes that will diminish shorten public participation time periods.
  • This consultation process is inadequate poor timing, should have been more direct presentations, consultations with environmental groups.
  • We recommend the Commission not approve these changes.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Dalzell, Chairperson

Santé Canada

  • Commentaires

Saskatchewan Mining Association Inc.

  • Commentaires
Date de modification : 2009-01-08 -
Haut de la page
Haut de la page
Avis importants