Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

New nuclear plant hearing scheduled to start Monday

Krystyn Tully, Waterkeeper.ca Weekly

March 14th, 2011

In midst of Japanese nuclear crisis, Canada set to begin environmental assessment of new Darlington nuclear power plant.

The first new nuclear power plant to be built in Canada in decades is slated for review beginning next Monday.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, other NGOs, members of the nuclear industry, and government departments have been preparing for the hearing for years. Waterkeeper’s research focuses on cooling water systems and impacts on fish habitat: the kinds of impacts a nuclear power plant has on the environment during its day-to-day operations.

OPG’s written proposition is so vague and so incomplete that it is virtually impossible to predict all of the environmental impacts of the new Darlington Nuclear Power Plant. OPG does not yet know, for example, which type of reactor or cooling water system it will build.

Waterkeeper’s experts have identified a lengthy list of decisions, information, and data that are not included in OPG’s plan. On the first day of the hearing, Waterkeeper will ask the review panel if the hearing can continue without this important information. If the hearing does proceed as scheduled, we will present our scientific analysis on Monday, March 28, 2011.

Numerous media reports speculate that recent events in Japan may dampen enthusiasm for nuclear power. We expect that intervenors and media will be asking questions about the future of nuclear power in Canada and the potential risks it poses. Concerns about safety and emergency preparedness will likely be foremost in many people’s minds as the Joint Review Panel convenes Canada’s first environmental assessment hearing of a new nuclear power plant.

More Information:
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s hearing information guide
CEAA Schedule

Other stories like this one ...

Canada
(Most recent of 2472 articles)

Development & Land Use
(Most recent of 3144 articles)

Drink
(Most recent of 3872 articles)

Durham Region
(Most recent of 1168 articles)

Energy & Fossil Fuels
(Most recent of 1508 articles)

Environmental Law
(Most recent of 5812 articles)

Events and Meetings
(Most recent of 113 articles)

Features
(Most recent of 346 articles)

Fish
(Most recent of 5875 articles)

Great Lakes-Basin
(Most recent of 1314 articles)

Groundwater
(Most recent of 112 articles)

Industrial Emissions
(Most recent of 2061 articles)

Nuclear Industry
(Most recent of 2557 articles)

Ontario
(Most recent of 3482 articles)

Original Articles
(Most recent of 63 articles)

Research
(Most recent of 211 articles)

Shipping, boating & navigation
(Most recent of 673 articles)

Swim
(Most recent of 2376 articles)

Water takings
(Most recent of 495 articles)

Waterkeeper Publications
(Most recent of 141 articles)

Waterkeeper's work
(Most recent of 75 articles)

Waterkeeper.ca Weekly
(Most recent of 307 articles)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:39 pm

Received via email:

Something which might be of interest to you as you continue to represent the interests of Lake Ontario stakeholders in this hearing:

Until my retirement in 1996 I was employed by a huge multinational [in] Canada. We ran several highly engineered chemical operations and enjoyed one of the most enviable work place safety and environmental records in the global industry. I mention this background so that you will know that I do have some understanding of managing potentially hazardous operations. I was actively involved in quality management at [The Company].

I was an active member of the Toronto chapter of the American Society of Quality at that time, and usually attended all the chapter’s monthly meetings (and have continued my membership in retirement). Some time in the early ‘90’s, I well recall that the manager responsible for quality control at the Pickering nuclear plant was one of our guest speakers, to describe their quality control system for us. I still remember that the weaknesses and lack of robustness in their described systems and processes were frankly frightening. I sincerely hope that you will find that their industry has advanced since then. However, if the opportunity arises during this hearing, I would strongly encourage you to ask that their quality management system be peer-reviewed by an experienced and qualified third-party quality auditor, such as BSI or equivalent.

Thank you for your continued interests in Lake Ontario.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm

Received via email:
So glad that you folks are doing this work.

I am amazed that the frequent interviews on CBC and TVO never refer to the fault lines of tectonic plates under Lake Ontario … Darlington? Does this not represent an unknown that could be a risk?

How does anyone know if and when these might become active? And the double threat of Ontario nuclear power plants is their water use and contamination.
-NC

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Hi NC,

Thank you for your email. We are amazed as well. The upcoming hearing will allow evidence and scientific documentation to be presented to the decision-makers regarding the future of the Darlington site. We are very hopeful that good, independent research will show that, as proposed, Darlington should not be approved for a licence.

It’s always great to hear from people who are staying informed. Thanks again for contacting us.

Cheers,

Allie

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper wrote:
March 15th, 2011 at 2:43 pm

You have some very interesting insights into the inner workings of the plant! Thanks for sharing. The upcoming hearing will definitely be an interesting opportunity for us to get more information. As it stands, OPG has yet to decide what reactor technology will be used at the proposed expansion. We are talking about a plan to have a plan and that’s simply not enough for a licence!

Glad to hear from folks who care about the lake!

Cheers,

Allie