Comments re: Approval for discharge into the natural environment other than water (Air) - Darlington
On June 30, 2009, a proposal notice regarding an air emissions approval for Ontario Power Generation’s (“OPG”) Darlington Nuclear power generating facility was posted to the Environmental Registry (#010-7054). The deadline for public comments was listed as July 30, 2009.
OPG has applied for a renewal of Basic Comprehensive Certiﬁcate of Approval (Air) number 1008-65KNPY (“CofA”) and includes new or historically unapproved sources for all emissions from the facility. The Instrument Proposal Notice lists contaminants emitted to the atmosphere including 2-propenoic acid, ammonia, aromatic hydrocarbon resin, benzene, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrazine, morpholine, nitrogen oxides, phosphoric acid, quarterly ammonium compounds, sulphur dioxide, suspended particulate matter, and total hydrocarbons.
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (“Waterkeeper”) is offering two sets of comments on this instrument proposal. The ﬁrst relate to the potential environmental effects of the proposal. These concerns should be addressed in the Ministry of the Environment’s [“MOE”] decision. The second relate to the procedural defects that are consistent with ongoing procedural problems with the public comment process under the Environmental Registry. Waterkeeper is requesting that the MOE conﬁrm receipt of these comments and correct them in the future. To our knowledge, the instrument applicant is not responsible for these issues.
Waterkeeper is a Canadian charity, dedicated to restoring a swimmable, drinkable, ﬁshable Lake Ontario. We are a non-political organization, focusing on research and justice issues in the general public interest. Our comment on this application is based on the potential environmental impacts of the project on our watershed, our experience working on nuclear and energy issues, and our experience with environmental law and procedure.
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper submits the following recommendations:
1. That OPG’s CofA only be approved with the following conditions:
i. that OPG’s request to move the POI assessment location be denied
ii. that OPG’s request for a less stringent MGLC acceptability criterion for hydrazine be denied.
iii. that it be conﬁrmed the air modelling predictions are accurate, given the proximity of the Facility to Lake Ontario
iv. that air emissions criteria reﬂect site-speciﬁc issues (e.g., proximity to Lake Ontario and to other ongoing or historic sources of pollution)
v. that air emissions criteria are modiﬁed as necessary, such that there are no cumulative impacts
2. That the MOE adopt the following practices for future Proposals on the public registry:
i. that documents be available for public viewing on the date that proposals are posted to the public registry
ii. provide access to the MOE’s technical analysis
iii. that draft instruments (or regulations or laws, etc.) be included in the public ﬁle
iv. that, in the event a draft proposal is not included in the ﬁle, a subsequent comment period occur when such an instrument is available
v. that provisions be made to ensure cumulative impacts are always considered in the decision-making process
vi. that provisions be made to ensure site-speciﬁc issues are always considered in the decision-making process
3. That the MOE acknowledge, in writing, its receipt of this comment.
Read the original submission to the Ministry of the Environment here.
Read the attached report by Dr. Henry Cole here.