Contact

Store

About

Issues
News
Guides
Lake Ontario
Media
Get Involved
Donate Now

Search

Home
Issues
News
Guides
Lake Ontario
Media
Get Involved
About
Contact
Store
Donate Now
News

Decision Making and Power Plants: Renewing Darlington’s Refurbishment License

Published on September 04, 2015 by Tristan Willis.

Sitting on the shores of Lake Ontario, the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station. (Photo via  OPG )

Sitting on the shores of Lake Ontario, the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station. (Photo via OPG)

Four weeks ago I started articling with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. Articling is a 10-month apprenticeship that law students must complete after law school before becoming lawyers. One of my first projects at Waterkeeper is the Darlington relicensing process.

In case you haven’t heard, OPG is asking the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to renew the operating license for its Darlington Nuclear Generation Facility for another 13 years. Darlington’s plan is to replace their four reactors during this time so the plant can run until 2055.

Read about Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s work on the Darlington Refurbishment here

One thing that law school impressed upon me was the importance of the process that surrounds legal decision making. If we want “decisions” to be fair, it is necessary to have a decision making process that is fair. What do I mean by process? I mean the collection of rules that govern how a court or decision making body operates. These include procedural and evidentiary rules which control who can appear before a court, what evidence they can present, and how that evidence can be “tested” by the opposing side.

Think of criminal law. In a criminal trial, evidence is collected by having witnesses provide their testimony, under oath, to the judge. Generally, witnesses can only state facts. “I saw x, I heard y.” They cannot give opinions. Experts are allowed to provide opinions, but only after they demonstrate to the court that they are duly qualified to do so. After a regular witness or expert is called by one side they can be cross-examined by the other. Cross-examination allows the opposition to ask the witness questions about their testimony. It is a vitally important process, almost like a form of quality control. The court has a chance to gauge the reliability of the evidence, since cross-examination tends to explore weaknesses, inconsistencies and gaps in a witness’s testimony, or expert’s conclusions.

I mention all of this to provide some context. We all know that criminal law has serious consequences. A guilty sentence can mean years in prison. This is why there are evidentiary rules to try and ensure that judges ground their decisions in reliable evidence.

Approving the refurbishment of a nuclear power plant is a major decision.

After Fukushima, regardless of your stance on nuclear, you will likely agree that nuclear power plants have the potential to pose serious risks. This is particularly true for the Darlington site, given its location, 60 km from downtown Toronto and right next to Lake Ontario – which provides drinking water to 9-million people.

August 19th was Day One of the CNSC’s ‘Two Day’ process for relicensing the Darlington Nuclear Power Plant. The terminology is a little confusing. The Day One hearing took less than a day – it began around 1:45pm and was over before 6:30pm. The hearing began with a presentation by the owner of the power plant (Ontario Power Generation, or “OPG”), followed by a presentation by the CNSC staff, and ended with questions from the panel members. The Day Two hearing will take place over a four day period in November. It will allow NGOs and members of the public to make short presentations about any concerns they have with the project.

Last Wednesday, the CNSC streamed the Day 1 hearing on their website. I was curious, would the structure of the hearing reflect the gravity of the decision being made?

The hearing began with an hour long presentation by OPG. They showed three short videos (mostly non-technical, with upbeat music and professional sounding narration), spoke of the plant's excellent operational record, and mentioned a number of reports demonstrating that the plant would continue to run safely. None of the statements were made under oath and none of the presenters established their expertise.

Next came the CNSC staff's presentation, which felt eerily redundant. It supported almost all of OPG’s claims, reviewed for a second time the location of the plant, its excellent operating record and suitability for refurbishment. The presentation concluded by recommending that the decision making panel relicense the plant.

This felt strange to me. What is the purpose in holding a hearing when both parties relay the same message? Perhaps the CNSC staff have rigorously examined OPG’s proposal and been unable to find any real concerns. But why were there a dozen intervenors who raised concerns about the project’s potential impact on the environment or public health during the Environmental Assessment process? Surely this indicates that there are some live issues to consider. If the CNSC staff are not willing to voice these concerns why not have a participant who is? Wouldn't it be helpful to have an independent party cross-examine OPG during the hearing? If there are any weaknesses in their proposal, or inconsistencies in the studies they rely on, shouldn’t this be explored in front of the decision making panel?

After the two presentations the panel members asked questions about the project. At times, it almost felt as if they were looking for assurance. Near the end of the hearing Dr. Binder, a panel member and the CNSC president said “I just want the record to make sure that there will be – in the refurbishment there is no more room for surprises, for unknown alpha, beta, neutron, any other isotope, that you would not surprise us.” It struck me as odd, but I couldn’t quite say why. Of course the panel members don’t want to be ‘surprised’. Of course they want to assure themselves that the project is a good one before approving it. But what felt strange was how assurance was sought; by asking the folks who were advocating for the project if some aspect of it was in fact well-planned, safe or feasible.

I think it is important for Canadians to ask: do we feel assured that this process will lead to good decisions? We don't convict someone of a crime unless the evidence against them withstands scrutiny. Witnesses can be cross-examined, experts must be qualified and their conclusions need to be explained. So I’ve been wondering, why approve a nuclear power plant without taking similar precautions?

Read the transcript from the CNSC's Day One hearing from August 19, 2015. Find the Darlington-portion on the bottom of page 156.

Darlington Refurbishment Darlington Refurbishment, Lake Ontario, fish kills, nuclear, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Newer Articles Older Articles
Featured
Gord Edgar Downie Pier T-shirt
Gord Edgar Downie Pier T-shirt

This shirt commemorates the Gord Edgar Downie Pier in Kingston, Ontario. The City of Kingston and Swim Drink Fish Canada unveiled the pier on July 26, 2018.

100% of our proceeds support our core initiatives so Canadian communities can prosper.

Blog Categories

  • Deloro (2)
  • Eastern Mainline Pipeline (2)
  • American Eel (3)
  • King's Mill Park (4)
  • Castonguay (5)
  • Gifford Hill (5)
  • Pickering (5)
  • Skip the Wash (5)
  • Swim Guide (6)
  • Enbridge-Line9 (9)
  • Events and Meetings (9)
  • GreatLakes Protection Act (10)
  • Waterkeeper Gala (10)
  • Press Releases (11)
  • TO Island Airport (14)
  • Microbeads (15)
  • WestonGreatLakesChallenge (15)
  • 2014 Challenge (16)
  • Microplastics (16)
  • Red Hill Valley Express (20)
  • PortHope RadioactiveWaste (25)
  • TorontoHarbour Monitoring (30)
  • Canadian rollbacks (34)
  • Darlington Refurbishment (46)
  • Toronto Sewage Bypasses (65)

Blog History

  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • February 2012
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • September 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • March 2007
  • October 2006
  • August 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • June 2005
  • April 2005
  • February 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • April 2003
  • December 2002
  • November 2002
  • August 2002
  • June 2002
  • May 2002
  • April 2002
  • March 2002
  • October 2001
  • September 2001
Donate Now
Lake Ontario
Cases
Blog
Events
Store
Contact
Guides
Great Lakes Guide
Swim Guide
Drink Guide
Media
Get Involved
Donate
Volunteer
Report Pollution
Events
Sponsor A Beach
About
History
Staff

Search

Waterkeeper, Swim Drink Fish, and the Swim Drink Fish design (icons) are registered trademarks of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper.