Written submission from the Power Workers Union. Mémoire du Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses du secteur énergétique PMD 11-P1.

Transcription

1 Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project Joint Review Panel Projet de nouvelle centrale nucléaire de Darlington Commission d examen conjoint PMD 11-P1.147 File / dossier : Date: Edocs: Written submission from the Power Workers Union Mémoire du Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses du secteur énergétique In the Matter of À l égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of a proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a Project that includes site preparation, construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of up to four new nuclear power reactors at its existing Darlington Nuclear Site located near Oshawa, Ontario, in the Municipality of Clarington and a Licence to Prepare a Site application for the Project under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. L évaluation environnementale, en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur l évaluation environnementale, du projet d Ontario Power Generation qui inclut la préparation de l emplacement, la construction, l exploitation, le déclassement et l abandon de jusqu à quatre nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires sur le site de la centrale nucléaire Darlington près d Oshawa (Ontario), dans la municipalité de Clarington, et une demande de permis de préparation de l emplacement, aux termes de la Loi sur la sûreté et la réglementation nucléaires. Public Hearing Audience publique March 21, 2011 Le 21 mars 2011

2 Ref Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant Project: Environmental Assessment/Application for Licence to Prepare a Site Submission of the Power Workers Union ( PWU ) A. OVERVIEW The PWU appreciates the opportunity to address the Joint Review Panel in its important task of considering the Darlington New Nuclear Power Plant project ( NND Project ). Without understating the importance of this panel s obligation to ensure that the proponent s proposal is compliant with all technical requirements of relevant legislation, the PWU urges the panel not to overlook the larger perspective in which this application is being brought. In particular, this is the first phase in a proposal for Ontario Power Generation ( OPG ) to undertake an activity at the Darlington site which is the same activity that OPG has been undertaking at this site for almost twenty years. Although the proposed facilities will be new ones, this is the same operator, undertaking the same activity, at the same site. Moreover, this proponent that has a lengthy and positive track record undertaking this activity at this site, in a manner which is compliant with all applicable standards and regulations. Further, this Panel should recognize that the proposal in question pertains to the undertaking of a very highly regulated activity. In addition to the approval sought from this Panel, the facilities in question cannot be constructed or operated without the receipt of myriad approvals from numerous regulators, each charged with the protection of some element of the public interest. The Panel should take comfort from the fact that the project will be subject to ongoing review and approval. In assessing the proponent s environmental impact statement and application for license to prepare a site, the CNSC staff examined the appropriate issues, with 1

3 diligence and care, and they reached the correct conclusions. The PWU agrees with the CNSC s overall conclusions that the NND Project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, that it satisfies the applicable regulatory expectations, and that OPG is qualified to carry out the activities authorized by the license to prepare the site and that OPG will, in carrying out that activity, make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons and the maintenance of national security. B. THE POWER WORKERS UNION The PWU represents approximately 1700 workers employed at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station ( Darlington NGS ). The PWU has been the bargaining agent for the majority of employees at Darlington NGS and OPG generally for more than sixty years. The employees represented by the PWU at Darlington NGS work in all facets of the facility, including operations, administration, maintenance, security, projects and modifications, and first line supervisors. PWU members represent the front line of the day-to-day operations of the facility. The vast majority of PWU-represented employees at Darlington NGS live with their families in the immediate surrounding community. C. PARTICIPATION OF THE PWU IN THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY PROCESS The PWU appreciates the opportunity to address the Joint Review Panel regarding its assessment of the NND Project. The health and wellbeing of the workers it represents through the safe operation of the facility is the foremost concern of the PWU. The PWU has been an active participant in the regulatory oversight of nuclear safety issues arising from the management and operation of generating facilities in the province of Ontario. The submissions made by the PWU in recent years include submissions to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ( CNSC ) regarding the Operating Licence renewals for Pickering A, B and Darlington NGS, the refurbishment of Pickering B, and the regarding the Operating Licence renewals for Bruce Power A 2

4 and B, presentations to the CNSC regarding the restart of Units 3 and 4 at Bruce A, to the federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel regarding nuclear fuel waste, to the AECB with respect to accountability in nuclear performance, to the Ontario Legislature Select committee on Ontario Hydro Nuclear affairs, to the CNSC with respect to the environmental assessment of the Pickering A restart, and the Atomic Energy Control Board and CNSC with respect to various relicensing applications at the Bruce, Darlington and Darlington nuclear facilities. D. PWU INVOLVEMENT IN DARLINGTON NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT The PWU and its members will play a critical role in both the construction and operational phases of the NND project. The OPG has estimated that the site preparation and construction for the new facility will require an on-site workforce of up to 3,500 workers, a significant portion of whom will be, technicians, and others represented by the PWU. 1 The OPG has estimated that the operation and maintenance of the new facility will require an on-site workforce of up to 1,400 workers for two reactor units and up to 2,800 for four reactor units, including management, trades people, nuclear operators and maintainers, engineering and technical support staff, security staff and others. The majority of these workers will be member of the PWU. 2 E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ( EIS ) THE PWU PERSPECTIVE The PWU supports the CNSC staff s overall conclusion that, based on the information provided by OPG in the EIS and in response to information requests from the panel, the NND Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental impacts. The PWU 1 OPG, Environmental Assessment submissions, p OPG, Environmental Assessment submissions, p

5 also hopes to assist the panel by sharing its perspective regarding certain of the specific issues addressed by the CNSC staff. For ease of reference, these submissions use the numbered topic headings applied by the CNSC staff in its submissions. 2.1 Public Participation OPG s engagement of public participation regarding the NND Project includes communication and cooperation with the PWU and its members as well as ongoing consultation with the broader Darlington community. In the workplace, the PWU has always sought to play a role in decision-making to improve the working lives of its members. At Darlington NGS, the PWU Chief Stewards are involved in the Senior JUMM ( Joint Union Management Meeting ) and Chief Stewards and Stewards are involved in a number of Department Level JUMMs. PWU members can and do comment on any business-related activity at regular Safety Meetings and in a number of face to face forums. Generally speaking, the PWU is actively involved in both day-to-day decision-making at Darlington NGS, as well as long-term and strategic planning. This ongoing level of consultation has continued with respect to the NND Project. The OPG has also been extraordinarily active in seeking public input regarding the NND Project in the broader Darlington community. OPG has hosted five rounds of public consultation meetings in all the major communities in the area. These meetings provided multiple opportunities to all community members to learn about the NND project and to have their concerns or inquiries addressed Alternatives to the Project 4

6 The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that Alternatives to the Project can only be considered within the framework of Ontario s energy policy. The PWU also agrees that OPG has properly justified why it did not consider alternatives to the project in the EIS. In brief, OPG has adhered to the mandate it was given by the Province of Ontario. Any possible alternatives to the project can only be considered in light of that circumstance. On June 16, 2006, the Province of Ontario, through the Minister of Energy, directed OPG to implement the nuclear component of the Province s 20-year energy plan. The directive stated, in relevant part: The Ontario Government announcement directed the OPA to ensure adequate baseload electricity supply, while maintaining the nuclear generation component of that baseload at today s level of 14,000 MW of installed capacity. Recognizing that maintaining the current level of nuclear baseload through 2025 would require a combination of refurbishment of existing units and construction of replacement units, and given the long lead times required for licensing approvals of these activities, I am directing OPG to: a. begin feasibility studies on refurbishing its existing nuclear units. As part of this initiative, OPG is directed to also begin an environmental assessment on the refurbishment of the four existing units at Pickering B, and b. begin a federal approvals process, including an environmental assessment, for new nuclear units at an existing site. 3 Thereafter, on June 16, 2008, the Province clarified that OPG s responsibilities under the June 16, 2006 directive would include Darlington as the site for Ontario s new nuclear plant. 4 On February 17, 2011 the Province of Ontario, through the Minister of Energy, issued a Supply Mix Directive (the Directive ) to the Ontario Power Authority ( OPA ). The Directive instructed the OPA to prepare an Integrated Power System Plan ( IPSP ) containing certain elements. One element is new electricity supply in the form of nuclear generation. In particular, the Directive provided that: 3 OPG, Environmental Impact Statement, p OPG, Environmental Impact Statement, p

7 The OPA shall continue to plan for nuclear generation to account for approximately 50 per cent of total Ontario electricity generation. To this end the Plan shall provide for the refurbishment of 10,000 MW of existing nuclear capacity at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station and the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station as well as the procurement of two new nuclear generating units (about 2,000 MW) at the Darlington site. The Government will pursue this procurement where it can be achieved in a cost-effective manner. 5 Subsection 16(1)(e) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, requires the JRP to consider whether the proponent has adequately assessed the availability of alternatives to the project: 16. (1) Every screening or comprehensive study of a project and every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the following factors: (e) any other matter relevant to the screening, comprehensive study, mediation or assessment by a review panel, such as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, that the responsible authority or, except in the case of a screening, the Minister after consulting with the responsible authority, may require to be considered. The CEAA s Operational Policy Statement regarding the methods for assessing Alternatives to the Project under s. 16(1)(e) requires that alternatives be established in relation to the project need and purpose and from the perspective of the proponent. 6 Given the mandate from the Province, the statutory framework, and the guidance provided by the CEAA, the PWU agrees that OPG has adequately explained why no alternatives to the project are viable in light of the Province s directives and the applicable legislation. 2.5 Project Description The PWU endorses the CNSC staff s conclusion that the information the OPG has provided regarding the Project Description is acceptable. The CNSC staff s conclusion takes into account its recommendation to require a detailed assessment of the NND 5 Ontario Minister of Energy, Supply Mix Directive, February 17, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Operational Policy Statement OPS-EPO/ , Addressing Need for, Purpose of, Alternatives to and Alternative Means under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, at p. 2. 6

8 Project s components and reactor technologies in considering OPG s subsequent application for a license to construct. This approach is sensible in this early stage of the NND Project approval process. An appropriately thorough assessment of the project s components should and will occur at a later phase, once a vendor is chosen and the reactor technology selected Economy PWU s members provide an enormous contribution to the community that hosts the Darlington facility. PWU s members are leaders in the development of the Durham energy and business sectors. The opportunities provided to PWU members by the NND project presents a direct economic benefit to the broader community. During the constructions phase, the NND project is expected to generate up to 3,500 jobs. When the facility is fully operational, it will sustain up to 2,800 jobs per year. Approximately 60% of this employment will involve residents of the regional study area. Moreover, the Pickering NGS, which is within the regional study area, is scheduled to go out of service by The new Darlington facility, given its need for skilled workers and capacity to generate revenue for the community, will play an essential role in mitigating the negative impacts of Pickering NGS s decommissioning Human Health Normal Operations The PWU supports CNSC staff s conclusion that OPG s assessment of the effects of the project on the health and safety of workers and members of the public during normal operations demonstrates that the project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures. Directly or indirectly, any issue in relation to potential adverse environmental impact from the construction and operation of the facility will also cause a potential adverse 7

9 impact on the safety and health of PWU-represented workers at Darlington. Whether arising from the design, condition, or operation of equipment, or from work policies, processes or practices, any deficiency which creates the potential of a significant adverse environmental impact will be felt first by PWU members. The PWU has no interest in, and refuses to permit its members to become canaries in a nuclear coal mine. It is because of this convergence of safety interests between the industry s employees and the general public that the PWU believes that whatever it can do to improve worker safety and health will almost certainly improve public safety, health, and the environment generally, as well. This is why we feel it is appropriate in these submissions to approach nuclear safety from the workers perspective. It is what the PWU knows best, and where it can add the most value to the JRP s deliberations. The health and safety of the PWU s members on the job has been the one issue above all others that has dominated the PWU s focus throughout its more than 60-year history. By the time nuclear generation began in the mid-1960s, the Union already had a deeply embedded health and safety culture that was able to guide it through the forest of new and unfamiliar occupational health hazards. One of the Union s beacons is the principle that workplaces must be made as healthy and safe as possible that people should not have to die for a living, or have their lives shortened, or endure pain and suffering that could be avoided. The PWU has been very aggressive on nuclear safety issues from the very beginning of Ontario Hydro s nuclear program. That focus remains to this day. Nuclear Safety Today The CNSC is well aware of how open, self-critical and exacting the nuclear operating culture is at OPG. The CNSC deals regularly with senior workers who are among the most knowledgeable in their disciplines in the world. 8

10 Through the PWU s research, education, collective bargaining and activism in this area, the PWU has contributed very significantly to those measurable improvements made in nuclear safety over the last three decades. In conjunction with OPG, the PWU has put in place a comprehensive scheme whereby safety and health issues are monitored, evaluated, and managed. This framework is enforced through workplace policies, collective agreement provisions, licence requirements, and legislative and regulatory requirements. Training From the PWU s perspective, there are a number of key elements to the establishment and maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace. Training is chief among those safeguards. It is the PWU s view that the present nuclear operations and maintenance training regimes are coherent, comprehensive and effective. In particular: the training required to work at a nuclear facility is very extensive and the programs are systematic. All procedures are prepared and independently reviewed before they are put into operation. All the work processes are controlled. Re-qualification programs ensure skills maintenance and upgrading to meet changing conditions; all workers are required to learn and demonstrate knowledge of the hazards of radiation exposure as an integral part of employment initiation and subsequent training. They are taught to monitor and minimize their own exposure and that of their fellow workers before being allowed on the job or to supervise others; it takes eight to twelve years of training and experience to become an Authorized Nuclear Operator in charge of running a reactor; 9

11 there are typically several reviews underway concurrently that measure performance, procedures, and personnel; and the CNSC carries out audits of training programs and sets written and simulator-based examinations of key operating staff. In addition, the PWU independently conducts health and safety training for worker committee members and other health and safety activists. Besides the standard subjects, much of this training focuses on criticism and analysis of perceived gaps in the safety infrastructure and how to impart additional safety information to fellow workers. In summary, nuclear worker training programs in Ontario are comprehensive and worker performance is continuously monitored and frequently tested not only by OPG management but also by the CNSC itself. Nevertheless, the PWU is always striving, in conjunction with OPG, to improve employee training. Safety Concerns on the Job Training is the starting point of nuclear safety. The next question is: what can individual workers do with their training and experience when potential safety issues arise in the workplace? There are several ways for nuclear station workers to address any concerns they may have regarding operational safety: i. Direct Communication with Supervisors There are continuous opportunities for workers to raise safety concerns through daily discussions and work planning sessions with supervisors. For example, pre-job briefings are regular events in which supervisors and workers discuss all aspects of a job before it is undertaken. All safety concerns are discussed in detail. As well, beyond 10

12 these formal discussions, workers are instructed and encouraged to bring any safety concern to their supervisor immediately. ii. Significant Condition Report ( SCR ) Any worker can call up an SCR form at a station computer terminal and submit a report of his or her concern. SCRs are typically submitted if a concern has not been satisfactorily resolved in a worker s discussion with a supervisor, but could be submitted even before such discussions. SCRs that are not resolved to the worker s satisfaction ultimately end up on the agenda of the local Joint Health and Safety Committee. iii. The Right to Refuse Unsafe Work Employees can refuse to do work they feel is unsafe, and have done so. Most such refusals are resolved at the first stage. Failure to resolve the worker s concern at the first stage triggers a formal inspection and documentation process. iv. The Right to Shut Down Unsafe Work PWU Joint Health and Safety Committee members have the right to shut down unsafe jobs. This right is enshrined in the PWU/OPG Collective Agreement. Health and Safety Committees The health and safety structure that the PWU and OPG have in place is the most expansive and inclusive framework to be found in any industry. The main features of the framework are joint health and safety committees, which are described below. i. Local Joint Health & Safety Committee ( JHSC ) 11

13 The JHSC is the centerpiece of the PWU and OPG health and safety infrastructure. It is a committee mandated by law on which the PWU appoints six of the twelve members. The PWU representatives are assisted by the local PWU leadership as well as PWU Staff. The following additional health and safety committees have been agreed to by the PWU and OPG through collective bargaining: 1. Joint Policy Committee on Health and Safety Members of this committee consist of the leadership from the Unions and OPG. The committee s roles include: developing joint policies and agreements on health and safety issues; establishing working committees and task groups to address priority issues; and identifying, evaluating and making recommendations on key health and safety problems/issues, both existing and emerging. 2. Joint Health and Safety Working Committee This committee consists of the Director of Corporate Safety for OPG, Director of Wellness for OPG, two PWU Staff Officers and two representatives from the Society of Energy Professionals. The role of this committee is to: carry out the work programs as per the joint Policy Committee; and function as a resource for the local JHSC. 3. Joint Committee on Radiation Protection The PWU participates in a number of permanent committees with members of OPG management with the purpose of addressing radiation protection issues. One example of this is the Joint Committee on Radiation Protection. This 12

14 Committee is enshrined in the PWU/OPG Collective Agreement. Its purpose is to review radiation protection performance and to provide recommendations to the station general manager with respect to employee and public safety in relation to the radiation safety program. ii. PWU Health & Safety Committee support The PWU Health and Safety Staff Officer is required to meet with the local Chief Stewards and PWU JHSC members at OPG Nuclear sites on a quarterly basis. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure that the local JHSC members are kept updated on issues from the OPG Joint Working Committee and to assist with any current issues that the local JHSC members bring forward for discussion. iii. PWU/OPG Nuclear Corporate Health & Safety Committee This committee was recently put in place to expedite health and safety issues not resolved by the local JHSCs as well as to look at Safety initiatives across the OPG Nuclear Sites. The PWU Health and Safety Staff Officer and a PWU Executive Representative meet with the OPG Nuclear Safety Director and the OPG Site Safety Managers on a regular basis. iv. Summary The PWU is confident that the mechanisms are already in place to ensure that the new Darlington facility is built, maintained, and operated in a manner which protects the safety and health of the people who work there and the general public. The measures discussed above permit workers and their representatives to ensure that safety and health issues are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. Most importantly, from the perspective of this proceeding, the same mechanisms which provide for the safety and health of employees on a day-to-day basis will ensure that the NND Project will not adversely affect the general public or the environment Human Health Malfunctions and Accidents 13

15 The PWU s members are a highly skilled workforce with a proven record of more than 35 years of safe and reliable nuclear performance while protecting the environment, workers and members of the public. The PWU agrees with CNSC staff s conclusion that, based on the information provided by OPG regarding risks to the health and safety of workers and the public during accidents and malfunctions, the NND Project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures Malfunctions and Accidents Reactor Based The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that, at this early stage in the licensing process, the information presented by the OPG meets the objectives for the review of accidents and malfunctions involving the reactor for Environmental Assessment purposes. The PWU also endorses the CNSC staff s commitment to review compliance with all applicable safety goals as part of the application for a license to construct phase of the process Malfunctions and Accidents Out of Core and Criticality The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that, at this early stage in the licensing process, the information presented by the OPG meets the objectives for the review of accidents and malfunctions occurring outside the reactor for Environmental Assessment purposes. The PWU also endorses the CNSC staff s commitment to review compliance with all applicable safety goals as part of the application for a license to construct phase of the process Malfunctions and Accidents Conventional and Malevolent Acts 14

16 The security for the NND Project will be provided by PWU members. These security professionals are highly trained, highly skilled and diligent to the task. The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that, based on the information provided by OPG, the EIS is sufficient to identify potential consequences of Conventional Accidents and Malfunctions for Environmental Assessment purposes. F. APPLICATION FOR LICENCE TO PREPARE SITE - THE PWU PERSPECTIVE The PWU supports the CNSC staff s conclusions regarding the individual aspects of OPG s Application for License to Prepare Site ( ALPS ). The CNSC staff examined the appropriate issues, with diligence and care, and they reached the correct conclusions. The PWU also hopes to assist the panel by sharing its perspective regarding certain of the specific issues addressed by the CNSC staff. For ease of reference, these submissions again use the numbered topic headings applied by the CNSC staff in its submissions. 4.2 Human Performance Management The PWU s members are a highly skilled and experienced workforce who are proud of their role in ensuring the safe and effective operation of Ontario s nuclear power generation facilities. The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that OPG s proposed measures for personnel qualifications and competencies are sufficient to meet the applicable requirements under subsection 12(1)(b) of the General Nuclear Safety and Control Regulations, SOR/ of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, S.C. 1997, c. 9 ( NSCA ). 15

17 4.8 Conventional Health and Safety As discussed in more detail in earlier sections of these submissions, the PWU s main focus is the health and safety of its members. The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s conclusion that OPG s proposed measures for occupational health and safety are sufficient to meet the applicable requirements under subsection 3(f) of the Class I Nuclear Facilities Regulations, SOR/ of the NSCA. G. THE PWU SUPPORTS THE CNSC STAFF S DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The PWU agrees with the CNSC staff s overall conclusions that the NND Project is unlikely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, that it satisfies the applicable regulatory expectations, and that OPG is qualified to carry out the activities authorized by the license to prepare the site and that OPG will, in carrying out that activity, make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons and the maintenance of national security. The CNSC staff s conclusions are based on the requirement that all of the mitigation measures and CNSC staff recommendations are implemented. The PWU considers the CNSC staff s recommendations to be prudent and appropriate, and as a result, supports this approach. The PWU and its members will work cooperatively with OPG to ensure that all mitigation measures and recommendation responses are implemented efficiently and completely. H. CONCLUSION It is natural that people have concerns about the safety of nuclear operations in Ontario, particularly those who live near nuclear sites. Their concerns must always be 16

18 addressed, never dismissed. The importance of nuclear safety and its impact on the environment transcends all other considerations. It is nonetheless a fact that Ontario s nuclear safety record is outstanding. No member of the public has ever been harmed during the entire history of Ontario s nuclear operations. Notwithstanding this outstanding safety record, for which PWU members can take a substantial portion of the credit, the PWU will not become complacent because it cannot afford to. Our members training, our members control mechanisms, and the PWU s very culture as a union ensures that safety is now and always will be our paramount concern. PWU members are the front lines. By protecting themselves, PWU members protect everyone else. That is why the PWU s members can say without fear of contradiction that no one cares more about nuclear safety than they do. As long as the PWU has the tools to do so, it will promote and enforce the very highest standards of safety in its workplaces. Anything less is unacceptable and the PWU looks to the public, who benefit as well, for their wholehearted support for its efforts to continuously improve nuclear safety. It is from this perspective, and for the reasons expressed above, that the PWU submits that the NND Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and that all criteria for the license to prepare the site are met _2 17