Présentation de. Presentation from. L Association canadienne du droit de l environnement. The Canadian Environmental Law Association PMD 14-P1.

Transcription

1 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes PMD 14-P1.16A File / dossier : Date: Edocs: Presentation from The Canadian Environmental Law Association Présentation de L Association canadienne du droit de l environnement In the Matter of In the Matter of Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. OPG s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Installation de stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint September 2014 septembre 2014

2 Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Waste CELA s Commissioned Report Canadian Environmental Law Association Theresa McClenaghan & Tanya I. Markvart Presentation to Joint Review Panel

3 About CELA CELA was federally incorporated in 1970 as a not for profit organization dedicated to using and improving laws to protect the environment. CELA is also an Ontario Legal Aid clinic with a mandate for client representation, advice, law reform, public legal education and community outreach. Our priorities presently focus on environmental equity, environmental health, safe and sustainable energy, safe and sustainable water, community planning and sustainability and local to global issues. 2

4 Context for CELA s submission to the Joint Panel Review CELA s focus in this presentation is on the report commissioned by CELA with the assistance of the Intervenor Funding Program. The objective of the commissioned report was to assess OPG s response to Information Request EIS In this request, the JRP asked OPG to undertake an Alternative Means Risk Analysis (AMRA). Specifically, the commissioned report analyses the manner in which OPG, in the AMRA, addresses: 1. contribution to sustainability, 2. conceptual consideration of alternative sites; and 3. the precautionary principle in its AMRA analysis 3

5 Summary of Commissioned Report Serious questions remain about how the approach and methods used in the risk analysis relate to and fulfill the contribution to sustainability. The conceptual consideration of a DGR in granite bedrock does not meet international standards or reflect international EA experience. By not requiring an investigation of alternative sites, the JRP has not addressed OPG s insufficient level of attention to the location issue. This risks giving the public the impression that the panel considers OPG s previous investments in the Bruce location a valid basis for its selection. OPG must describe how the three criteria (risk avoidance, adaptive management capacity, and preparation for surprise) were applied and the public must have a clear understanding of how each alternative would perform in relation to the three criteria. 4

6 1. Contribution to Sustainability Information Request EIS asked OPG to consider contribution to sustainability in the risks to safety case section of OPG s AMRA. In a previous submission and presentation to the JRP in 2013, CELA focussed on a commissioned report (Gaudreau et al., 2013) that explained the steps OPG should have undertaken to fulfill the contribution-tosustainability requirement. 5

7 1. Contribution to Sustainability Previous Submission Steps OPG should have undertaken include: setting out a comprehensive set of sustainability-based evaluation criteria; identifying the potentially reasonable options, including alternatives to and alternative means ; showing how the criteria have been applied in the comparative evaluation of the options; and Showing, with clear justification in light of the criteria, how the proposed project was selected as the preferred alternative. 6

8 1. Contribution to Sustainability Previous Submission Throughout the EIS, OPG did not incorporate a comparative evaluation of the relative contributions to sustainability of the alternative means. Alternative means analysis did not extend to matters in Sections 7 (Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects), 8 (Malfunctions, Accidents and Malevolent Acts), and 9 (Long-Term Safety of the DGR) of the EIS. OPG should have applied a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria in determining the most appropriate option. including how all alternative means would perform in all stages of the project in relation to all potential impacts. 7

9 1. Contribution to Sustainability Transparent, Systematic and Comprehensive In the JRP s requested AMRA, the OPG had an opportunity to fulfill the EIS requirement for sustainability considerations in a transparent, systematic and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, the OPG analysis reduced sustainability considerations to a simple table (Table 1 in OPG s response to Information Request EIS ). 8

10 1. Contribution to Sustainability Transparent, Systematic and Comprehensive Table 1 does not address critical matters related to: boom and bust effects, human health and safety, short- and long-term economic costs, and cumulative environmental impacts. Table 1 also fails to illustrate how OPG s sustainability criteria were applied throughout the AMRA. 9

11 1. Contribution to Sustainability Sustainability Concerns in Decisionmaking Process Sustainability should have been conceived as an overarching concept from the outset. OPG should have demonstrated how it used sustainability criteria in a systematic way throughout the evaluations to compare options. 10

12 1. Contribution to Sustainability Sustainability Concerns in Decisionmaking Process With respect to the OPG s AMRA, serious questions still remain about: how the approach used in the relative risk analysis relate to and fulfill the contribution to sustainability requirement; how sustainability criteria were incorporated into the risk analysis; how sustainability considerations influenced the risk analysis findings; and how the results of the risk analysis bear on the extent to which each option would contribute to sustainability. 11

13 1. Contribution to Sustainability Conclusion As it stands, the public has no clear understanding of how OPG s consideration of sustainability influenced the AMRA and design of the project. Critical uncertainties remain with respect to how a preferred site is selected as the best option in terms of net social, economic, and ecological benefits to society over millennia. 12

14 2. Conceptual Consideration of Alternative Sites Previous Submission CELA previously emphasized that siting is fundamental in the geological disposal of long-lived radioactive waste. A critical issue in OPG s consideration of alternative means was that a systematic comparative evaluation of alternative sites was not undertaken. In its request, the JRP stipulated the AMRA should include a conceptual DGR in granite bedrock, and OPG should use the extensive data and analyses available within the EA performed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) for the Seaborne Panel. 13

15 2. Conceptual Consideration of Alternative Sites DGR in Granite Bedrock The conceptual consideration of a DGR in granite bedrock is inadequate. Authorities hold that the most important issue in siting is the long-term safety of the site in relation to the geosphere. International standards recommend sites should be selected after the investigation of a large region, the rejection of unsuitable sites, and the screening and comparison of the remaining sites. A selection should be made from several sites identified at the start of a siting process on the basis of the geological setting and other factors. 14

16 2. Conceptual Consideration of Alternative Sites AECL Data and Analysis A conceptual consideration of a DGR in granite bedrock does not meet international standards. To overcome this issue, the JRP asked OPG to use available AECL data and analyses. However, the AMRA does not clearly indicate which AECL data was used, as well as where and how it was used. Thus, it remains unclear how these sources influenced the comparative risk assessment. 15

17 2. Conceptual Consideration of Alternative Sites Failure to Investigate Regardless, failure to request an actual investigation of alternative sites: 1. represents an insupportable accommodation of OPG s initial conceptual consideration of alternative locations, and 2. disregards OPG s unjustifiable rationale for focusing its original alternative means investigation on sites within the Bruce location. OPG s rationale for not evaluating other sites rests primarily on the willing host criterion. 16

18 2. Conceptual Consideration of Alternative Sites Conclusion By not requiring an investigation of alternative sites, the JRP: has not addressed OPG s insufficient level of attention to the location issue in the EIS process. risks giving the public the impression that it considers OPG s previous investments in the Bruce location (or the willing host criterion) a valid basis for the selection of the Bruce site for the DGR. 17

19 3. Precautionary Principle Uncertainty in OPG s AMRA OPG s AMRA is replete with scientific uncertainties. The report: in general, describes and compares the hypothetical granite DGR to the DGR in the sedimentary rock of the Bruce site without presenting sufficient data or sources of information. admits that the details of a DGR in granite rock are difficult to specify because there has been little characterization of a specific site in the Canadian Shield in Ontario. In an attempt to address this issue, the analysis rests on assumptions that skew the results towards favouring the Bruce location. 18

20 3. Precautionary Principle Importance of Precaution The EIS Guidelines reiterate the importance of precaution as one of the guiding principles for the assessment. The Guidelines provide minimum expectations in how OPG establishes it applied the precautionary principle in the design of the DGR project. The Guidelines oblige OPG to evaluate and compare the alternative means of carrying out the project in light of three generic criteria: 1. risk avoidance, 2. adaptive management capacity, and 3. preparation for surprise. 19

21 3. Precautionary Principle OPG s Consideration of Criteria In requesting the AMRA, OPG was provided an opportunity to appropriately consider these criteria. Unfortunately, OPG has reduced its consideration to a simple table (Table 1 in OPG s response to IR EIS ). It appears the information was added to the Table after the risk assessment was completed. There is no explanation of the information in the Table and it overlooks important concerns related to risk avoidance, adaptive management capacity, and preparation for surprise. 20

22 3. Precautionary Principle OPG s Consideration of Criteria At a minimum, OPG must describe: How the three criteria were applied as a framework for evaluating and comparing the alternative means, considering a range of plausible scenarios including accidents, malfunctions and malevolent acts; and How each alternative performs in relation to the three criteria, considering a range of plausible scenarios including accidents, malfunctions and malevolent acts. 21

23 3. Precautionary Principle Conclusion Any conclusion about the most suitable option that emerges from the AMRA must explain why it was selected as the preferred option, giving explicit attention to risk avoidance, adaptive management capacity, and preparation for surprise. 22

24 Contact Information Theresa McClenaghan Executive Director Canadian Environmental Law Association 130 Spadina Ave., Suite 301 Toronto, ON M5V 2L

25 24