Tag: CRED-NB Action

ROTHESAY, NB – In a long hoped-for decision, the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has begun reviewing a formal request from the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) to subject the small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) proposed by NB Power for Point Lepreau on the Bay of Fundy to a full federal Impact Assessment (IA). A final decision from the Minister of Environment, Steven Guilbeault, is anticipated by January 2, 2023.

“This is a victory for citizens seeking oversight and good process,” said Louise Comeau, director of climate change and energy solutions at the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

NB Power has proposed to build the ARC-100 – a small modular nuclear reactor that is a “first of its kind,” according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The reactor design includes using liquid sodium as a coolant, a material that reacts violently on contact with air or water. Sodium-cooled nuclear reactors have never been successfully commercialized. In other countries, attempts to do so have resulted in major environmental cleanups that were more costly than the original reactor builds.

Despite the potential for significant environmental impacts, the ARC-100 SMR is currently exempt from IA. This exemption (due to successful nuclear industry lobbying) means there would be no comprehensive examination of the project’s risks, costs and benefits, and downstream impacts before a decision is made to site one in New Brunswick.

“As early as June of next year, NB Power wants a licence from the nuclear regulator to proceed with site prep for the ARC nuclear reactor. There are many challenges, however, a licence can’t address that an impact assessment can,” noted Ann McAllister, spokesperson for CRED-NB “For instance, what is the economic feasibility of the project? And, given that the ARC SMR has a sodium coolant – meaning its wastes will become a new class of highly radioactive and corrosive waste – what is its impact on existing radioactive waste storage plans? These are just a few of the critical issues the nuclear regulator won’t be weighing in on in deciding whether or not to grant a site prep licence.”

Building SMRs such as the ARC-100 on the Bay of Fundy at Point Lepreau is strongly opposed by both the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group and the Wolastoq Grand Council. Both organizations support the designation request by CRED-NB.

The letter of support from the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group for the designation request noted that the planned location of New Brunswick’s small modular nuclear reactor experiment is within the homeland, Peskotomuhkatihkuk. In his letter to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, Chief Hugh Akagi said his organization “strongly supports CRED’s request and trust that you will designate the project for an IA because both the Treaty relationship as well as Canada’s commitments to Indigenous peoples dictates it should be so.”

In their letter of support, the Wolastoq Grand Council noted that they have, on many occasions, stated their concerns relating to the SMR planned for their Homeland and the long-term effects. Grand Chief spasaqsit possesom – Ron Tremblay asked for their ‘Resolution on Nuclear energy developments and nuclear waste use and disposal on Wolastokuk’ to be included in the request. The Resolution quotes Article 29(2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which states that “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the homelands of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”

“If the Minister agrees to grant CRED-NB’s request for an impact assessment, it would be the first nuclear project in Canada to be subject to the Impact Assessment Act,” noted Kerrie Blaise, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. “We’ve seen a gradual rollback of the number and type of nuclear projects subject to impact assessments, despite knowing IAs improve the fairness of decisions and the public’s participation rights.”

The Minister now has 90 days to respond to the request to designate the SMR project for an impact assessment. The IAAC will also put forth a recommendation to the Minister which will include “concerns expressed from the public … and Indigenous groups.” A project-specific webpage has been launched by the Agency, which will be updated as the review proceeds.

-30-

For more information:

The CRED-NB request on July 4, 2022 to federal Environment Minister Guilbeault to designate the project for a federal Impact Assessment is HERE. The most recent response from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on October 5, 2022 is HERE.

For comment:

Ann McAllister, spokesperson

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)

Phone: 506-898-1821

Email: annmcallister72@gmail.com

Louise Comeau, director of climate change and energy solutions

Conservation Council of New Brunswick

Phone: 506-238-0355

Email: louise.comeau@conservationcouncil.ca

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development – New Brunswick (CRED-NB)

Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA)

For immediate release – June 22, 2022

Public trust in nuclear regulator eroded: CNSC grants 10-year licence to operate nuclear reactor on the Bay of Fundy

ROTHESAY, NB – The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) say trust in Canada’s nuclear regulator is further eroded after news today that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) granted NB Power a 10-year licence to operate its Point Lepreau nuclear reactor.

The current 5-year licence expired at the end of June. During the life of the nuclear plant, the average licence length was less than 3 years. 

CRED-NB and CELA believe that a longer licence period is a blatant attempt to reduce community engagement and involvement, and that shorter licences and more frequent hearings responsive to the nuclear operations would have better served the public interest.

The need for frequent licensing hearings, including a statutory public right to be heard, was at the crux of the oral submission by CELA and CRED-NB in May at the CNSC hearings to hear arguments about NB Power’s licence request.

The CNSC announcement came just one day after National Indigenous Peoples Day. At the May hearings, Indigenous groups in New Brunswick said a longer licence period disrespects the rights of Indigenous people to care for the land in their unceded territory, by extending the nuclear operations and the production of toxic nuclear waste on the site.

The 10-licence renewal period more than triples the average licence length and time between public hearings on Lepreau’s operation. This longer licence period leaves unaddressed many concerns raised by our joint written intervention and our presentation at the May CNSC hearings in Saint John.

The 10-year period is, however, more appropriate than the 25 years requested by NB Power or the 20 years recommended by the initial CNSC staff report. We are aware of one precedent set by the 10-year licence renewal for Pickering nuclear plant in August 2018.

However, the events of the past 25 years – including the recent military attack on a nuclear plant in the Ukraine and the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011 – demonstrate that our understanding of the dangers of nuclear power plants and the substantial risk they pose to human health, safety and the environment are continuously evolving. 

The public is also concerned about NB Power’s plans to build two types of experimental “small modular nuclear reactors” (SMRs) on the Lepreau site within the next 10 years.

“This longer license ignores that SMRs could present new risks, and does not commit NB Power to a new public hearing to maintain its license as these new risks are added to the site”, said Gail Wylie, spokesperson for CRED-NB.

CELA counsel Kerrie Blaise said that shorter licence terms and more regular licencing hearings do not remove this risk, but they do allow for the “compulsory re-evaluation of these risks stemming from continued nuclear plant operations.”

The CNSC states it will hold a mid-point meeting no later than 2027, when a comprehensive update will be provided and public comment will be invited. CRED-NB and CELA remain of the view that a meeting is a discretionary process and is not a stand-in for a public hearing. We believe this 2027 meeting should adhere to the same procedural and regulatory requirements as a public hearing licensing process. In this format the CNSC can opine on whether to suspend or amend the licence. 

CRED-NB and CELA continue to uphold the democratic importance of regular licence hearings, as a credible venue for public scrutiny and active public engagement in nuclear oversight.

In turn, this engagement can build public trust in NB Power’s operations at the Lepreau nuclear facility and build commitment of staff and management to honour that public trust.

The comprehensive CRED-NB/CELA written intervention to the Lepreau licence hearing is available HERE.

The CNSC Summary Record of Decision on June 22 is available HERE.

-30-

For further information:

Gail Wylie, spokesperson, CRED-NB

506-454-3181

wylie1@nb.sympatico.ca

Kerrie Blaise, Canadian Environmental Law Association

416-960-2284 ext 7224

kerrie@cela.ca

CRED-NB: What we stand for

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
PO Box 4561 • Rothesay, NB E2E 5X3

by Gail Wylie, lead for the CRED-NB intervention to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

So now we wait… Will the Lepreau nuclear reactor licence renewal be for 5 years (same as current), 10 years (one precedent recently), 20 years (recommended by CNSC staff), or 25 years (requested by NB Power?) The current licence ends June 30, so a decision is expected soon.

This is a brief report ‘window’ on my experience attending the CNSC hearings for NB Power’s application for a 25-year renewal of its licence to operate the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor. The hearings were held May 10 to 12 in Saint John.

One aspect highlighted was the faulty process for the hearings – i.e., not adequate provisions to operate as a true ‘Tribunal.’ A key missing element: no provision for the intervenors to cross-examine the proponent (NB Power) or CNSC staff specialists.

An example that highlights this problem was the discussion of the Lepreau reactor’s ‘ingestion planning zone,’ the area where farmers should know that if a serious radiological event occurs at the reactor, they need to shelter their animals, not feed them local fodder exposed to radiation, and not sell produce in the exposed area. 

The joint written (60 page) and oral (10 minute) intervention from CRED-NB and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), included the recommendation that the designated ingestion planning zone follow the guidance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that sets standards for nuclear operations worldwide. 

For a reactor with Lepreau’s level of megawatts thermal, the IAEA recommends an ingestion planning zone of 300 km radius around the reactor. This would include half of PEI, two thirds of Nova Scotia, all of New Brunswick and a significant portion of Maine. NB Power, however, has set the ingestion planning zone at only 57 km.

When a Commissioner queried this discrepancy, NB Power stated that the IAEA recommendation was meant for only ‘light water’ reactors, and that operators of other kinds of reactors like the Lepreau CANDU heavy water reactor are to develop their own zone analysis. The Commissioner did not follow up, and our team had no opportunity to ask what methodology was used to determine the 57 km designated zone or to question where this IAEA guidance on variation was suggested. 

We later consulted an independent nuclear expert, who confirmed that the IAEA guidance of 300 km was appropriate also for Lepreau, as the amount of radioactivity is based on the megawatts thermal level, not the type of cooling system.

There was an imbalance in the oral versus written interventions. Of all the written interventions, 143 were against the 25-year licence and less than 100 in support. Everyone who submitted a written document had the option of also making an oral presentation. Of those, 31 were in support versus nine against, many supporters being out of province nuclear operators and organizations with the staff, resources and experience to travel to Saint John to make an oral presentation. 

Many of the industry-related organizations began their presentations with the myth: ‘there is no path to net zero without nuclear.’ Given the flawed process not allowing cross examination, we or other intervenors could not challenge these statements, and the Commissioners chose not to question them. 

Another imbalance existed between comprehensive versus simple oral interventions, all allotted the same 10 minutes speaking time. Our CRED-CELA joint written intervention was professionally researched and reviewed, a 60-page document with 40 recommendations.

Our CELA partner, lawyer Kerrie Blaise, presented her well-prepared script and slide deck highlighting key issues and packing in as much as humanly possible to the 10 minutes! One positive compensation, the Commissioners had obviously read all 60 pages and asked many questions from that content.

The Commissioners came from diverse backgrounds: a lawyer and former Chief of Saugeen First Nation who asked many in-depth questions, a Métis businessman from Thunder Bay asking the more technical and engineering questions, and a medical doctor from Winnipeg who pursued more health issues. The Chair, Rumina Velshi, moved to the CNSC in 2018 from Ontario Power Generation, the public utility that currently has eight nuclear power reactors operating in that province. Her role at OPG involved promoting small modular nuclear reactors.

The video recording of the 3-day hearing is not yet available. The links to the transcripts are below. CRED-CELA presented after lunch on May 11.

May 10:  Canadian Nuclear (nuclearsafety.gc.ca)

May 11:  Transcript of May 11, 2022 Public Hearing (nuclearsafety.gc.ca)

May 12:  Transcript of May 12, 2022 Public Hearing (nuclearsafety.gc.ca)

The CRED-NB website has a blog from each hearing day co-written by CELA and CRED. The May 12 blog, HERE, includes a photo of CRED members and collaborators taken at the end of an exhausting, very intense three-day event. Somehow, we are still smiling – maybe just with relief. (The youngest one is the CELA lawyer, Kerrie Blaise from North Bay, Ontario). 

* This is the third in a series of blogs by CELA and CRED-NB live from the hearing room, as we share reflections and reactions from the nuclear licensing hearing. You can find our blog from Day 1 and 2 here,

SAINT JOHN, NB – Climate change concerns have repeatedly been raised by public intervenors since day 1 of the hearing for NB Power’s application for a 25-year renewal to its operating licence for the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station on the Bay of Fundy. Several intervenors, including CELA and CRED-NB noted that NB Power has not provided enough information about the impact of climate change on the Lepreau plant.

Yesterday, CELA counsel Kerrie Blaise explained that climate change poses unique dangers to Point Lepreau due to its location on the Bay of Fundy. Today, in an exchange following a presentation by the RAVEN project at the University of New Brunswick and member of the CRED-NB core group, experts from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Staff (“CNSC Staff”) and NB Power referenced reports and studies suggesting that the danger of tsunamis and sea level rise is a low safety and security risk for the Lepreau plant. 

However, despite NB Power’s assertions that extreme weather events and sea level rise pose little to no risk to the facility, their licence application and associated studies fail to expressly consider climate change and its potential impacts on Point Lepreau. That’s why CELA and CRED-NB have recommended the Commission deny NB Power’s licence application until site-specific climate impacts have been modelled at least 25 years into the future.

After the exchange, Susan O’Donnell, primary investigator of the RAVEN project, noted that just last week, the CNSC issued a tender for a comprehensive study of the impacts of climate change on nuclear plants in Canada. She recommended to the Commission that after the report is completed, NB Power should be tasked with responding to the issues raised in the report and issue its own report. RAVEN is recommending a 5-year licence renewal period.

Intervenor Margaret McDonald, joining virtually from Fredericton, also raised concerns with climate change and the need for more regular licencing hearings at which the climate monitoring reports could be discussed.

Ann McAllister, a member of CRED-NB and a representative for the Council of Canadians Saint John, intervened to recommend a 5-year licence, rather than a 25-year licence.  Such a long licence would significantly limit public input. She recommended better ongoing monitoring of management practices, especially considering the significant debt that the Lepreau plant has incurred, $3.6 billion of NB Power’s $4.9 billion debt.

Ms. McAllister also raised concerns about plans by NB Power to develop the Moltex reprocessing unit on the Point Lepreau site. She cited reports by US nuclear research institutes and a recent letter by US experts that raised concerns about the weapons proliferation risks of the project.

In a discussion of tritium emissions that ensued, both the CNSC and NB Power minimized the health impact of tritium in well water. A CNSC staff person said: “Tritium in the environment is not a concern to CNSC staff,” and NB Power claimed that the lifetime dose from tritium in well water would be less than the amount received by one chest x-ray.

During a presentation by The Brilliant Energy Institute at Ontario Tech University, the only university in Canada that offers an undergraduate program in nuclear engineering, that intervenor said that enrollment in the program had been dropping. CNSC president Velshi expressed concern at this situation. However, in their intervention, the University of New Brunswick’s Center for Nuclear Energy Research said that they are developing a new degree program in nuclear engineering and, given the significant interest in SMR development in New Brunswick, there is considerable interest in the new program.

The Commission will make a final decision on NB Power’s application by June 30, 2022.

Photo: The teams from the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (Kim Reeder, Chief Hugh Akagi), Leap4wards (Dave Thompson), Council of Canadians Saint John (Ann McAlister), RAVEN (Susan O’Donnell), CRED-NB (Gail Wylie), and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA, Kerrie Blaise). Photo by Mary Milander.