{"id":18495,"date":"2018-03-29T11:39:54","date_gmt":"2018-03-29T15:39:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cna.ca\/?post_type=news&p=18495"},"modified":"2020-03-10T13:55:00","modified_gmt":"2020-03-10T17:55:00","slug":"remarks-to-the-house-of-commons-standing-committee-on-the-environment-and-sustainable-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cna.ca\/fr\/2018\/03\/29\/remarks-to-the-house-of-commons-standing-committee-on-the-environment-and-sustainable-development\/","title":{"rendered":"OBSERVATIONS PRESENT\u00c9ES AU COMIT\u00c9 PERMANENT DE L\u2019ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU D\u00c9VELOPPEMENT DURABLE DE LA CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES"},"content":{"rendered":"

Observations par Dr. John Barrett, pr\u00e9sident et chef de la direction, Association nucl\u00e9aire canadienne
\nau Comit\u00e9 permanent de l’environnement et du d\u00e9veloppement durable de la chambre des communes
\nle 17 november 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thank you Chair, my name is John Barrett and I am the President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. With me today is Liam Mooney, Vice President, Safety, Health, Environment Quality and Regulatory Relations with Cameco Corporation<\/p>\n

The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) has approximately 100 members representing over 60,000 Canadians employed directly, or indirectly, in uranium mining and exploration, fuel processing, electricity generation, and the production and advancement of nuclear medicine.<\/p>\n

Today, nuclear energy produces approximately 20% of Canada\u2019s non-emitting clean electricity, including 63% of Ontario\u2019s electricity. Of note, when the Ontario government committed to phasing out coal generation across the province, a major part of this commitment was made possible through the refurbishment of 6 reactors., Looking to the future, nuclear energy will play an increasingly important role in the overall energy mix portfolio as well as in nuclear medicine, advanced manufacturing and electronics.<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s nuclear industry also works closely with Indigenous peoples and communities to not only enable proactive engagement but also create mutually-beneficial opportunities. \u00a0As one example, working closely with Indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan for decades on environmental stewardship, community investment, employment, education and training and contracting opportunities, Cameco has demonstrated the power of partnerships in improving the economic and social well-being for communities and the benefits of working together to bring about real change.<\/p>\n

I want to preface our feedback by first highlighting that the concept of \u2018cumulative impact\u2019 is not only a key issue with respect to the environment, but also with respect to investment in Canada. Large energy projects require large amounts of capital. Capital is fluid and investors do not like uncertainty. Any new legislation, no matter how well intentioned creates uncertainty.<\/p>\n

With this in mind, the CNA would like to offer the following comments and amendments for your consideration on Bill C-69:<\/p>\n

Joint Panels<\/p>\n

The Bill proposes that a single government agency be responsible for impact assessment reviews. In the case of the nuclear industry, the Bill only provides for the option of an agency led Joint Panel Review. ile Joint Panels are not new (we have had joint panels in the past) the CNA does not believe this will be an improvement over the current process.<\/p>\n

Most of the potential impacts considered in relation to nuclear projects are related to radiation protection and international commitments on safeguards and non-proliferation That work must be overseen by an agency with significant and specialized scientific expertise. The CNSC is the only place in government with that expertise. The CNA believes that assessments should remain at the CNSC as the most efficient or effective way of conducting reviews.<\/p>\n

As a full-life cycle regulator, the CNSC licensing regime and regulatory framework already covers the entire life-cycle of the project and is subject to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its regulations. This allows the CNSC to not only conduct the IA in the planning phase of the project but also to ensure that monitoring programs and follow up conditions required by IA are directly integrated into the licensing process throughout the various stages of the projects. Our industry is unique and the CNSC uniquely has the expertise to best manage our projects.<\/p>\n

Designated Project List<\/p>\n

Bill C69 makes provisions for a Designated Project List to be created by regulation. This list determines what projects are subject to review by the new agencies and \u2013 by default – what projects will be left to be reviewed by the life-cycle regulator in the case of the nuclear industry. This makes it difficult to fully consider the impact and consequences of the Impact assessment Agency without fulling understanding what projects the IAA will apply to.<\/p>\n

The CNA believes that a facility or project should undergo one impact assessment for its lifecycle. As drafted, Section 43 could be interpreted as to require an IA for any activity at a facility regulated under the Nuclear Safety Control Act. Maintenance, technological and capital upgrades are fully regulated by the lifecycle regulator, provincial regulators or other federal authorities and there is no need for a new IA. This needs to be clarified.<\/p>\n

In addition, many of our sites are large with significant space for new facilities, including new reactors and research facilities that could require an IA under the new agency. Most nuclear sites have undergone full environmental assessments have had continuous environmental monitoring and their environmental impact is well understood. If a new project were to occur on one of those existing sites, it should not require a full IA but rather an assessment of the delta between what has already been done and is now required. In our view, that delta could best be done by the life-cycle regulator.<\/p>\n

Timelines<\/p>\n

CNA members also have significant concerns over the proposed timelines. The CNA understands and appreciates the government intentions with an early planning phase but we are skeptical of its potential effectiveness.<\/p>\n

As the early planning phase occurs after the proponent has provided an initial project description, the proponent will have already undertaken stakeholder engagement to ensure the business case and to have some degree of confidence that issues can be mitigated. The CNA believes that the current process already allows for the important, early input community engagement from local communities, indigenous groups and public stakeholders.<\/p>\n

In addition to the uncertainty caused by creating a new agency run early engagement process, Bill C69 dramatically increases the scope of assessment by adding several new elements of review. While the criteria, aims and goals of environmental assessment are well understood and measurable, there is a great deal of uncertainty around some of the new elements of assessment. We want to work with the government to provide greater definition to how the various elements are weighted in decision making. Are all elements weighted equally? Is there a minimum level that must be met?<\/p>\n

Answers to these questions will help proponents factor in these elements in their project description and in early engagement with stakeholders.<\/p>\n

Our members also have concerns over how closure will be achieved with respect to issues raised through the review process. It is our view that without some decision making that allows closure on contentious issues the new IA process will simply add uncertainty, increase timelines, create additional work with minimal benefits for the project and result in multiple legal challenges<\/p>\n

Scoping<\/p>\n

One of the specific amendments that the CNA would like to propose is to the multiple scoping phases in the proposed process. The planning phase was intended in part to improve certainty and predictability by determining the requirements the proponent would have to meet early in the process. In our view, the Bill\u2019s process does not achieve that goal.<\/p>\n

The proposed Bill sets out an initial scoping by the agency as informed by federal authorities, all other jurisdictions, the public and Indigenous groups. However, the Bill also allows for two additional scoping phases \u2013 one at the sole discretion of the agency and one by the review panel, which is appointed later. These final two potential scoping phases are well into the process and could change the scope of the project after the proponent has spent years and millions of dollars to comply with the original scoping.<\/p>\n

For review panel reviews, a \u201cone project, one review\u201d process can only occur if the scoping stage is coordinated amongst the Agency, the review panel and all federal regulators as well as harmonized with provincial or other jurisdictional requirements. For this to occur two overarching amendments must occur:<\/p>\n