Canada: Court Returns To Panel Environmental Assessment (EA) For Nuclear New Build

Last Updated: October 9 2014
Article by Stanley D. Berger

Stanley D. Berger B.C.L.,L.L.B, Certified Specialist Environmental Law (Mr. Berger was in-house counsel to the proponent, Ontario Power Generation Inc.(OPG), during the public hearing of the EA)

On May 14, 2014, the Federal Court of Canada in a 213 page decision in Greenpeace Canada et al. v Canada et al), returned the environmental assessment (EA) of the Darlington Nuclear New Build Project to "a duly constituted Joint Review Panel" for further consideration and determination. The EA Report was not set aside in its entirety, but until such time as the Panel completed its reconsideration, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Transport Canada had no jurisdiction to issue any authorizations or licences, which would enable the Project to proceed in whole or in part. The reasons for judgment, though based on a federal environmental assessment law which has since been amended in some significant respects, continue to be very important in understanding the respective roles of the reviewing panel, the federal government and its responsible authorities, the methodology for environmental assessment and the place of energy policy in federal environmental assessments.

A. TESTING THE COMPLETENESS OF THE PANEL'S EA REPORT OPG, the proponent, prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which did not propose a single reactor design, but four different technologies based on a "bounding approach" or "plant parameter envelope" (PPE). This approach involves identifying salient design elements of the Project and for each of these elements, applying the value with the greatest potential to result in an adverse effect based on the design options being considered. The opponents to the Project argued that the PPE approach was too conceptual since it wasn't based on a specific reactor technology and deprived any meaningful review of potential environmental effects. The Court disagreed, concluding that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act SC 1992, c.37 (CEAA) contained "no prescriptive method for conducting an assessment." (at par. 185). Since assessments were to be conducted as early as is practicable in the planning stages of a project before irrevocable decisions were made, it would always be a question of fact in an individual project whether a Panel had sufficient information to conduct an EA. The key to answering this factual question was whether the Panel's EA could provide the federal Cabinet with a proper evidentiary foundation to decide whether responsible authorities with licensing powers will be permitted to take steps to enable the project to move forward (at par. 232). "The EA under review here represents the only occasion when democratically elected and accountable federal decision makers will directly make a decision on whether the project should proceed." (at par. 233). While the Panel's role was to apply their expertise to the question of environmental impacts of a project, the Cabinet's role was to determine as a matter of public policy, whether the benefits received from a project were worth the environmental risks identified by the Panel.

Where the necessary thresholds are insufficiently identified and where scientific data is unavailable to arrive at reasonable assessments, the Panel cannot allow licensing authorities like the CNSC to determine at a future time whether certain stages of the Project should proceed. To do so would be to improperly delegate the Panel's responsibility for reporting to Cabinet on the environmental risks with enough information for Cabinet to engage in an informed public policy decision (at par. 382). Under the new CEAA 2012, the two stage process of Panel review and report to elected officials and decision-making by these officials, continues (see Sections 47 and 52).


The Court concluded that there were three parts of the EA Report which didn't meet the above test:

1. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES The failure of the Panel to insist on a bounding scenario analysis for hazardous substance emissions, in particular liquid effluent and storm-water runoff to the surface water environment, and for the sources, types and quantities of non-radioactive wastes to be generated by the project; The Panel had recommended industry standard management practices and that OPG conduct a detailed assessment of predicted effluent releases from the Project, monitor ambient water and sediment quality in receiving waters and that prior to construction, the CNSC establish toxicity testing criteria and a test methodology and test frequency to confirm compliance of storm-water discharges with the Fisheries Act. The Court noted however, that the recommendations did not demonstrate relevant thresholds or standards. Further, no effort was made to bound the Project's effects. For example, Environment Canada (EC) had observed that OPG had used a bounding approach for hydrazine and ammonia, chemicals used in existing and future generation at the existing Darlington facility, but since the detailed design for the New Build was unavailable, there was no way of verifying these estimates and their impact for the New Build. The Court contrasted the assessment for chemical inventories, effluent and storm run-off with the more thorough and compliant analysis by the Panel for tritium levels in drinking water. After reviewing numerous jurisdictions and studies and applying the precautionary principle, the Panel recommended 20 Bequerels per litre in drinking water. The federal Cabinet, upon review of the Panel's report, wasn't prepared to go this far. With clear cut standards before them, Cabinet decided to accept a limit that was simply consistent with the tritium standards imposed by relevant regulatory authorities. This, according to the Court, represented the appropriate two-stage process whereby the Panel, an expert body, evaluated the evidence regarding the Project's likely effects from tritium in drinking water after applying appropriate thresholds and the political decision makers evaluated whether those likely effects were justified in light of "society's chosen level of protection against risk." (at par. 281)

2. SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL The Panel's treatment of the issue of spent nuclear fuel; Three of the four reactor designs under consideration would use enriched fuel in contrast to the natural uranium fuel used in all currently operational CANDU reactors. This introduced elements of criticality control for storage as well as potential heat load issues for dry storage and eventual long -term management. The Court was concerned that while there was a separate federal approvals process for the long term management of such waste under the Nuclear Waste Management Act S.C. 2002 c.23, the process of considering waste from the proposed nuclear new build designs had not begun. Perhaps more importantly, the mere creation of the waste was an aspect of the project which should be placed before the federal Cabinet with the benefit of a proper record in regards to the likely environmental impacts.

The following conclusion by the Court appears however, to be unduly harsh:

i. "The Panel provides no analysis of the feasibility of storing and managing used nuclear fuel at Darlington in perpetuity." (at par. 309)

An important part of the record before the Panel was OPG's 2009 Technical Support Document for Nuclear Waste Management see at par. 6.7.3 The Report stated, in regards to the storage of enriched fuel that:

ii. "Criticality events are prevented by the absence of a moderator and provision of sufficient poison in the basket even if the internal fuel orientations are changed by events. The lack of moderator in the cask is significant since at enrichments below 5% unmoderated criticality is not physically possible under any conditions in the absence of other neutron sources. NRC 2007. In the absence of moderation, experiments and calculations have demonstrated that criticality is not possible at the enrichments currently used in light water reactor fuel.(NRC 2007)"

3. SEVERE COMMON CAUSE ACCIDENTS The Panel's analysis of the effects of a severe common cause accident at the facility was not, but should have been, required at this stage.

The Panel had not analyzed cumulative effects of the existing four reactor units at Darlington and the proposed new nuclear facilities for malfunction and accident scenarios because such effects were considered hypothetical and to have a very low probability of occurring. The Panel simply recommended that prior to construction the CNSC should require OPG to evaluate the cumulative effect of a common-cause severe accident involving all of the nuclear reactors in the site study area to determine if further emergency planning measures were required. The Court concluded that this evaluation should not have been deferred but rather "it had to be conducted as part of the EA so that it could be considered by those with political decision-making power in relation to the Project." (at par.334)


In the EIS Guidelines the Minister of the Environment set out in section 7.1 that OPG should, as the proponent "describe the purpose of the project by defining what is to be achieved by carrying out the project." In 7.2 the directive went on to exclude any assessment of provincial energy policy or alternatives that are contrary to Ontario's formal plans or directives on energy. In the 2012 amendments to CEAA, the "need for and alternatives to the project" are no longer included amongst the scope of factors which the Panel must consider if it determines them to be relevant. However, the successor section 19 (1) (f) CEAA still includes within the mandatory scoping factors "the purpose of the designated project." The opponents to the Project had argued that the Panel had declined its jurisdiction by erroneously following the EIS Guidelines as dispositive of the need issue under CEAA. While the new scoping factors are more limited it could still be argued that a Panel should give more consideration to the purpose of the Project. The Federal Court though, at par. 372 has effectively silenced any such argument:

"The electricity supply mix in Ontario is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. A federal EA should not become an alternative forum for deciding that issue or a back door means of economic regulation: Sharp v Canada (Canadian Transportation Agency above ), 1999 CanLII 9356 (FCA), [1999] 4 FC 363 (FCA at para. 28) Grand Riverkeeper, Labrador Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1520 (CanLII), 2012 FC 1520 above at paras. 53-54."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.