Record of Proceedings, including Reasons for Decisions

CNSC
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
February 16, 2001

In the Matter of Environmental Assessment under the Canadian  Environmental Assessment Act of the Proposed return to service of the Pickering ‘A’ Nuclear Generating Station.

Proponent Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Date February 16, 2001

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Proponent: Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Address/Location: 700 University Avenue, H15, G1

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X6

Purpose: Pickering ‘A’ Nuclear Generating Station Environmental Assessment

Application received: November 24, 1999

Date(s) of hearing: Day 1: October 5, 2000 Day 2 and 3: December 14 and 15, 2000

Day 1:

Date: October 5, 2000

Location: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Public Hearing Room,

280 Slater St., 14th. Fl, Ottawa, Ontario

Members present: A.J. Bishop, Chair

C.R. Barnes

Y.M. Giroux

A.R. Graham

Counsel: A. Nowack

Secretary: G.C. Jack

Recording Secretary: B. Gerestein

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C G. Preston* CMD 00-H29.1

CNSC Staff Document Number

C J. Waddington

C C. Taylor

CMD 00-H29

Intervenor Document Number

C Nuclear Awareness Project, represented by I. Kock*

C Energy Probe Research Foundation*

C A.A. Mohajer*

CMD 00-H29.2

CMD 00-H29.3

CMD 00-H29.4

* Submissions adjourned to December 14, 2000 for consideration.

3

Day 2 and 3:

Dates: December 14 and 15, 2000

Location: Pickering City Council Chambers, One The Esplanade, Pickering,

Ontario

Members present: A.J. Bishop, Chair

C.R. Barnes

Y.M. Giroux

A.R. Graham

L.J. Keen

Counsel: A. Nowack

Secretary: G.C. Jack

Recording Secretary: B. Gerestein

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C See Appendix A

CNSC Staff Document Number

C See Appendix B

Intervenors Document Number

C See Appendix C

4

1) Introduction:

The CNSC regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and

the environment and to respect Canada’s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear

energy.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has requested approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety

Commission (CNSC) to return to service the four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generation

Station ‘A’ (PNGS-A) east of Toronto. The reactors were placed in a shutdown state in late

1997. A condition of the licence requires CNSC approval to operate the reactors at power.

Prior to making a licensing decision on the proposed return to service of PNGS-A, the

Commission is required to make a decision on the results of a screening environmental

assessment of that project prepared pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act(CEAA). The “project” referred to in this document is defined in section 3.1 of Volume 1 of the

Screening Report and includes the activities directly related to the return to service of PNGS-A.

Key purposes of the CEAA are to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive

careful consideration before responsible authorities, such as the CNSC, take actions in connection

with them, and to ensure there is opportunity for public participation in the environmental

assessment process.

2) Decisions:

The Commission, in making its decisions, considered the information contained in the

environmental assessment Screening Report, in related submissions from CNSC staff, OPG and

intervenors at a public hearing held by the Commission, and in comments received from the

public throughout the assessment process. Based on its consideration of the matter, as described

in the sections below :

The Commission decides that the project, taking into account the mitigation measures described

in the Screening Report, is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commission decides that public concerns do not warrant a referral to the Minister of the

Environment for referral of the project to a mediator or review panel.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that it will not refer the project to the Minister for a

referral to a mediator or a review panel.

3) The Environmental Assessment Process

The environmental assessment process undertaken by the CNSC consisted of the following steps,

consistent with CEAA requirements:

5

C CNSC staff established and maintained a Public Registry for the assessment, in

accordance with the CEAA.

– The Public Registry provides public access to all documents related to the assessment.

C CNSC staff notified the other expert federal and provincial government authorities of

the environmental assessment and coordinated their input throughout the assessment.

– CNSC staff sought and coordinated the input of the relevant federal authorities,

including Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and

Department of Fisheries and Oceans in compliance with the CEAA Federal Coordination Regulations. The input of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment was

also sought and obtained.

C CNSC staff prepared a Scope of Assessment document in consultation with the public

and government departments.

– The CEAA provides the CNSC with the discretion and authority to establish the scope

of the project and assessment. CNSC staff notified the public of, and widely circulated

(including on the CNSC web-site), a draft Scope of Assessment document. CNSC

staff sought public comments during a 30-day review period between November 2,

1999 and December 2, 1999. A final Scope of Assessment was available to the public

on January 31, 2000.

C CNSC staff delegated the conduct of technical studies and some of the public

consultation activities which were specified in the Scope of Assessment to the

proponent (OPG).

– The delegation of parts of an environmental assessment to other parties, including the

proponent of the project, is permitted under subsection 17(1) of the CEAA.

C CNSC staff consulted with the public and government departments on a draft

Environmental Assessment Report prepared by OPG.

– CNSC staff widely circulated the draft Environmental Assessment Report for a

60-day public and government review, beginning on May 1, 2000 and ending on

June 30, 2000. The request for comments was widely communicated and copies of the

report were placed in convenient locations throughout the community. Copies of the

environmental assessment documents, and other related documents maintained in the

Public Registry, were provided to key stakeholders and to others on request. In all, 12

written submissions were received on the draft report, containing 584 specific

comments.

C CNSC staff completed the final environmental assessment Screening Report by adding

a comprehensive addendum to the earlier draft Environmental Assessment Report.

6

– CNSC staff reviewed the technical studies and took into consideration all the

comments received on the draft report. A detailed list of how each comment was

considered was added as an appendix to the Screening Report. CNSC staff then

submitted the final Screening Report with its recommendations to the Commission on

September 5, 2000. At the same time, CNSC staff made the final environmental

assessment Screening Report available to the public. This provided the public with

over two months to review the final report and prepare submissions to the Commission

hearing. The final day for receipt of submissions to the hearing was November 14,

2000.

C The Commission conducted a public hearing on the environmental assessment

Screening Report.

– The public hearing was conducted in accordance with hearing procedures under the

Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The hearing began on October 5, 2000 in Ottawa and

continued on December 14, 2000 in the City of Pickering. In order to consider all

submissions, the hearing was extended an extra day, concluding on December 15,

2000. During the public hearing the Commission heard 19 oral presentations and

considered 216 written submissions. The submissions addressed a wide range of topics

and positions, both for and against the project.

The Commission is satisfied that the process described above met the requirements and the intent

of the CEAA, and that there was ample opportunity for public input throughout that process. The

Commission is satisfied that the body of information provided throughout the environmental

assessment process provided an appropriate basis for drawing conclusions with respect to the

likelihood and significance of the environmental effects of the proposed project.

4) Reasons for Decisions

Subsection 20(1) of the CEAA requires that the Commission, after considering the environmental

assessment Screening Report and the related comments from the public, make decisions as to a)

whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into

account implementation of appropriate mitigation measures; and b) whether the public concerns

about the project warrant a referral of the project to a mediator or review panel under the CEAA.

The decisions of the Commission, and the reasons for those decisions, are presented below.

4.1) Environmental Effects of the Project

In considering the environmental effects of the project, the Commission examined the

information contained in the three-volume environmental assessment Screening Report, and the

information obtained during the public hearing. As elaborated further below, the Commission

considers that that body of information provides the Commission with an adequate basis for

making its decisions under the CEAA for this project.

The Commission examined how the project is likely to affect each of the principal components of

the environment as defined in the CEAA and as addressed in the Screening Report. This includes

7

consideration of effects on air, surface water, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, groundwater,

human health and land resources, and changes those effects would have on socio-economic

conditions.

The Commission reviewed how the various components of the environment could be adversely

affected during planned normal operation of the PNGS-A, during malfunctions and accidents that

may occur in relation to those operations, and from future decommissioning activities. The

effects considered by the Commission are those that may be caused by radiation, and other

physical and chemical agents and processes.

The Commission examined how the environment itself may impact on the project, such as from

severe weather events and seismic activities. The Commission also considered how the effects of

the project may combine with the effects of other projects and activities in the area to create

cumulative effects on the surrounding environment and resulting changes to socio-economic

conditions.

In all instances, the Commission considered how, and to what extent, the existing physical and

operational characteristics of the facility, the planned improvements to the plant, and the

additional specific measures identified during the environmental assessment, would mitigate the

likely environmental effects of the proposed operations. The Commission also considered the

adequacy of the criteria applied in evaluating the significance of the residual effects.

During the course of the public hearing, the Commission sought a deeper understanding of

specific technical issues through direct discussion and questioning with hearing participants. The

principal issues explored include airborne releases of tritium, tritium in groundwater,

environmental monitoring of tritium, potential effects of earthquakes and component aging on

plant safety, emergency response planning, sediment contamination in Lake Ontario, the

adequacy of supporting data, and the assessment of effects on people’s sense of personal security

and community satisfaction.

With respect to releases of tritium to air and groundwater, based on data from operational

experience, the Commission considers that the resulting doses to members of the public, taking

into account the mitigation measures, would be well below regulatory limits and, therefore, that

residual adverse environmental effects would be minor and not significant. The Commission

notes that, if the project proceeds, the monitoring of tritium in air and water would form part of

the environmental monitoring program.

With respect to earthquake effects, the Commission explored this issue at the public hearing with

appropriate representatives of its own staff and the Geological Survey of Canada, among others.

Based on the documentation presented in the Screening Report and the additional information

provided during the hearing that summarized extensive recent research work and its results, the

Commission considers that seismic activity is not likely to cause effects on the project that would

result in significant adverse environmental effects.

The Commission also sought specific information about the general safety of the plant as a result

of aging components, unresolved Generic Action Items relating to CANDU reactors, and the

need for improvements in the plant systems and operations. The Commission notes that, for the

purpose of this environmental assessment, the upgrades and improvements necessary for the

1 Alberta Wilderness Association v. Express Pipelines Ltd. (1996), 137 D.L.R. (4th) 177

(F.C.A.).

8

return to service were assumed to have been completed. The Commission notes that, if the

licensing process proceeds, it would need to include a mechanism to require these upgrades and

improvements to be put in place; otherwise, the conclusions of the environmental assessment

would not be valid for the purposes of a licensing decision.

With respect to emergency response, the Commission heard concerns about whether the current

three kilometre zone set by the Province of Ontario’s emergency response plan would adequately

protect the public. After questioning a representative of Emergency Measures Ontario, the

responsible provincial authority, the Commission is satisfied that these concerns are being

addressed by the responsible provincial authority.

With respect to contamination of sediments in Lake Ontario, the Commission sought clarification

of the relevance of the sampling program results presented in the Screening Report to the effects

of proposed future operations on lake sediments. Despite the limitations in the sediment

sampling data, the Commission concludes, from other evidence presented in the Screening

Report and at the public hearing, that the effects of the project on lake sediments are not likely to

be significant.

The Commission sought clarification during the hearing on the methods used to evaluate the

effects on personal security and community satisfaction. The Commission did not see evidence

of a trend towards widespread concern despite the increased recent publicity concerning the

nuclear station. Taking this and other factors into consideration, including OPG’s commitment

to continued public information and consultation programs, the Commission concludes that the

project is not likely to cause significant adverse effects on the community.

The Commission explored public concerns about the completeness of some of the data presented.

The Commission recognizes that an environmental assessment, as a planning tool, involves both

information and the exercise of judgement. It is a process in which information may be sufficient

although not complete, as recognized by the Federal Court1. In this case, for certain projectenvironment

interactions, additional specific information of the nature typically received for the

purposes of the regulatory licensing process would assist in developing a more precise prediction

of the environmental effects. However, the Commission considers that the body of information

available in the environmental assessment Screening Report, and as obtained through the hearing

process, provides an appropriate basis for drawing conclusions with respect to the likelihood and

significance of the environmental effects of the proposed project.

If the Commission approves the proposed return to service of PNGS-A, the follow-up program

outlined in the Screening Report would be further detailed and integrated into the CNSC

licensing and compliance process. The follow-up program is designed to evaluate the accuracy

of impact predictions and determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Based on consideration of above information:

The Commission decides that the project, taking into account the mitigation measures

9

described in the Screening Report, is not likely to cause significant adverse

environmental effects.

4.2) Public Concerns

The Commission also considered, under subparagraph 20(1)(c)(iii) of the CEAA whether the

public concerns expressed during the environmental assessment process warranted a reference to

a mediator or review panel appointed by the federal Minister of the Environment.

The other bases on which a responsible authority shall refer a project to the Minister for

mediation or review panel do not apply in this case. If the Commission had concluded that it is

uncertain whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects; or if the

Commission had concluded that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental

effects that are justified in the circumstances, the Commission would have been required to refer

the project to the Minister for referral to a mediator or review panel.

The Commission considers that public concerns raised during the environmental assessment,

including the public hearings, do not warrant reference to the Minister for referral to a mediator

or a review panel. Several reasons contribute to this conclusion, with none of the reasons being

so important that it alone dominates. The reasons include the following:

i) Some of the concerns relate to matters that are outside the scope of this project-specific

assessment.

ii) Some of the concerns relate to matters that can be effectively addressed in the follow up

programs under the CNSC’s licensing and compliance processes.

iii) Some of the concerns seemed to lack a supporting factual basis, and therefore, the

Commission does not consider that a review panel would be more effective at allaying these

concerns than the Commission’s hearing process.

iv) The Commission considers that a number of technical concerns were adequately

addressed by the additional analyses carried out in the completion of the environmental

assessment Screening Report, and in the information presented at the public hearing.

v) Some of the concerns related to technical matters on which sufficient scientific and

technical material has been presented to persuade the Commission that the concerns are not

well founded or would not be resolved by further review by a mediator or a panel.

The Commission considered several areas of concern expressed by the public during the course

of the environmental assessment. These are found both in the summaries of information

submitted at steps preceding the public hearing and at the public hearing itself. The principal

concerns expressed and the Commission’s views are summarized below.

A major area of public concern was that the scope of the assessment was too narrow and should

have been expanded to include a consideration of the need for the project and alternatives to it,

such as non-nuclear alternatives to generating electricity. The Commission does not consider that

the matters of need and energy generation alternatives are appropriate for inclusion in this

project-specific environmental assessment. While it is within the discretion of the Commission

to consider such things as the need for the project and alternatives to the project, it is relevant to

also take into account the CNSC mandate and the environmental information presented. It is

possible in an environmental assessment, that severe adverse environmental consequences

2 Sharp v. Canada [1999] 4 F.C. 363 (C.A.)

3 Inverhuron & District Ratepayer’s Association v. Canada (2000), 34 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1

(F.C.T.D.)

10

indicate that the proponent should consider alternatives to the project. The information before

the Commission does not lead in that direction. Consideration of need for and alternatives to the

project should not become an indirect means of the CNSC going into areas such as energy policy

or economic regulation which are not part of its mandate2.

In the context of this project-specific assessment, the Commission concludes that public concerns

about the issues of need and alternatives to the project do not warrant a reference to a mediator or

review panel.

The nuclear accident scenario that was considered in the environmental assessment was a set of

accident sequences leading to severe core damage and subsequent release of radioactive material

to containment, followed by controlled discharge of the containment atmosphere. Some members

of the public expressed the view that the scope of the assessment should be expanded to include

consideration of the effects of a nuclear accident involving severe core damage with

simultaneous loss of containment. The Commission considers that such a hypothetical accident

event does not have a reasonable probability of occurring and therefore is not appropriate for this

environmental assessment. The CEAA does not require the Commission to consider all

conceivable accident events3. The type of event considered was appropriate for the purposes of

the environmental assessment and is consistent with the purposes and intent of the CEAA. The

Commission therefore does not consider that a referral to a mediator or review panel is warranted

to further examine this issue.

The Commission also heard concerns from the public about the following: general safety of the

plant as a result of aging components, unresolved Generic Action Items relating to CANDU

reactors, and the need for improvements in the plant systems and operations; earthquake risk;

public feelings of security and satisfaction; and data gaps in the assessment. As discussed in

section 3.1 above, the Commission considers that these issues were adequately addressed through

the scientific and technical information submitted, the answers given to the detailed questions

asked by the Commission members during the public hearing, and in the technical studies

undertaken as part of the assessment. The Commission therefore does not consider that a referral

to a mediator or review panel is warranted to further examine these issues.

The public also expressed concern over OPG’s public consultation programs undertaken as part

of this environmental assessment and in the composition and conduct of OPG’s Community

Advisory Council. During the environmental assessment process, as directed by CNSC staff,

OPG employed a variety of public consultation tools and methods, including newsletters,

notification letters, stakeholder briefings/interviews, open houses, mail-back postcards,

committee meetings, workshops, mall displays, community centre/library displays and the

Internet. The Commission recognizes the importance of sustained, effective and meaningful

public consultation between major facility operators and the public and also OPG’s commitment

to continue to improve its public involvement program. CNSC will continue to follow-up with

OPG on this issue as part of the CNSC licensing and compliance process. The Commission notes

11

that this is an issue that can be addressed without the need for referral to a mediator or review

panel.

Some members of the public expressed the view that a review panel would be more independent

and objective than the Commission. Members of the Commission are appointed by the Governor

in Council and constitute an independent regulatory body. All members are fully independent

and serve on a fixed-term basis. They are therefore as free from bias as potential members of a

review panel would be. The Commission rejects any suggestion of a lack of impartiality.

Based on consideration of the above:

The Commission decides that public concerns do not warrant a referral to the Minister

of the Environment for referral of the project to a mediator or review panel.

5) Course of Action Under the CEAA

Given the above decisions, the Commission therefore concludes that it will not refer the project

to the Minister for a referral to a mediator or a review panel. The Commission may therefore

proceed with a course of action consistent with paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act; that is, the Commission may now proceed with consideration ofthe licence application under the

Nuclear Safety and Control Act. The above decisions on the

environmental assessment do not permit the reactors to return to power operations. The licence

application will be considered under the CNSC’s normal public hearing process.

___________________________

George C. Jack

Secretary,

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Date of release of Record of Proceedings: February 16, 2001

Appendix A

12

Applicant Represented By Document Number

C B. Strickert, Site Vice-President, Pickering A

C G. Preston, Executive Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Officer

C P. Charlebois, Senior Vice-President and Chief Nuclear Engineer

C K. Johansen, Project Manager for the Environmental Assessment

C J. Tennyson, Special Projects Manager for Public Affairs for the

Environmental Assessment

C M. Williams, Manager of Regulatory Affairs, Pickering

C J. Ryan, Manager of Environment, Safety and Health, Pickering

C K. Dinnie, Manager of Probabilistic Risk Assessment

C J. de Wilde

C D. McFarland, Director of Public Affairs Organization

C D. Chambers

C D. Moffett

C M. Alexander, Corporate Engineering Group

C P. O’Brien, Public Affairs Manager

CMD 00-H29.1

CMD 00-H29.1A

CMD 00-H29.1B

CMD 00-H29.1C

13

Appendix B

CNSC Staff Document Number

C J. Waddington, Director General, Directorate of Environmental

and Human Performance Assessment

C J. Harvie, Director General, Directorate of Reactor Regulation

C P. Elder, Power Reaction Evaluation Division

C C. Taylor, Radiation and Environmental Protection Division

C R. Leblanc, Director of the Power Reactor Operation Division

C P. Wigfull, Director of the Safety Evaluation Division Analysis

C P. Thompson, Head, Environmental Protection Section

Radiation & Environmental protection Division

C J. Blyth, Director, Safety Evaluation Division – Engineering

C M. Measures, Director, Radiation and Environmental

Protection Division

CMD 00-H29

CMD 00-H29.A

14

Appendix C

Intervenors Document Number

Nuclear Awareness Project, represented by I. Kock 00-H29.2, 00-H29.5 and 00-H29.5A

Energy Probe Research Foundation, represented by N. Rubin 00-H29.3 and 00-H29.3A

Power Workers’ Union, represented by D. MacKinnon, T.

Pigeau and C. Gill

00-H29.6

C. Hunt 00-H29.7 and 00-H29.7A

Town of Ajax, represented by S. Parish

Acres & Associated Environmental Limited, represented by

B. Bennett

Town of Ajax, represented by J. McMaster, Regional

Councillor and Deputy Mayor, C. Hart

00-H29.8 and 00-H29.8A

S. Farlinger 00-H29.9

City of Pickering, represented by W. Arthurs, Mayor 00-H29.10

J. Dempsey 00-H29.11

E. Marczak 00-H29.12

M. Moles 00-H29.13 and 00-H29.13A

Canadian Nuclear Association, represented by W. Clarke 00-H29.14

Green Party of Canada, represented by C. Pennington 00-H29.15

The Society of Energy Professionnals, represented by J. Blair 00-H29.16

Citizens for Renewable Energy, represented by S. Kleinau 00-H29.17

D. Tomlinson 00-H29.18

Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, represented by K. Ostling 00-H29.19

Waterfront Task Force and Pickering Ajax Citizens for the

Environment, represented by D. Steele

PACT, represented by D. Home, Director

00-H29.20 and 00-H29.20A

Research and Development Advisory Panel to Board of

Directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, represented by

D.J Burns and J.T. Rogers

00-H29.234

Great Lakes United, represented by M. Wooster and

M. Maybee

00-H29.197

A.A. Mohajer 00-H29.4

Intervenors Document Number

15

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, represented by

A. Kilpatrick

00-H29.21

R. Lorenzin 00-H29.22

M. Vojin 00-H29.23

K. Russell 00-H29.24

R. M. Ahrens 00-H29.25

D. Kulczynski 00-H29.26

N. Crellin 00-H29.27

J. Bredin 00-H29.28

V. LaHaye 00-H29.29

J.V. and E.B. Marczak 00-H29.30

Z. Gorski 00-H29.31

T. And E. Martin 00-H29.32

J. Chalmers 00-H29.33

S. Zabana 00-H29.34

D. Kulczynska 00-H29.35

M. Inouye 00-H29.36

P. Salter 00-H29.37

R.T. Chiam 00-H29.38

E. Wheeler 00-H29.39

J. Millman 00-H29.40

B. Gamble 00-H29.41

N. Idvorian 00-H29.42

J. Shaw 00-H29.43

M. and G. Firth 00-H29.44

V. Golabek 00-H29.45

P. Mistry 00-H29.46

J. Viscomi 00-H29.47

M. Li 00-H29.48

Intervenors Document Number

16

R. Fitchett 00-H29.49

M. Fishley 00-H29.50

T. Bell 00-H29.51

K. Lake 00-H29.52

C. MacDonald 00-H29.53

H. Break 00-H29.54

H. and R. Hansen 00-H29.55

T. Burgess 00-H29.56

D. Hubble 00-H29.57

D. Link 00-H29.58

W.J. Langer 00-H29.59

N.A. Hicks 00-H29.60

G. Aunger 00-H29.61

P. Leveille 00-H29.62

M. Murray and M. Lundrigan 00-H29.63

R. Ojanpera 00-H29.64

M. and D. Kelly 00-H29.65

A. Holt 00-H29.66

G. Shikaze 00-H29.67

T. Griffith 00-H29.68

L. Robinson 00-H29.69

R. A. Charron 00-H29.70

J. Rajotte 00-H29.71

M.I. Cleland 00-H29.72

R.M. Dimen 00-H29.73

C. Gladwell 00-H29.74

W.B. Stewart 00-H29.75

L.W. Green 00-H29.76

Intervenors Document Number

17

M. Joe 00-H29.77

D. Terry 00-H29.78

G. Wieckowski 00-H29.79

G. Lauzon 00-H29.80

P.A. Walsh 00-H29.81

M. Rudolf 00-H29.82

B. Burnett 00-H29.83

Power Workers’ Union, represented by C. Gill 00-H29.84

D. Capson 00-H29.85

W. Taylor 00-H29.86

A. Khan 00-H29.87

D. Mason 00-H29.88

P. Leduc 00-H29.89

L. Segatti 00-H29.90

J. Payne 00-H29.91

P. Alpajaro 00-H29.92

P. Stevens 00-H29.93

A.R. Lees 00-H29.94

J. S. Schaefer 00-H29.95

W. Luchford 00-H29.96

J. O’Brien 00-H29.97

M. Zawadski 00-H29.98

J.P. van Langen 00-H29.99

B. Plummer 00-H29.100

P.Tomlinson 00-H29.101

J. D.G. Dewar 00-H29.102

C. Smith 00-H29.103

T. Besharat 00-H29.104

Intervenors Document Number

18

S. Ballagh 00-H29.105

F. Lee 00-H29.106

T. Ahmed 00-H29.107

P. Varga 00-H29.108

F.R. Vodden 00-H29.109

E. Varga 00-H29.110

Canadian Nuclear Society, represented by K.L. Smith and

D.P. Jackson

00-H29.111

J. Osier 00-H29.112

D. Lloyd 00-H29.113

C. Morris 00-H29.114

L. Nasri 00-H29.115

F. Wyke 00-H29.116

M. Paulasma 00-H29.117

K. Dinnie 00-H29.118

P. Azavedo 00-H29.119

H. Schmeing 00-H29.120

T.A. Price 00-H29.121

M. Jibb 00-H29.122

N. Sion 00-H29.123

K.J. Nadeau 00-H29.124

R.V. Latimer 00-H29.125

N. Facey 00-H29.126

P. Cheng 00-H29.127

G. Wissborn 00-H29.128

D. Knight 00-H29.129

S. Kumar 00-H29.130

G.G. Vachon 00-H29.131

J. Tomayer 00-H29.132

Intervenors Document Number

19

J.F. Richardson 00-H29.133

B. Babson 00-H29.134

C. Van Drunen 00-H29.135

D. Cameron 00-H29.136

V.G. Snell 00-H29.137

S. Merrell 00-H29.138

J. Scurr 00-H29.139

K. Gventer 00-H29.140

M. Brett 00-H29.141

P. Liu 00-H29.142

E.L. Williams 00-H29.143

A. Sonderer 00-H29.144

A. Trimble 00-H29.145

D.J. Garrett 00-H29.146

T. and J. Williams 00-H29.147

D. Topping 00-H29.148

J.D. Beattie 00-H29.149

M. Zawadzki 00-H29.150

W. MacArthur 00-H29.151

J. Van Dam 00-H29.152

C.I. Marsh 00-H29.153

L. Carter 00-H29.154

J.W. Weitz 00-H29.155

F. Gray 00-H29.156

S. Berry 00-H29.157

V. De Guzman 00-H29.158

E. Dewar 00-H29.159

M. Ramirez 00-H29.160

Intervenors Document Number

20

Liverpool West Community Association, represented by

M. Herzog

00-H29.161 and 00-H29.161A

M-E. Rice 00-H29.162

J. Alalasuntharam 00-H29.163

J. Lenarduzzi 00-H29.164

S. Stoyanovich 00-H29.165

V. Carter 00-H29.166

F. G. Fuirguis 00-H29.167

J. Gregoire 00-H29.168

K. Brothers 00-H29.169

M. Douglas 00-H29.170

M. Calder 00-H29.171

S.J. Cochrane 00-H29.172

R. Bradley 00-H29.173

A. Côté 00-H29.174

D. Swami 00-H29.175

K. Pryor 00-H29.176

C-M. Tseng 00-H29.177

A. Maxim 00-H29.178

F.J. Lanzon 00-H29.179

K. Charette 00-H29.180

D. Storey 00-H29.181

S. Strickland 00-H29.182

C. Hildred 00-H29.183

M. Cherry 00-H29.184

D. Kozelenko 00-H29.185

A. Goel 00-H29.186

M. Eves 00-H29.187

T. Nasri 00-H29.188

Intervenors Document Number

21

H. Ferrazza 00-H29.189

R. Paessler and B. Thompson 00-H29.190

Concerned Citizens of Manitoba, represented by D. Taylor 00-H29.191

Austin Family 00-H29.192

C. Riehl 00-H29.193

F. Williams 00-H29.194

R. Wettlaufer 00-H29.195

C. Draesner 00-H29.196

S. Austin 00-H29.198

B. Hanson 00-H29.199

T. Spanjer 00-H29.200

Canadian Auto Workers Durham Regional Environment

Council, represented by J. Brackett

00-H29.201

A. Rycroft 00-H29.202

R. Worner 00-H29.203

H. Kock 00-H29.204

A. Hansen 00-H29.205

S. Jamieson 00-H29.206

J. Vag 00-H29.207

P. Mitchell 00-H29.208

P. Kiameh 00-H29.209

N.G. Brown 00-H29.210

J.J. Cairns 00-H29.211

A. Zayouna 00-H29.212

T. Greenfield 00-H29.213

H. S. Irvine 00-H29.214

J. Lepka 00-H29.215

D. Somaru 00-H29.216

D. Zivkovic 00-H29.217

Intervenors Document Number

22

B. M. Crisp 00-H29.218

S. Bailey 00-H29.219

G. Restivo 00-H29.220

J. Hyatt 00-H29.221

J. Wight 00-H29.222

I. Khondaker 00-H29.223

V. Chacinski 00-H29.224

D. Merrifield 00-H29.225

Lethbridge Network for Peace, represented by A. Williams 00-H29.226

V. Hugues 00-H29.227

C.D. McFarlane 00-H29.228

P. Creighton 00-H29.229

B. Carr 00-H29.230

Sierra Club of Canada, represented by E. May 00-H29.231

L. Stoyanovich 00-H29.232

M. Stoyanovich 00-H29.233

Emergency Measures Ontario, represented by G. Taylor,

Manager of Provincial Preparedness

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s