Energy Probe

Ottawa skips reactor advice

Posted on August 11, 1997 by energyprbe

Jeff Sallot
The Globe and Mail
August 11, 1997

Warnings about environmental impact ignored in Candu sale to China, documents show

The federal government ignored its own consultants’ warnings about the need for environmental studies when it signed a contract to sell nuclear reactors to China last November.

Internal federal documents show that Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. of Ottawa advised the government on Nov. 18 that there was not enough scientific analysis and data available to determine the environmental impact of the construction of two Candu nuclear reactors on Hangzhou Bay south of Shanghai.

The consultants recommended further studies and public environmental hearings in Canada to air the issues because taxpayers are guaranteeing $1.5-billion in loans to China to cement the deal.

Nevertheless, on Nov. 26, eight days after the Marbek report was received by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Prime Minister Jean Chretien signed the Candu agreement with China during a visit to Shanghai.

The sale of the reactors by federally owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is the jewel in the crown of the Chretien government’s China trade policy.

Mr. Chretien has met several times with China’s top leaders to promote Canadian exports in general and the nuclear reactor sales specifically.

The reactor sales will create 27,000 jobs, according to briefing notes prepared by bureaucrats for cabinet ministers.

But Canada’s environmental laws, requiring thorough impact studies for federal projects, were seen by the government as a potential stumbling block.

The Marbek report was released only recently under the Access to Information Act. Public-interest researcher Ken Rubin of Ottawa was told initially that no studies existed, but after a six-month battle he obtained the Marbek report from Foreign Affairs.

The consultants pointed out that electricity produced by the nuclear reactors would reduce the need for dirty coal-fired power generation in China, significantly reducing air pollution.

Even so, throughout the report the consultants point out gaps in the scientific information about the possible impact of the project. Highlights include:

The consultants had to rely on an “incomplete version” of environmental reports from the Shanghai Nuclear Energy Research Institute;

Marbek, which had only five days to complete its report, could not verify the accuracy of the Chinese information and strongly recommended that the documentation be further reviewed by nuclear safety experts;

More information is needed on the probability of earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, floods or other disasters in the vicinity of the nuclear reactors;

Additional information is required on the impact of the construction project on the shoreline and the bay;

Not enough information was available to assess the project’s impact on currents, tides and other ocean conditions in the vicinity of the reactors;

Further reviews should be conducted by oceanographic and water-quality experts, as well as experts from the Atomic Energy Control Board, Environment Canada and the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Natural Resources.

The consultants said it is “not practicable” for a full environmental consultation with the local Chinese population, but the Canadian public should be given a chance to comment on environmental issues.

(China’s Communist Party authorities maintain a tight grip on information and political activity throughout the country. They have rarely allowed the concerns of local populations to stand in the way of large infrastructure projects.)

The Marbek report said there was no evidence of significant adverse environmental effects from the project, but cautioned that “it is not possible to reach a final conclusion concerning the environmental impact” because of gaps in the information.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would require the government to conduct additional studies to determine whether the project complies with Canada’s environmental standards, the report concluded.

This cautionary report arrived 11 days after cabinet had already dealt with the issue. On Nov. 7, in preparation for Mr. Chretien’s Shanghai trip, cabinet approved an unprecedented order waiving requirements for a full environmental-impact assessment under Canadian law.

Briefing notes prepared by the Foreign Affairs Department for cabinet ministers suggest that the politicians tell the public “we do not expect projects in other countries to conform to Canadian environmental law.”

The Sierra Club of Canada and other environmental groups argue that Canadian assessment standards should apply when the project involves Canadian technology and the financing is being underwritten by Canadian taxpayers.

The Sierra Club is asking the Federal Court of Canada to order the government to conduct an environmental assessment under Canadian law.

The briefing notes say that requiring environmental assessments to Canadian standards for these kinds of projects will put Canadian technology exporters at a disadvantage with foreign competitors for sales.

The French were considered rivals for this particular project.

The briefing notes also say Canada is trying to get an international agreement on an environmental assessment process for these kinds of projects so that everyone is competing on a level playing field.

The Marbek report was completed in secrecy and with great haste. The Nov. 13 contract required the report to be completed five days later. “Time is of the essence,” the contract says. The consultants were also required to treat all information provided to them in confidence.

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged nuclear costs | Leave a comment

Update on the Ontario select committee on Ontario Hydro nuclear affairs

Posted on July 21, 1997 by energyprbe

October 21, 1997

Energy Probe, a national environmental and consumer advocacy organization, presented its five recommendations to the Ontario Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Nuclear Affairs yesterday evening. The recommendations are:

1. The eight reactors at Pickering A and Bruce A should be written off and the units permanently closed.

2. The Committee should urge the government to investigate all opportunities for financing future nuclear investments (beginning with Ontario Hydro’s planned ~$1.6 billion for “nuclear recovery”) outside the public purse — e.g. out of the ~$9 billion Ontario Hydro pension fund, or by outside-financed equity transfer to Ontario Hydro’s unions.

3. Ontario Hydro’s financial reporting should be thoroughly revised to accurately report all expenditures and liabilities. In particular:

3a. Ontario Hydro should not be allowed to capitalize any costs related to operating or maintaining its reactors.

3b. Depreciation of nuclear assets and all financial implications related to depreciation period should be based not on 40 years of reactor service life as is currently the case but on 25 years.

3c. Nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning liabilities should be funded in an external account. If Ontario Hydro is unable to produce the money (roughly $2.8 billion) it has collected from customers for the purpose of nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning, the government must produce the money, to avoid burdening future Ontarians with the costs of cleaning up after us.

4. The government of Ontario should break up Ontario Hydro with a view to permitting customers to buy power from producers of their choice and making power producers accountable to customers and investors.

5. The Committee should recommend that the Ontario Government begin a transition to a world of full nuclear accident liability. The Ontario Government should legislate that as of a date certain in the near future (perhaps 2005) no nuclear reactor will be permitted to operate in Ontario unless its owners and operators are liable without limit for the off-site consequences of a reactor accident, and have demonstrated the capability of discharging that liability.

In addition to Energy Probe’s presentation, the Committee heard from former Ontario Hydro Chairman Maurice Strong and Jack Gibbons representing the Clean Air Alliance, a coalition of environmental organizations. A main theme of Mr. Strong’s presentation was that if any safety problems indirectly resulted from any action he took as Chairman, particularly through the voluntary severance program, this would have been contrary to his instructions. On behalf of the Clean Air Alliance, Mr. Gibbons outlined the environmental and human health problems caused by ongoing operation of Ontario Hydro’s coal-fired generating stations and explained the need for tougher regulations of air emissions for Ontario Hydro and potential future electricity suppliers.

Was this document useful? 1 2 3 4 5 (1 is not at all, 5 is very)

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged nuclear costs | Leave a comment

NB Power president refuses to debate environmentalist on future of nuclear power in New Brunswick

Posted on June 30, 1997 by Other News Sources

June 30, 1997

NB Power refused today to provide a company representative to appear on the CBC television program “Focal Point” to debate the future of the province’s nuclear program with Thomas Adams, Executive Director of the national environmental and consumer watchdog Energy Probe.

A representative of NB Power’s confirmed to “Focal Point” producers that the utility’s president James Hankinson would not debate Mr.Adams and that no one else in the corporation would be available.

A consulting study, performed by the firm Hagler Bailly and commissioned by NB Power, recently three weeks ago recommended potential life extension of the Point Lepreau nuclear station beyond its current expected end of service date around the year 2014 and also recommended changes in the accounting treatment for the facility that would recover depreciation and waste disposal costs over a shorter period than is now used. The staff of the Atomic Energy Control Board last week criticized operating practices at the utility’s trouble prone Point Lepreau nuclear generating station. The utility announced its 1997-98 financial results today which show a $21.2 million loss, the fourth straight annual loss after removing the effect of accounting changes.

Energy Probe’s analysis of NB Power’s environmental, financial, and operational status is available on the Internet at http://www.nextcity.com/EnergyProbe/nbpower/index.html.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Lepreau’s Lament

Posted on June 20, 1997 by Other News Sources

Moncton Times Transcript
June 20, 1997

Can NB Power count on its aging nuclear plant for power well into the future? The utility thinks so, but a spokesman for a watchdog agency has doubts:

Plagued by operational glitches and costly shutdowns, the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station has suffered through its worst year since it was commissioned 13 years ago, but NB Power is confident it can turn around the fortunes of the plant the flagship of its electrical power generating fleet.

Stung by an Atomic Energy Control Board report earlier this month that called for “urgent action” to improve safety performance management, NB Power has launched a program to improve operational and human performance procedures at Lepreau and appointed a veteran utility employee to make sure it is carried out.

Rod White, named this week as the utility’s new vice-president in charge of the plant, says the Atomic Energy Control Board has raised the bar in terms of its expectations for Lepreau’s operation.

“What the board has said. . . is the reactor is safe and we have operated safely in the past year,” said White in a telephone interview. “The concerns they have expressed are ones they see in the indicators that there is a need for improvement, that some of the safety culture issues may be slipping from a level that we should be operating at, and they’d like us to pay attention to them at an early opportunity,” said White, who until this week was general manager in charge of NB Power’s overall electrical generation.

Those “indicators” include some 30 incidents reported to AECB in 1996 by NB Power where the board said the utility failed to comply with the terms of its operating licence. The board said 20 of those events directly involved personnel error.

In fact, throughout its report, the board attributes many of Lepreau’s woes to human error something White indicated NB Power is aware of and is addressing.

NB Power is targeting several areas for improvement: “safety awareness for our staff, human performance issues either in terms of training or the standards that we set for our people,” White said.

White said operational procedures will also be tightened so they conform to “the way we want work done, so the results are more predictable.”

Ensuring “predictable results” is crucial because when Lepreau goes down it hurts.

Two major shutdowns at Lepreau last year cost the utility about $14 million for repairs and about $60 million to buy replacement power.

NB Power counts on the nuclear power plant to produce 30 per cent of its electrical generation and the plant displaces between $100 and $150 million in fuel oil costs annually. Lepreau also contributes between $150 to $200 million in cash flow each year from power sales outside New Brunswick. “So its important for us to make sure that station runs to meet its long-term mandate,” said White.

NB Power is counting on Lepreau operating at 85 per cent efficiency to meet the goals set out in its five-year plan to reduce its huge $3.4 billion debt. A stable Lepreau is also crucial if NB Power wants to compete in the coming era of a more open marketplace for electrical power.

“We know we have technical issues with Lepreau in the longer term that need to be addressed and that’s one of the reasons why we also have an external organization that’s doing a technical and economic study,” said White. That external expertise will come from Hagler Bailly of Colorado a consulting company well respected within the industry and which has oodles of experience in dealing with issues in utility design and operation. Hagler Bailly is now looking at “how Lepreau will perform its role in the future for NB Power and the issues that may affect it.”

“For example, we know we have pressure tube issues, we know we have feeder tube issues. There are certain technical resolutions to those you need to plug those into your operating model for your power system and see how you make decisions in the future,” White said.

White said it will take between one and three years for NB Power’s improvement plans for Lepreau to have an impact. “They’re not something you turn around and do overnight usually. There are easy things you can do, like reducing (maintenance) backlog those are fairly easy.

“There are more difficult things that you do that’s actually changing the way people think and work and do things that’s part of the human performance issues that you have to deal with,” he said.

But there is one enemy that Lepreau and all nuclear reactors can’t beat, and that’s age, says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe of Toronto, an environmental watchdog agency specializing in energy matters. NB Power is similar to other utilities in its belief that fixing the people problem and improving maintenance procedures will address most concerns, Adams said in a telephone interview.

“Aging has very pernicious effects that are often difficult to judge and what you often get from the nuclear utilities is kind of an enthusiastic engineering attitude where they’ll say ‘look we’ve identified six problems that have definitely contributed and we’re confident we can fix those problems.’ that’s the process they go through.”

The difficulty with that, Adams said, is that the problems utilities know about now don’t correspond with the universal problems that are unfolding.

“Aging is a very surprising phenomena it keeps catching you from behind,” he said. “If you had perfect foresight, you might be able to ward some of these things off, but they get caught with things they didn’t think needed to be addressed.”

In NB Power’s case, Adams said the utility’s entire five-year business plan which is coming up for review by the provincial legislature’s standing committee next week is predicated on the assumption that Lepreau will rebound, that it will bounce back to the “good ole days.”

“I’m just concerned that those good ole days are gone,” he said. Adams believes what is needed is some “level-headed” planning on how to get reasonable value out of Lepreau over the next few years without “blowing the budget. . . .and keeping it safe.”

But Adams views as very positive the move by NB Power to seek outside advice by hiring Hagler Bailly.

“The utility has been too insular in past, closed to outside input and the fact that they are calling on outside people that’s very positive and they deserve credit for it.”

But in the end, Adams firmly believes the aging process will be Lepreau’s downfall, and he points to the experience in the United States where nuclear reactors get to their mid-20s in age and “they just get shutdown.” “And sometimes it’s not one big problem that gets them its death by a thousand cuts.”

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

What’s acceptable to nuclear industry shouldn’t be to us

Posted on June 9, 1997 by Other News Sources

Monday 9 June 1997

Norman Rubin

As in most of his writing, and on his Web page, Jeremy Whitlock’s letter (June 4) is a mixed bag: a handful of quasi-religious nuclear-industry “perspective” and a pinch of downright falsehood.

Whitlock is leaping to the defense of hi s employer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which has been discovered — again — to have allowed radioactive liquid waste — tens of millions of litres of it — to reach the Ottawa River because of leaky plumbing (“Another leak at Chalk River,” June 4) .

Part of the defense is that the Ottawa is a large river, and any toxic and cancer-causing substance leaked into it — the main concern here is a radioactive hydrogen isotope called tritium — would be diluted by its impressive volume. That’s a fact. But for those who don’t share his nuclear-industry religion, it’s not a justification for putting cancer-causing substances into the public drinking water for 20 years in a row.

Another part of his defense is that nature exposes us all to a great deal of radiation — more, for most of us, than the nuclear industry does. That is also a fact and a sad one: Whitlock conveniently neglects to mention that the international scientific establishment now estimates that roughly one percent of Citizen readers wi ll die of cancer caused by that natural radiation. I can accept that risk in return for living on this terrific planet, but I’ll be damned if I’ll condone AECL making those risks even greater.

Unfortunately for the truth, Whitlock confuses the nuclear industry with Mother Nature when he says “the natural radioactivity of the Ottawa River is something like five becquerels per litre.” In fact, the vast majority of the Ottawa’s “background” radioactivity is not from nature, but from the remaining fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. So is the tritium in our milk, and our beer. That might seem “natural” to some of the former weapons designers at Chalk River Labs, but not to me.

The real tragedy is that Canada’s nuclear regulator, the AECB, sh ares Whitlock’s quasi-religious views on radioactive pollution. That is why its “strict” regulations allow Chalk River to dump more tritium into the Ottawa River each month than our whole planet creates naturally in a year.

Norman Rubin director of nuc lear research Energy Probe, Toronto

Posted in Nuclear Safety | Leave a comment

Energy Probe declares victory as NB Power discontinues libel suit

Posted on May 30, 1997 by Other News Sources

May 30, 1997

In a letter dated May 23 and received today, counsel for NB Power, Marc Bosse, announced it was discontinuing its liable action against Energy Probe and Tom Adams.

NB Power had filed a Statement of Claim alleging that some of our published statements about the utility’s management of financial, operational, and nuclear safety issue were defamatory. Energy Probe responded to the utility’s claims by thoroughly documenting the truth of all of the impugned statements.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Energy Probe’s 1997 accomplishments

Posted on May 23, 1997 by energyprbe

On many fronts, 1997 was a watershed year for Energy Probe and Canada’s environment.

On May 23, NB Power backed down on its threat to sue us for saying “NB Power is not being responsibly managed,” “the utility responded to many of (Energy Probe’s) criticisms with incorrect assertions and incomplete information,” and “the response of NB Power’s management to the recent problems raises a concern about the management’s judgement in nuclear operations.” After we documented the truth of our statements to their lawyers, it withdrew its suit.

On August 13, Ontario Hydro announced its plan to close seven more reactors (one was already closed in 1995). After new revelations about Ontario Hydro’s “nuclear cult” surfaced, the truth about the cost of nuclear power started to come out. We expect that the ultimate costs of the whole nuclear program will be far higher than Ontario Hydro, the federal government, and the other nuclear proponents have claimed. Energy Probe will continue to uncover the human, environmental and economic costs of this irresponsible experiment. Now that the public at large is beginning to understand how we have been lied to about costs, there is much more critical attention addressed to the nuclear industry’s myths about safety.

We also continued our work against the radioactive waste practices of the nuclear establishment and nuclear pollution.

During the fall hearings of the Ontario government’s Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Nuclear Affairs, we argued that nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning liabilities should be responsibly funded, as they are not now. We prompted Environment Canada to investigate whether or not radioactive emissions are legally “toxic” to hon-human species. Due to our continuing efforts, that investigation shows promise of restricting emissions, especially from uranium mines and mills. In direct response to our critiques, the Atomic Energy Control Board agreed that radioactive emissions to the environment – not just doses received by humans – should be kept “as low as reasonably achievable” – something unprecedented in nuclear regulation. We hope to use this principle to fight one of the nuclear industry’s favourite “waste management” measures – dilution.

Our efforts to avert the irreversible burial of radioactive wastes have borne fruit in another arena. In mid-October, the federal government and the town of Deep River, Ontario announced that they will stop trying to build a repository near Deep River to contain the low-level radioactive wastes from Port Hope, Ontario. Instead, the federal government will work with the town of Port Hope to stabilize the wastes in monitorable, retrievable form near Port Hope. (Earlier, the federal government had proposed burying the wastes irreversibly in deep caverns mined under Lake Ontario near Port Hope. After hearing arguments from Energy Probe, local environmentalists, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, and Dr. David Suzuki, Port Hope decided that it would not support that proposal.)

We upgraded our Internet site on Canada’s notorious Candu reactor exports to China, coordinated our work with other human rights and environmental activists around the world, provided information to the press, and responded to information requests. One of our priorities now is to draw public attention to our Prime Minister’s plan to sell more nuclear reactors to Turkey, China, Thailand, Indonesia, and Korea.

We also worked hard throughout the year advocating alternative sources of electricity from environmentally and economically responsible sources like cogeneration, biomass waste, and other renewable sources.

Some of our campaigns dealt directly with consumer interests. For example, before the Ontario Energy Board last summer, Consumers Gas agreed to reduce costs for homeowners and small businesses by $1.5 million dollars in response to Energy Probe’s evidence showing that the meter reading costs for Consumers Gas were three to four times too high.

In 1998, we will continue to work for the interests of the environment, taxpayers, and consumers. Because we get less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of our revenue from corporate donations and no government donations, you can count on us to be Canada’s voice for sustainable development in energy. Please donate to help us continue our work.

Posted in Towards Shutdown | Leave a comment

NB Power won’t bully me into silence: Critic

Posted on May 8, 1997 by Other News Sources

Alan White
The Telegraph Journal
May 8, 1997

FREDERICTON – A vocal critic of NB Power says he isn’t going to be bullied into silence by a lawsuit brought against him by the publicly owned utility.

While NB Power dropped its recently filed lawsuit against the high-profile directors of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies Tuesday, it is still suing Energy Probe executive director Thomas Adams for defamation. Mr. Adams wrote Energizing New Brunswick Power: A Brighter Future for Consumers and Taxpayers, which was published earlier this year by AIMS and which the utility alleges defames it and president James Hankinson.

“I stand by my work,” said Mr. Adams yesterday. “If they prove that some facts are incorrect, that’s fine and that’s public debate. But a bully is not going to push me off my position that I believe to be – that is correct.”

In its statement of claim submitted to the Court of Queen’s Bench, NB Power contends that certain passages in Mr. Adams’ report suggest the utility lied to the public and that Mr. Hankinson is irresponsible, untrustworthy and unfit to run the utility.

A summary of the report published in The Telegraph Journal called on the utility to be more accountable to the public and charged that it was not being responsibly managed. NB Power was also criticized for being defensive and dismissive in an October 1996 appearance before the legislature’s standing committee on Crown corporations following a scathing report by AIMS and Energy Probe.

NB Power dropped its lawsuit AIMS and its directors late Tuesday after the institute agreed to issue an apology, which was formally released yesterday.

In its statement, AIMS officials said they stood by the report but made it clear the criticisms were not directed at individuals, including Mr. Hankinson.

“To the extent that remarks made in the report suggested that Mr. Hankinson misled the Legislative Committee, questioned his integrity and veracity, or cast doubt on his and NB Power’s concern for safety issues at Point Lepreau, AIMS is sorry and apologizes for having published such remarks,” AIMS chairman Purdy Crawford said in a three-paragraph statement.

“We at AIMS have the greatest respect for the integrity of the management of NB Power, including specifically Mr. Hankinson and the Board of NB Power.”

Because Mr. Adams will no longer be headed to court alongside the likes of AIMS directors John Crosbie, a former federal cabinet minister, and former New Brunswick Economic Development minister Denis Losier, his trepidation has increased, but he vows to stand up to NB Power in court.

“Our organization is a tiny little consumer and environmental charitable foundation,” he said. “We’re going to be defending ourselves, but having the full weight of a controlled utility and their unlimited legal budgets against us is cause for some serious concern here. I’m not going to put too shiny a face on that one.”

Mr. Adams said the lawsuit feels like a “SLAPP suit,” a term coined by U.S. environmentalists to describe corporations using “Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation” to try to “silence their critics and shoot the messenger.”

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, isn’t going to silence Mr. Adams and Energy Probe, he said.

“We’re not going away,” he said. “NB Power is about to announce its business plan and they’re about to announce their financial results. There are major decisions required in the near term and we’re in this for the long haul.

“We remain very concerned about where the utility is going.”

In its statement of claim, NB Power took exception to the following four specific statements in Mr. Adams’ report and the accompanying news release:

“The utility responded to many of the criticisms with incorrect assertions and incomplete information that may have created confusion among members of the legislature and the public. Future official inquiries into NB Power should require presenters to testify under oath …

“… NB Power’s management appears to be in denial, unwilling to acknowledge the grave problems the utility faces, instead offering false assurances to the legislature and the public. Taxpayers and ratepayers are both at risk, and the risks can only increase while management’s approach persists …

“… Mr. Hankinson offered assurances to the legislators and to the public about the condition of the Point Lepreau reactor without having made an appropriate effort to ensure that those assurances were warranted. Rather than responding to the issue by focusing on resolving technical uncertainties that can undermine safety, Mr. Hankinson instead focused on assuaging public concerns …

“By putting public relations assurances ahead of caution, he failed one of the most basic requirements of nuclear management – the requirement that safety comes first.”

NB Power’s view of the report was that it intended to suggest its management and Mr. Hankinson:

“Knew of existing problems at NB Power and intentionally and deliberately lied and withheld the information from the public and the legislative standing committee on crown corporations;

“Are irresponsible and untrustworthy in the discharge of their obligation to inform the public and the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and should replaced.”

NB Power also said:

The report suggested Mr. Hankinson “is irresponsible and unfit to be in charge of NB Power and cannot be trusted to tell the truth about a nuclear plant and is prepared to put public relations ahead of public safety;”

The report’s “words and statements … were maliciously calculated to bring Mr. Hankinson’s character into contempt and lower the high estimation he holds in the business community and the community at large.”

Mr. Adams said he appreciated the opportunity to work with AIMS and believes they have done some “good work together,” but would not comment on the institute’s decision to apologize for statements made in his report.

Brian Crowley, AIMS’ executive director, said yesterday his group’s statement was aimed at putting the focus on the public policy questions raised in the newsletter, rather than on personalities.

“It was never our intention to criticize anyone personally, but we believe these are still important public policy questions that should be addressed,” he said in an interview yesterday.

“That’s where the focus should be, and we hope this will put it back there.”

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

NB Power AIMS for and wins apology

Posted on May 7, 1997 by Other News Sources

David Stonehouse
The Telegraph Journal
May 7, 1997

Institute says it’s sorry for critical report; utility to drop suit against it, directors today

FREDERICTON – INCENSED BY WHAT it saw as a threat to its own reputation and that of its president, NB Power filed a lawsuit late last month against a slate of high-powered Atlantic Canadians and one of its most vocal critics.

In documents filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench, NB Power and president James Hankinson alleged they were defamed by a critical report published earlier this year by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax.

The lawsuit sought unspecified damages from the entire board of the non-profit institute – a veritable Who’s Who of Atlantic business – and an Energy Probe official who wrote Energizing New Brunswick Power: A Brighter Future for Consumers and Taxpayers.

Among those the publicly-owned utility named in the suit were former Mulroney cabinet minister John Crosbie, one-time McKenna cabinet minister Denis Losier, NBTel president Gerry Pond and competing utility executives.

But after days of talks – and just as the lawsuit was about to become public – NB Power dropped the court challenge late yesterday after the institute agreed to say it was sorry.

“They’ve apologized and we have accepted that apology,” said David Hawkins, a public relations consultant hired by the utility, last night.

“They have got a very fine board of directors who are responsible people and I guess maybe they stepped over the line here a little. We brought it to their attention.”

The lawsuit claimed certain passages in the report issued last February suggested that NB Power lied to the public and that Mr. Hankinson is irresponsible, untrustworthy and unfit to run the utility.

A summary of the report was published in The Telegraph Journal after its release. It called on NB Power to be more accountable to the public and charged the utility was not being responsibly managed.

It criticized NB Power for being dismissive and defensive before a legislative committee last October in the wake of a scathing report by the Atlantic institute and Energy Probe.

Mr. Hankinson, a former president of Canadian Pacific Ltd. who took over NB Power last summer, could not be reached yesterday.

But before NB Power and the institute revealed that the lawsuit would be dropped, Mr. Crosbie said no one would be getting an apology from him.

Reached yesterday afternoon at his law office in Newfoundland, the former Tory minister called the lawsuit a waste of public money.

“I don’t think very much of it, frankly. They are certainly overreacting,” the Mr. Crosbie said. “We’re a non-profit organization devoted to discussing public issues, which is what we have done.

“They are a public agency. It seems to me they should be able to take criticism. And if they think it is wrong, reply to it and defend themselves – not fly off the handle and sue everybody in sight.”

In legal documents dated April 24, the utility charged that parts of the report and an accompanying news release were false and malicious. Specifically, it took issue with the following statements:

“By putting public relations assurances ahead of caution, he failed one of the most basic requirements of nuclear management – the requirement that safety comes first.”

NB Power said the report intended to suggest that Mr. Hankinson and utility management:

“Knew of existing problems at NB Power and intentionally and deliberately lied and withheld the information from the public and the Legislative Standing Committee on Crown Corporations;

“Are irresponsible and untrustworthy in the discharge of their obligation to inform the public and the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and should be replaced.”

And the utility says:

NB Power sought damages and an injunction barring the institute from publishing the statements again.

Energy Probe’s Thomas Adams, an outspoken critic of NB Power affairs who wrote the report, said he was looking forward to the court fight. In an interview before the institute and NB Power reached the deal that will end the suit, he believed the legal challenge would open the utility to greater public scrutiny.

“We continue to hold the view that NB Power is in a serious financial and operational crisis and the court action will hopefully benefit all New Brunswickers by bringing the details of this very dire situation to light,” Mr. Adams said from his Toronto office yesterday afternoon.

“It is a great burden to our organization. But we say things that challenge the establishment and we have been called to account in the courts before and we will be back again.”

Other Atlantic Institute for Market Studies board members named in the suit included: Institute chairman Purdy Crawford and president Brian Lee Crowley; Mr. Losier, former New Brunswick Economic Development minister and now president of Assumption Mutual Life Insurance Co.; J.D. Irving Ltd. vice-president Larry Armstrong; Baxter Foods Ltd. president Malcolm Baxter; Halifax lawyer George Cooper, Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Co. chairman Ivan Duvar; Nova Scotia Power president David Mann; and Maritime Electric Co. chairman David A. Scales.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Sharp words don’t warrant a harsh SLAPP

Posted on April 10, 1997 by Other News Sources

The Telegraph Journal
April 10, 1997

It was the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies that got SLAPP-ed, but every New Brunswicker should feel the sting of that assault.

NB Power’s use of its considerable corporate weight in an attempt to silence one of its most vocal critics was more than inappropriate; it was downright frightening. The chill that NB Power directed at AIMS should run down the back of every New Brunswicker, including Premier Frank McKenna.

The publicly-owned utility and its officials demonstrated an alarming thinness of hide this week when they launched a lawsuit against the Halifax-based public policy think-tank. They alleged that a critique of NB Power’s performance before a legislature committee last year, written by Tom Adams of the Ontario-based utility watchdog Energy Probe, was ”maliciously calculated” to damage the public reputation of the utility and its president, James Hankinson.

AIMS beat a hasty strategic retreat, standing by the substance of the article but withdrawing any apparent references to Mr. Hankinson’s personal capabilities. Energy Probe, which was also named in the lawsuit, spit in NB Power’s corporate eye and invited the utility to take them to court. That lawsuit is still on the books.

It would have been courageous for AIMS to do the same, and make NB Power respond to the criticisms in the forum of open court. But considering the tactics NB Power had used, it’s easy to see why they chose to fight and run away.

NB Power did not take its corporate wrath just on AIMS management or on Mr. Adams as the author of the offending article – they served legal papers on every member of the AIMS board of directors, a group that includes a galaxy of corporate and political luminaries. Former federal cabinet minister John Crosbie was among those who received legal notice; so was ex-provincial cabinet minister Denis Losier. More significantly, the list of sued directors included the presidents of NB Power’s competition in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

This publicly-owned utility was not seeking legal redress or the righting of some profound wrong. It’s purpose here was to frighten and intimidate an agency critical of its policies by applying pressure at its most vulnerable point. Had AIMS chosen to stand and fight, NB Power could have dragged the proceedings through the court system until the group ran out of money or will to continue the struggle.

The tactic has been given a name in legal circles – a SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) suit. It is corporate power in its most naked form: sue your critics for defamation, then wear them down financially when they attempt to defend themselves.

It has been used most frequently by large multinational corporations against environmentalists, skirting free speech laws to silence public criticism. This is chilling enough when practised by the corporate power-mongers. To see it used by a corporation in the public domain, whose owners include those being targeted, is a frightening prospect.

For this reason, the McKenna government would be advised to take a hard look at a private members’ bill that was presented in the dying hours of this year’s legislature session.

The Public Participation Act, tabled by New Democratic Party leader Elizabeth Weir on the second-to-last day of the House sitting in February, would set strict rules against the use of legal harassment tactics by corporations. The act would guarantee any group or citizen the right to participate in any public debate and restrict the ability of corporations to file nuisance lawsuits against their critics.

Ms. Weir’s proposed bill would put the onus on corporations like NB Power to show they have suffered material damage from public criticism; a reasonable restriction that would prevent the wealthy from suing the impoverished over something as trivial as hurt feelings.

The bill died on the order paper, but the NDP leader has promised to re-introduce it when the House session resumes this fall. The McKenna Liberals should welcome that, or even draft legislation of their own to prevent these bullying tactics from being used on others.

And they should tell the Powers That Be at NB Power to learn how to cope with criticism. If they were slapped around a bit by the politicians, they might develop a thicker hide.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment