Environmental Assessment Panel Research Articles

Questions and answers about the effects of the depletion of the ozone layer on humans and the environment

The ozone molecule contains three atoms of oxygen and is mainly formed by the action of the ultraviolet rays of the sun on the diatomic oxygen molecules in the upper part of the Earth's atmosphere (called the stratosphere). Atmospheric pollution near the Earth's surface can form localized areas of ozone. The stratospheric ozone layer protects life on Earth by absorbing most of the harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. In the mid 1970s it was discovered that some manmade products destroy ozone molecules in the stratosphere. This destruction can result in damage to ecosystems and to materials such as plastics. It may cause an increase in human diseases such as skin cancers and cataracts. The discovery of the role of the synthetic ozone-depleting chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) stimulated increased research and monitoring in this field. Computer models predicted a disaster if no action was taken to protect the ozone layer. Based on this research and monitoring, the nations of the world took action in 1985 with the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer followed by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987. The Convention and Protocol were amended and adjusted several times as new knowledge was obtained. The Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol appointed three Assessment Panels to review the progress in scientific knowledge on their behalf. These panels are the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Technological and Economic Assessment Panel and the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel. Each panel covers a designated area and there is a natural level of overlap. The main reports of the Panels are published every four years as required by the Meeting of the Parties. All the reports have an executive summary that is distributed more widely than the main report itself. It became customary to add a set of questions and answers--mainly for non-expert readers--to the executive summaries. This document contains the questions and answers prepared by experts who comprise the Environmental Assessment Panel. It is based mainly on the 2006 report of the Panel but also contains information from previous assessments. Readers who need detailed information on any question should consult the full reports for a more complete scientific discussion. This set of questions refers mainly to the environmental effects of ozone depletion and climate change. The report of the Scientific Assessment Panel contains questions and answers related to the other scientific issues addressed by that Panel. All these reports can be found on the UNEP website (http://ozone.unep.org).

Setting the Terms of Reference in Environmental Assessments: Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Management

Although ostensibly a technical issue, the environmental assessment of the proposed concept to dispose of nuclear fuel waste (NFW) deep in igneous rock of the Canadian Shield, caused considerable debate regarding the social, ethical, and political dimensions of the issue. Among other things, those embroiled in the debate, including government, industry and non-governmental organizations disagreed about how to define the problem of NFW management. However, since the current procedure for setting the terms of reference involves only limited public consultation, the full range of alternative definitions was not considered. We deconstruct the negotiations that led to the setting of the terms of reference. Throughout the environmental assessment hearing process, and subsequent to its completion in 1998, the terms of reference were a source of controversy and conflict amongst stakeholders. At the end of the process, the final Environmental Assessment Panel report transcended the scope of the terms of reference and provided both technical and social definitions of the safety and acceptability of the NFW disposal concept. The ramifications of this report will reverberate in all future assessments of complex technological and major resource management projects.

Reflections of an environmental assessment panel member

This article documents my personal recollections and reflections on being an environmental assessment panel member. While I have served on five different panels, the main focus is on that for the Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill, proposed for, and subsequently constructed in, central Alberta, Canada. Rather than investigating the impacts of the pulp mill and the findings of the panel, which are well documented elsewhere, the article deals with my personal reactions to aspects of the review that still stand out in my mind a decade later. These include memories of the people who presented information to the panel, frustrations with the long and sometimes difficult hours of hearings, enjoyment of exciting and different ideas given to the panel by a very diverse group of participants, and, most of all, the times and ideas shared with other panel members.

Scientific and Social Judgments of Safety in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept

In February 1998, the environmental assessment panel for Atomic Energy of Canada's (AECL) nuclear fuel waste management and disposal concept issued its report, in which it concluded that the idea of burying nuclear waste deep in the Canadian Shield is not acceptable as it stands, because it has not been demonstrated to have broad public support.1 The report offers an intriguing analysis of the concept of safety, according to which there are two perspectives one can take to evaluate whether a project is safe, a technical perspective and a social perspective. According to this analysis, the proposal for burying nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield could be judged to be safe from one perspective, but not from the other. In fact, the panel concluded that burying nuclear waste in rock is safe from a technical point of view, but that it has not been shown to be safe from a social point of view, for which reason it found the project to be unaccept able at this time. In this paper I explore the analysis of the concept of safety that led the panel to adopt this curious conclusion. I argue that the panel's analysis represents an advance over many such discussions, because it legitimizes the understanding of the concept of safety held by the general public, which is based on the idea of protection from harm. However, I conclude that the analysis ultimately fails because it does not

Perspectives on the Review of AECL's Proposal for Disposing of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste

ABSTRACTA federal Environmental Assessment Panel has completed public hearings on the proposed concept for geological disposal of Canada's nuclear fuel waste. The Panel will make recommendations to assist the governments of Canada and Ontario in reaching decisions on the acceptability of the proposed concept and on the steps that must be taken to ensure the safe long-term management of nuclear fuel waste in Canada. It is instructive to review the background to the public hearings, to consider the issues that have been important in the public review, and to reflect on the opposing points of view presented at the hearings.

Technology for radioactive waste disposal in Canada / Die Technik der Endlagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in Kanada

Used fuel from Canada's power reactors is currently stored at the reactor sites. A concept has been developed for geological disposal in plutonic rock of the Canadian Shield. This concept will be submitted in 1994 for review and public hearings under a federal environmental assessment panel. Experimental work in support of the concept continues. It is intended to dispose of low- and intermediate level waste from power reactors. Technology is being developed to dispose of this type of waste from research and industry sources. A key component, the intrusion- resistant underground structure, is undergoing regulatory review

Intervener funding in the environmental assessment process in Canada

Intervener Funding (IF) has been adopted in Canada as a means of providing financial assistance to individuals or groups to allow them to participate in the Environmental Assessment process. In Ontario funds are allocated to interest groups (interveners) when their interests represent an issue which is significant to the public likely to be affected by a proposed development, and when a separate representation would assist the Environmental Assessment Panel. While the value of IF is well established, there is still a clear need to extend its application. Legislation Ls required at both federal and provincial level not only to ensure that adequate funding is made available but also to establish independent funding committees to administer the process, in particular to enforce eligibility criteria.

THe Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment And Review Process: Mutual Responsibilities

Abstract On July 30, 1984, the final report of the Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment Panel was released, culminating a four year public review of Beaufort hydrocarbon production and transportation options. This article summarizes the reaction of one of the industry participants to the report's findings and implications for future activities. The Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process (EARP) is the key component of the regulatory process designed to review environmental and social issues. Once initiated, no federal development approval except that of the National Ener2.Y Board can be given until the review has been completed and the panel has made its recommendation to the Minister of the Environment. These are not binding, but may be implemented as deemed necessary by the appropriate government agencies and project proponent. The Beaufort EARP was unique because it examined a wide range of conceptual development alternatives rather than a specific project proposal. The options were developed by Dome Petroleum Ltd., Esso Resources Canada Ltd. and Gulf Canada Resources Inc., the proponents, on behalf of all land holders in the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta region. As a result, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by the proponents examined the potential environmental and social impacts associated with offshore and onshore production, tanker transportation through the Northwest Passage, pipeline transportation up the Mackenzie Valley, and support activities. The panel also requested and reviewed information on regulatory roles and responsibilities and the current status of government preparedness. The Panel's Findings The panel's recommendations and conclusions were based on two key objectives:that northerners must be able to manage the effects of changes and derive long-term benefits from developments; andthat the degree of risk to renewable resources from oil and gas production would be acceptable to them. The panel determined that a uphased approach" to hydrocarbon development utilizing sequence of small-scale projects would satisfy these objectives. The panel recommended phased development involving initial production of about 15,000 m3/day of oil. The report concludes that this production could be transported in a small diameter (e.g. 400 mm) buried pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley and that such a pipeline could be built without further public hearings. Oil tanker transport was recommended to commence only after a research and preparation stage follow- ed by a two-tanker demonstration project. This initial production phase could be followed by increases in throughput, and addition of pipelines or tankers in a sequential fashion, if impacts observed in the initial phase were determined to be acceptable. In addition to the discussion of oil production, the panel concluded that a gas pipeline may be built if potential socioeconomic impacts do not exceed those of small-scale oil production. They also recommended that no port or supply base should be permitted on the Yukon Coast west of Kay Point, and that industry should share facilities wherever possible. Approximately three-quarters of the panel's formal recommendations address government roles and responsibilities.

An environmental assessment and review process

Environmental impact assessments are commonplace in North America. In the USA, they are now established as a way of life. They are regarded with some scepticism, if not totally deplored, in other parts of the world (see the Editorial by H. A. Cole, Mar. Pollut. Bull., 1983, 14, 12 l 122). In the following piece, I shall describe an environmental assessment and review process that has been adopted in Canada for federal projects or projects with federal funding. It involves an Environmental Impact Statement. About 21 projects have been subjected to review by Environmental Assessment Panels and finalized with reports so far. About half that number are being actively worked on at the present time. Some half-dozen projects are in a dormant state, including the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power and Polar Gas projects, and awaiting more favourable economic conditions to be reactivated. As an example of a project that has been completed, I shall discuss the Environmental Assessment of the Roberts Bank Port Expansion which was done by an Environmental Assessment Panel (Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process, 1979. R oberts Bank Port Expansion. Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel, Federal Assessment Review Office, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H3, 70 pp.). When the Federal Department of the Environment (DOE) was formed in 1971, the responsibilities given to the Minister reflected the government's and the public's concern about environmental affairs by directing the Minister both to undertake and to promote programmes to achieve environmental protection and enhancement. One of the first concerns of the Department after it was formed was to examine the federal government's role as polluter and to review all the projects that may be initiated by the government, in order to see what degree of pollution they may introduce, and to see what preventive, ameliorative and Dr Waidichuk is Senior Scientist with the Fisheries Research Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, located at the West Vancouver Laboratory. He is an oceanographer who has devoted most of his career to research on marine pollution problems. He was a charter member of GESAMP (IMCO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/ IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution), and chaired the International Coordination Group of the Intergovernmentai Oceanographic Commission's Global Investigation of Pollution in The Marine Environment (GIPME).

La notion d'impact dans les espaces protégés

Most of the Canadians Nationals Parks include often some important equipments. Presently, the Banff National Park, Alberta, presents the result of the review by an Environmental Assessment Panel to upgrape 13 km. of the Trans-Canada-Highway to provide a four-lane, limited access divided highway. This example asks the question of the environmental impacts studies, her proceedings, inftuencies and finalities, facing the economics forces.