etyng research project - report - [10.16.12]

7/31/2019 ETYNG Research Project - Report - [10.16.12]

1/67

Youth Views, Opinions and Attitudes on Nuclear Power and on theCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission Environmental Assessment of theProposed Refurbishment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station

October 16, 2012

EAST TORONTO YOUTH NUCLEAR GROUP Alexander Anderson, Aishwarya Baskaran, Ashwin Baskaran, Evelyn Butler, Rebecca Cuddy, Ivy

Leao-Hill, Bowen Pausey, Andrew Polanyi, Saravanan Sivarajah, Thomas Waugh, Logan Ye, Jason Zhang

ADULT ADVISOR Michael Polanyi

The East Toronto Youth Nuclear Group is a volunteer group of youth aged 14 to 18. Its mandate is toeducate and take action on nuclear power issues in Ontario. Its objectives are (1) to educate its

members and other youth about the benefits and risks of nuclear power, and (2) to encourage youthinvolvement in decisions related to nuclear power in Ontario and Canada. The group was formed in

January 2011.


2/67

East Toronto Youth Nuclear Group - Oct.16, 2012

2

0. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Heading Page- Cover Page 10 Table of Contents 21 Executive Summary 31.1 Objective 31.2 Subjects and Methods 31.3 Results 31.3.1 Survey 31.3.2 Focus Groups 41.4 Recommendations 52 Introduction 52.1 Project Goals 52.2 Project Components 63 Rationale 64 Methods 7

4.1 Recruitment of Peer Researchers 74.2 Review of Draft Screening Report 74.3 Survey Design and Delivery 74.4 Focus Groups 84.5 Video Component 95 Results 95.1 Group Submission in Response to Draft Screening Report 95.2 Survey 115.3 Focus Groups 155.4 Peer Researcher Summary 165.5 Commentary on Video Component 176 Discussion of Results 18

7 Project Evaluation 208 Recommendations 209 Methodological Limitations 2010 Acknowledgements 2111 Appendices 2111.1 Appendix A - Table of Peer Researchers 2111.2 Appendix B - Copy of Survey 2211.3 Appendix C - Focus Group Interview Agenda 2611.4 Appendix D - Table of Focus Group Participants 2911.5 Appendix E - Focus Group Detailed Findings 3011.6 Appendix F - Initial Submission to the CNSC on Draft Screening Report 3711.7 Appendix G - Group Evaluation Responses 4011.8 Appendix H - Individual Evaluation Responses 4011.8.1 Response A 4011.8.2 Response B 4111.8.3 Response C 4111.8.4 Response D 4211.9 Appendix I - Dr.Tomlinson's Statistical Analysis of Raw Survey Data 4311.10 Appendix J - Video Component 6812 References 68


3/67

Oct. 16, 2012 - East Toronto Youth Nuclear Group

3

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Objective

This report summarizes the findings of a youth-led research project conducted by theEast Toronto Youth Nuclear Group (ETYNG). The purpose of the project was to explore the

views of youth about nuclear power and the current Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed refurbishment of the DarlingtonNuclear Generating Station (DNGS).

1.2 Subjects and Methods

Research was conducted by a team of 12 peer researchers aged 14 to 19 1 who weresupported by an adult volunteer project coordinator, and a researcher at Toronto GeneralHospital. The peer researchers designed and distributed a survey 2 that was completed byover 260 youth from the Greater Toronto Area. Researchers also held focus groupdiscussions 3 in Toronto and Oshawa with 14 youth to explore in more depth the views of youth on these issues.

1.3 Results

1.3.1 Survey

There were three main findings from the survey. First, youth want to have asay in decisions related to nuclear power whereas at present their voices andopinions are not being considered. For example, the survey found that74% of youth are not aware of current plans to refurbish the DarlingtonNuclear plant 4. However, 74% of youth think they should have a say inwhether nuclear plants are built or refurbished 5.

A second key finding was that youth are strongly supportive of renewablepower, whereas they are uncertain about nuclear power. For example, 90% of youth support the expansion of renewable power such as solar and wind 6,while 53% support the refurbishment of nuclear reactors 7, and only23% support the construction of new nuclear plants 8.

Third, youth believe that the current EA of the proposal to refurbish theDNGS should be more comprehensive than is currently the case. For example,82% of youth believe the Environmental Assessment should consideralternative ways to meet electricity demands to minimize environmentalimpacts 9, and 70% of youth disagree with the fact that the current review

1 Appendix A2 Appendix B3 Appendix C4 Appendix I5 Appendix I6 Appendix I7 Appendix I8 Appendix I9 Appendix I


4/67


4

is not considering catastrophic events or malfunctions that are consideredextremely unlikely (i.e. events on the scale of the Fukushima disaster) 10.

1.3.2 Focus Groups

Analysis of the two focus group discussions indicated a number of furtherfindings including the following:

First, focus group sessions underlined the extent to which youth feel uncertainabout nuclear power, given its significant benefits, but also its potential for harm.

Secondly, many youth were concerned about the amount of money that would bespent on the refurbishment and the long time period over which the plans wouldoperate because they feel that better options for producing energy might soonbecome available 11. Likewise, some felt that less money should be spent on therefurbishment and perhaps the life of the reactors should be extended for ashorter period of time 12. Youth also felt strongly that if the refurbishment goes ahead,there should be significant improvements to the technology used, to bothimprove safety and reduce the environmental impact of the plants 13.

Third, youth were particularly concerned about the long-term radioactive wasteproduced by the plant, including the unfairness of leaving the burden of waste onfuture generations, and some felt that the refurbishment should not proceed until thewaste issue was addressed 14. In general, participants agreed that efforts to mitigate orreduce the impacts of the DNGS on the environment should be undertaken, even if additional costs are involved 15.

Finally, focus group participants agreed with survey respondents that youthshould have a say regarding the construction or refurbishment of nuclear powerplants in Ontario because they will be consuming the power and will also affectedby any environmental impacts - over their lifetimes 16. However, youth recognizedthat many youth do not have the knowledge level to contribute to such decisions inall aspects (i.e. political, socioeconomical, environmental, and epidemiologicalimpacts) 17. Likewise, participants placed an emphasis on the need for furthereducation in schools and within the community to better inform youth about thetrade-offs between different energy choices as well as their impacts at all levels (i.e.political, socioeconomical, environmental, epidemiological) 18.

10 Appendix I11 Appendix E12 Appendix E13 Appendix E14 Appendix E15 Appendix E16 Appendix E17 Appendix E18 Appendix E


5/67


5

1.4 Recommendations

Based on these findings, the ETYNG make the following recommendations:

(1) The CNSC should not approve the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS until youthliving in the Greater Toronto Area have been made more aware of the proposal and itsentailments. Specifically, the CNSC should engage youth through flyers, Facebook andother advertisement media. It is striking that youth consider themselves aware of the benefitsand risks of nuclear power in general 19 , but they are not aware of a specific nuclear initiative(the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS) 20 which would have a significant impact on them.

(2) The CNSC should not approve the proposal for the refurbishment of the DNGS untilyouth have been given an opportunity to provide input towards the decision concerning therefurbishment. To this end, we suggest that the CNSC set up youth-friendly ways to provideinput such as on-line suggestion boxes or surveys, and interactive presentations or focusgroups in and outside of schools, and that the CNSC consider doing a more comprehensivesurvey of the views and opinions of youth themselves.

(3) The CNSC should not approve the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS until it has

carefully rescrutinized its decision not to consider alternative ways to provide electricity, andhas revisited its decision to dismiss wide scale killing of fish as non-significant, and also itsdecision to exclude from consideration low-probability catastrophic or malevolent acts. As itstands, the CNSCs review of the proposed refurbishment is out of sync with the values of youth. While we understand that the CNSC has indicated that it has already determined itsdefinition of significant events we urge it to reconsider that definition in light of newinformation on the views of youth.

2. INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2012, the ETYNG submitted a proposal to the CNSC Participant Funding Programas part of the CNSC Screening Assessment of a proposal to refurbish and extend the life of the DNGS.The following document summarizes and reports the findings of a youth-led research projectconducted by the ETYNG.

2.1 Project Goals

The goals of the project were:

(1) To explore current knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of youth aged 12 to 20 living inDarlington and the Greater Toronto Area about the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS andits potential environmental impacts.

(2) To inform youth about the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS and its potentialenvironmental impacts as outlined in the Draft EA Screening Report in an understandable andaccessible way.

(3) To engage youth in a discussion of the proposed refurbishment of DNGS and the EAScreening Report.

19 Appendix I20 Appendix I


6/67


6

(4) To increase participation of youth in the EA Screening process on the refurbishment of DNGS.

2.2 Project Components

The main components of the project were:

(1) The recruitment and training of a core group of 10-12 peer researchers (ages 12-19)to advise on and engage in project activities.

(2) The design and implementation of a youth questionnaire to assess youth knowledge,views and attitudes towards the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS.

(3) The informing of youth regarding the potential environmental impacts raised in theDraft EA Screening Report by producing a short on-line youth-oriented video.

(4) The invitation of youth who view the video and/or complete the questionnaire (alongwith other youth) to participate in group discussions of issues raised in the Draft EAScreening Report (one discussion in Toronto, and one in the Darlington area).

(5) The administration of a project evaluation with peer researchers.

3. RATIONALE

This project is motivated by the view that youth have a key stake in decisions related to nuclearpower since new or refurbished nuclear reactors operate for decades and nuclear waste lasts forgenerations, therefore having effects extending into the lifetimes of youth and subsequent generations.

The project also builds on previous indications that youth are underinformed about issues related tonuclear power. According to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) YouthRoundtable, amongst youth "there is a low level of literacy regarding Canadas energy landscape andthe nuclear fuel cycle." 21

Moreover, youth participation in previous CNSC review processes on nuclear-related decisions hasbeen limited. The ETYNG members have presented twice at such hearings (on the Darlington NewBuild and the extension of Cameco Fuel-Processing licence in Port Hope) and, to our best knowledge,both times provided the only oral or written interventions from youth under the age of 20.

There is a recognition by NWMO, the CNSC, and members of the nuclear industry of the need todevelop new approaches to better inform and engage youth on nuclear power issues. For example, inresponse to a presentation made by the ETYNG members to the Joint Panel on the new DarlingtonNuclear plant in 2011, the Chair of the Panel told representatives from Ontario Power Generation thatit should be "rechecking your communications, rechecking your involvement in getting informationout to [youth] not only [in] the Durham Region, but [in] other parts of Ontario." 22 The Chair alsostated that "young people are showing concern and showing a demand for more knowledge about avery important part of the electrical grid of Ontario, but also a very important part of their future.

21 "NWMO Progress to Date on Implementing YRT Recommendations" 22 "Darlington New Nuclear Plant Project Joint Review Panel" (78-79)


7/67


7

Theyve got a long life to live ahead of them and it would be very important to make sure that theright knowledge [gets] out." 23

In a meeting with representatives from Cameco in Port Hope in the fall of 2011, members of theETYNG were told of the challenge Cameco experienced engaging youth on nuclear-related issues,and Cameco asked the ETYNG to make suggestions of how to better reach youth.

Finally, based on a low level of literacy and engagement of youth in nuclear issues, the NWMOYouth Roundtable recommended that NWMO "modernize engagement tactics through thedevelopment of targeted messaging and interactive, multimedia experiences." 24 There is evidently aneed to find ways to better engage youth on important nuclear power issues.

This project aims to provide the CNSC with valuable information about the current knowledge,understanding and attitudes of youth towards the refurbishment of the DNGS and its environmentalimpacts, as well as ways to better engage youth in these decisions.

4. METHODS

4.1 Recruitment of Peer Researchers

Six members of the ETYNG applied to participate in the project as peer researchers.Advertisements were posted on Craigslist and Kijiji to recruit an additional six researchers.Prospective researchers submitted resumes which were reviewed by the ETYNG members.Short-listed candidates were interviewed over the phone. Selected candidates participated inan orientation session.

4.2 Review of Draft Screening Report

Given the June deadline for comments on the Draft Screening Report, the ETYNG did not

have time to conduct the survey and other research before submitting comments. Thereforepeer researchers conducted their own analysis of the report. Given the length of theScreening Report (167 pages), group members volunteered to read and summarize sectionsof the report. Summaries were presented at a group meeting, and a list of keyconcerns or issues related to the report were identified. A selection of submissions to theinitial scoping report were shared amongst group members. A sub-group of three peerresearchers then drafted a written submission.

4.3 Survey Design and Delivery

Based on the groups review of the Draft Screening Report and previous surveys on

nuclear power such as the Canadian Nuclear Association survey, the group identifiedthemes and issues for the survey. Based on these themes, members of the ETYNG draftedsections of the survey, posting a version online for other group members to comment. Theycarefully picked unbiased questions that were easy and fast to answer so teens couldefficiently fill them out. Some questions were drawn from the Canadian Nuclear Association

23 "Darlington New Nuclear Plant Project Joint Review Panel" (78-79)24 "Building Understanding and Engaging Young Adults in a Dialogue about Canada's Management of Used Nuclear Fuel"


8/67


8

survey for comparison to adult views on nuclear power. A meeting was held with Dr. GeorgeTomlinson, an epidemiologist at Toronto General Hospital, to review the validity of thequestions. The number of questions was reduced to keep completion time of the survey to 3-5minutes in length. The survey was pilot tested with peer researchers and neighbours in orderto ensure it was understandable and would be able to generate plausible results.

The group developed both a hard copy and an on-line version of the survey using FluidSurvey. ETYNG members took several trips to places in Toronto and Oshawa to collectsurvey results. Members travelled to Woodbine Beach three times, visited Lakeview beach inOshawa, and set up booths at both a youth music festival in Oshawa and at Oshawa CentreMall. It was found that the easiest way to get teens to fill out surveys was to provide somesort of incentive so members handed out freezies at the beach and implemented a raffle to winLeafs game tickets at the end of the survey. The number of completed surveys after around 3-4 hours at a location was usually 10-15, giving a rounded approximation of about 4 surveyscompleted per hour.

When school recommenced in September, ETYNG members also took surveys to classes

at their schools and surveys were sent to teachers known to the group to distribute in theirclasses. Requests were made to distribute surveys at community and recreation centres inOshawa and Clarington, however permission was not granted.

4.4 Focus Groups

A sub-group of peer researchers developed themes and questions for use during focusgroups to explore themes raised in the survey in more depth. The questions were reviewed ata group meeting.

An outline for the focus group was created based on the following criteria:

(1) the topic should be controversial or thought provoking;

(2) the topic should be easily understood by youth or require minimal explanation;

(3) the topic should gather useful and insightful information relevant to the ScreeningReport and youth opinion regarding nuclear energy in general.

During selection, we favoured topics that were relevant to the Draft Screening Report, asthe survey portion of the study was not able to discuss the intricate and specific mattersfound in Draft Screening Report. Through brainstorming and after several revisions, thegroup finalized a script with topic questions and probe questions for stimulating furtherdiscussion.

Topics explored in the focus groups focused largely on but were not limited to:(1) views on nuclear power and other power sources;

(2) views on issues related to the screening review;

(3) youth awareness and participation in decision related to energy policy and nuclearpower.


9/67


9

Participants were recruited for focus groups through advertisements posted on Craigslistand Kijiji. There was also a check off box on the survey allowing participants to indicateinterest in participating in a focus groups. $30 compensation was offered to participants whowould attend. Youth were asked to email their name, age, and city of residence if interested.The participants were then telephoned in order to gauge their interest, their ability to express

their views, and their knowledge level of energy issues. Efforts were made to secureparticipation of youth with a range of views and knowledge levels on nuclear power (e.g.,generally opposed, neutral, supportive) and a balance of genders, ethnicities and areas of residence from both Toronto and Oshawa.

Focus groups were held in Toronto on September 8 (at Danforth-Coxwell Library) and inOshawa on September 15 (at the Oshawa Civic Centre). Seven participants attended eachgroup. Sessions lasted for approximately 100 minutes. Each session was facilitated by twogroup members. The adult project coordinator recorded notes at each session in addition tothe consented audio recording of the sessions.

After the focus groups, the adult project coordinator did a detailed (but not verbatim)

transcription of the focus groups. He organized the transcripts by themes, and identifiedcommon views and diverging views. He wrote a list of key observations from the focusgroups and circulated it for comment to the focus group moderators.

4.5 Video Component

Due to the groups focus on the survey, and holidays of youth, the creation of the videowas delayed until later in the summer. Three peer researchers met to draft a script for thevideo. The initial plan was to secure the support of professional film-maker Geoff Bowie tohelp with filming, but some of the group members thought it would be engaging to undertakethe filming themselves. This reflects a tension in the project between encouraging youthleadership and learning, but also ensuring a professional-quality product on the other. Thefilming was conducted on a day in early September and one group member edited the videoand posted it on YouTube in mid-September. Unfortunately little time remained in the projectto circulate the video and use it as a tool to get more survey responses.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Group Submission in Response to Draft Screening Report 25

The group's submission centered on five main issues:

(1) Concern was raised about the narrow definition of significant environmental effects.

It seemed unjust and counterintuitive to the group that the killing of hundreds of thousands of fish would be deemed insignificant. Limiting significant to those effects that meetALL qualifying criteria (magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, irreversibility,and health or ecological impacts) rather than ANY one of the criteria seemed unreasonable.The group urged the CNSC to adopt a more inclusive definition of significant.

25 Appendix F


10/67


10

(2) The group disagreed with the seemingly arbitrary decision not to consider the impactsof and precautions against events that were deemed to have a likelihood of occurrence of lessthan one chance in a million in a year. The group was not convinced that the probability of unlikely events could be accurately assessed in advance given the unpredictability of weatherand the possibility of malevolent or other unanticipated events nor could it see reasonable

justification for excluding consideration of events of a level of seriousness that have alreadyoccurred in other places (e.g. Fukushima).

(3) The group was disappointed with the refusal of the CNSC to consider feasible effortsto mitigate or reduce non-trivial environmental impacts (e.g. consideration of cooling towersto reduce the impingement of fish).

(4) Given the groups view that impacts associated with the refurbishment are indeedsignificant, the group argued that a justification of these impacts should be part of the review,which requires a comparative assessment of alternative means to meet the purpose of theproject (provision of electricity). The group argued that the refurbishment should not beapproved until it has been shown that there are no other less impactful ways of meeting the

need for reliable electricity.(5) The submission raised concern about barriers to meaningful participation, including

youth, in the review of the proposed refurbishment. The ETYNG noted in particular the lack of time for comment on the Draft Screening Report, the inaccessibility of the report, the lack of plain language summary of the report or user-friendly questions for discussion, and the factthat the tight timeline for the review is preventing full consideration of lessons learned frominvestigations into the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

It should be noted that while the ETYNGs review of the screening report was conductedlargely independently of other groups or organizations, the issues identified by groupmembers were echoed by a number of other groups in their submissions on the Screening

Report.The CNSCs response to the concerns raised was disappointing, largely relying on

the argument that decisions concerning the scope of the review were already made in thescoping document 26, and that the review met legal requirements. There was little willingnessto engage at the level of ethics or values, or to discuss directly the views of the youthssubmission.

Specifically, the CNSC indicated that the definition of significant had already beendetermined and approved. It indicated that there was no legal requirement to considermalevolent events, that the exclusion of events like Fukushima was already approved, andthat the consideration of alternatives to the project was not required in screening level

assessments like this one 27.

The CNSC indicated that it had noted the ETYNGs concerns about accessibility of documents, but did not indicate that it would take any action in response. It indicated that it

26 "Submission from CNSC Staff on the Proposed EA Screening for Darlington Nuclear GeneratingStation" (B248-B252)27 "Submission from CNSC Staff on the Proposed EA Screening for Darlington Nuclear GeneratingStation" (B248-B252)


11/67


11

had extended the comment period on the report by 15 days 28, which did not address the scopeof the concerns raised about meaningful participation 29.

The CNSC did not justify their stances on the concerns raised in terms of ethical argument,public acceptability or the CNSCs values of safety and social, economic and environmentalsustainability.

5.2 Survey

There were 268 survey respondents. Survey respondents were 51% male and 49% female.97% of respondents were between the ages of 12 and 20, with the most frequent ages being16 (23%), 17 (21%), 14 (17%), 15 (12%) and 18 (10%). Participants were from Toronto(69%), Oshawa (9%), Scarborough (7%) and Whitby (4%). A small number had relativesworking in the nuclear industry (4%). 30

Questions and responses to the survey questions are listed below:

(1) Before taking this survey, I was aware of the Government of Ontarios plan torefurbish (rebuild) the Darlington nuclear plant:

Response Percentage CountYes 26% 68No 74% 197

Total Responses 265

(2) I feel that I am informed about the benefits and risks of nuclear power:

Response Percentage CountStrongly Agree 17% 46Somewhat Agree 46% 121

Somewhat Disagree 25% 65Strongly Disagree 12% 32Total Responses 264

(3) I have received information about the benefits and risks of nuclear power in thefollowing ways:

Response Percentage CountIn class at school 60% 152Outside of class at school (i.e. an assembly) 17% 44From TV or radio 43% 109From a newspaper or magazine 34% 85From the internet 55% 138From friends of relatives 33% 83Other 8% 20

Total Responses 252

28 "Submission from CNSC Staff on the Proposed EA Screening for Darlington Nuclear GeneratingStation" (B248-B252)29 Appendix F30 Appendix I


12/67


12

(4) Please tell us how much you support or oppose the following ways of producingelectricity. If you don't know anything about these forms of electricity, it's OK to say so!

StronglySupport

SomewhatSupport

SomewhatOppose

StronglyOppose

I don'tknow aboutthis form of electricity

TotalResponses

Coal Plants 14 (6%) 20 (8%) 55 (23%) 73 (31%) 75 (32%) 237

Hydro Plants (WaterPower)

144 (58%) 80 (32%) 17 (7%) 5 (2%) 4 (2%) 250

Natural Gas Plants 45 (19%) 69 (30%) 62 (27%) 35 (15%) 21 (9%) 232

Nuclear Plants 28 (11%) 65 (26%) 53 (21%) 66 (27%) 36 (15%) 248

Solar Panels 177 (69%) 56 (22%) 10 (4%) 6 (2%) 9 (3%) 258

Wind Turbines 156 (60%) 66 (26%) 16 (6%) 11 (4%) 9 (3%) 258

(5) In order to help meet Ontario's future energy demands would you support or opposethe following:

StronglySupport

SomewhatSupport

Neutral SomewhatOppose

StronglyOppose

TotalResponses

Upgrading andrefurbishing existing

nuclear plants55 (21%) 83 (32%) 74 (28%) 24 (9%) 26 (10%) 262

Building new nuclearplants

22 (8%) 38 (15%) 79 (31%) 62 (24%) 58 (22%) 259

Expanding renewablepower (e.g. solar and

wind power)197 (75%) 39 (15%) 22 (8%) 5 (2%) 0 (0%) 263

Expanding energyefficiency and

conservation (e.g.insulating homes,

installing high-efficiency furnaces)

181 (70%) 41 (16%) 33 (13%) 4 (2%) 1 (0%) 260


13/67


13

(6) The environmental review of the Darlington Nuclear Plant refurbishment highlightedseveral considerations. Tell us how much you agree or disagree with the followingstatements:

Strongly

Agree

Somewhat

Agree

Somewhat

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Unsure Total

ResponsesRefurbishing the plantis a good idea because

it will create manygood paying jobs in

the area.

67 (25%) 125 (47%) 29 (11%) 19 (7%) 26 (10%) 266

Catastrophic accidentsor malfunctions are

extremely unlikely anddo not need to be

considered.

14 (5%) 36 (14%) 69 (26%) 116 (44%) 28 (11%) 263

Thousands of fish arekilled by the plant each

year but the overallfish population in LakeOntario is probably not

harmed, so this doesnot need to be

considered.

26 (10%) 27 (10%) 61 (23%) 119 (45%) 31 (12%) 264

Other ways to produceelectricity should be

considered in thereview in order to

minimizeenvironmental

impacts.

166 (63%) 49 (19%) 18 (7%) 7 (3%) 22 (8%) 262


14/67


14

(7) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the followingstatements:

StronglyAgree

SomewhatAgree

SomewhatDisagree

StronglyDisagree

Unsure TotalResponses

Youth should have asay in decisions about

how power will begenerated in Ontario

111 (42%) 107 (41%) 20 (8%) 10 (4%) 15 (6%) 263

Youth should have asay in whether or notnuclear power plants

are built orrefurbished

98 (37%) 96 (37%) 29 (11%) 12 (5%) 27 (10%) 262

I would like to learnmore about the

benefits and risks of nuclear power

126 (48%) 83 (32%) 13 (5%) 13 (5%) 25 (10%) 260

Based on the above results, key findings are as follows:

Most youth (63%) feel they are aware of the benefits and risks of nuclear power, howeverthe majority (74%) are not aware of plan to refurbish the Darlington reactor.

Youth strongly support hydro (90% support), solar (91%) and wind (86%).Many moreyouth oppose coal plants (54%) than support them (14%), but a significant number of youth(32%) did not feel they knew enough to say. Youth have mixed feelings about natural gas

(49% support it and 42% oppose it) and are also divided in their support of nuclear power(37% support it and 48% oppose it).Youth are more likely to be strongly opposed to nuclearpower than strongly supportive (27% strongly oppose it, whereas only 11% strongly supportit).

Youth preferences on energy are very similar to the preference expressed by Canadianadults in the May 2012 survey by the Canadian Nuclear Association 31, with the exception thatyouth appear to be somewhat less supportive of natural gas plants than adults.

Youth respondents were less supportive of nuclear power than adults in Ontario (37% of youth support nuclear power, versus 54% of Ontario adults in CNA survey)

Youth moderately support for upgrading and refurbishing nuclear power (53% supportwhile only 19% are opposed). This is a higher level of support than adults showed in theCNA survey of adults. However, youth are much less supportive of building new nuclearplants (23% support this while 46% oppose this).

Youth are strongly supportive of expanding renewable power like solar and wind (90%support) and expanding investment in conservation and energy efficiency (86% support).

31 "2012 Public Opinion Research - National Nuclear Attitude Survey"


15/67


15

Most youth (72%) agree that a benefit of the refurbishment is that it will create goodpaying jobs.

Youth disagreed strongly with the statement that catastrophic accidents or malfunctionsare extremely unlikely and do not need to be considered in the environmental review of theDarlington refurbishment (70% disagreed, with 44% strongly disagreeing, while only 19%agreed). One respondent wrote: A power plant located so close to huge populations is a bigthing. ANY chances of an error occurring should be highly considered.

Youth also disagreed with the statement that the impact of fish does not need to beconsidered because the overall population in Lake Ontario is likely not harmed (68%disagreed, with 45% strongly disagreeing, while only 20% agreed).

Youth felt strongly that alternate ways to produce electricity should be considered in thereview in order to minimize environmental impacts (82% agreed, with 63% stronglyagreeing). One respondent wrote: We need to look at renewable energy, which wont be anoption [in] the future when the planet goes through catastrophic changes!

Most survey respondents agreed that youth should have a say in how power is generated inOntario (83% agreed, 10% disagreed) and in whether nuclear power plants are built orrefurbished (74% agreed, 15% disagreed). A couple of participants raised the concern in theircomments that youth are not sufficiently informed to make an informed decision. One wrote:I believe that kids should have a say but in retrospect, many kids are too delusional andincompetent to fully understand all perspectives." One participant suggested youth may bemore fully informed than adults after learning from an upgraded curriculum.

Most respondents wanted to learn more about the benefits and risks of nuclear power(80%, versus only 15% who did not want to learn more).

Some additional analysis was conducted with the assistance of Dr. George Tomlinson. In

particular, we explored whether gender and self-rated knowledge of nuclear power mighthave affected responses 32. The following observations were made:

(1) There is a tendency for more support for building new nuclear plants amongst thosewho are informed about nuclear energy (28.2%) compared to those who are not (19.1%).

(2) There is a tendency for more support for expanding renewable energy among females(93.7%) than amongst males (85.5%).

(3) Males are more likely to agree that refurbishing the plant is a good idea because it willcreate good jobs (79.1%) than females (66.1%).

(4) There is a tendency for more support for nuclear among males (44.9%) than amongstfemales (30.8%).

(5) There is more support for nuclear amongst those informed about nuclear energy(40.3%) than in those who are not (32.6%).

(6) Males are more likely to support upgrading and refurbishing nuclear plants (60.2%)than females (46.8%).

32 Appendix I


16/67


16

(7) Males are more likely to agree (24.1%) that a catastrophic accident is unlikely andneed not be considered than females (14.3%).

5.3 Focus Groups

The findings from the focus groups echo many of those from the survey. There were 27

main themes that arose from the focus groups33

. The main four issues are outlined below.

First, focus groups underlined the extent to which youth feel uncertain about nuclearpower, given it significant benefits, but also its potential for harm.

Second, youth were concerned about the amount of money that would be spent on therefurbishment and the long time period over which the plans would operate because theyfelt that better options for producing energy might soon become available. Likewise some feltthat less money should be spent on the refurbishment and perhaps the life of the reactorsshould be extended for a shorter period. Youth also felt strongly that if the refurbishment goesahead, there should be significant improvements to the technology used, to improve safety,and reduce the impact of the plants

Third, youth were particularly concerned about the long-term radioactive waste producedby the plant, including the unfairness of leaving the burden of waste on future generations,and some felt that the refurbishment should not proceed until the waste issue was addressed.In general, participants agreed that efforts to mitigate or reduce the impacts of the plants onthe environment should be undertaken, even if additional costs were involved.

Finally, participants agreed with survey respondents that youth should have a say about theconstruction or refurbishment of nuclear power plants because youth will be using the powerand will also be affected by any environmental impacts over their lifetimes. However, youthrecognized that many youth do not have the knowledge level to contribute to such decisions.Likewise, participants emphasized the need for further education in schools and thecommunity to better inform youth about the trade-offs between different energy choices.

5.4 Peer Researcher Summary

The majority of the youth said that they leaned more towards the use of solar, wind andhydro power which would most likely be the more eco-friendly way to go. They had someconcerns about the impacts of gas, nuclear and coal power on the environment. There was,however, an understanding that switching from one type of power to another is costly and notalways feasible.

Youth felt that the choice of power source should be influenced by a number of factors,

including location. The location of these plants cannot be just anywhere. The place wherethey situate themselves must be carefully analyzed and prepared if necessary before beingchosen in regards to the safety measures taking into account not only the human populationbut also the ecosystem and all of its contents as well its inhabitants.

Truly fascinating in itself though is the fact that these young people were very much takenunaware of just how much the people in the province of Ontario rely on nuclear power.

33 Appendix C


17/67


17

Nuclear power nonetheless despite its usefulness is not completely harmless. It provides asignificant amount of power and has helped produce many jobs (something the economycertainly needs at present) and is seen as one of the less costly sources of power in use. Yetthere is significant uncertainty associated with nuclear power according to youth andsubstantial concern about its potential impacts.

Not only are youth unclear about the effects that nuclear power could have on the planetduring the next few generations; they also were unaware of the plans to have the Darlingtonplant refurbished, a piece of news that noticeably has failed to make headlines in the newsand the media . Many people have mixed feelings about the impending project, severalwanting to know what the impacts would be if the plant was instead shut down. Then there isthe financial aspect that must be thought through. Such expensive projects take up a lot of money that some believe would be better spent elsewhere researching and improving othermore safer and cleaner forms of energy that solar, wind and hydro could provide.

On the other hand should the plant, in fact, be refurbished, a number of youth made thepoint that the safety mechanisms around nuclear power plants must be upgraded and greatlyimproved after the world was shocked over the nuclear disaster in Japan that did massivedestruction and harm to humans. One suggestion was to move the plants further from localpopulation keeping it isolated and tightly controlled should something go wrong. However, itwas felt that this would have a negative impact on local jobs. A pressing matter that also wasof concern was the long-term radioactive waste that was being disregarded by the plantleaving it as a huge environmental and health hazard to future generations. With the way thatweather patterns are changing; plans to protect nuclear power plants from extreme events areneeded more than ever.

Despite the popularity of solar, wind and hydro power many agree that there are measuresthat could be taken instead (though certainly not as potentially useful) such as conservation to

harness energy efficiency that would equally be a good idea to implement into society.Even if new forms of energy end up not being used and nuclear power kept as the

dominant form of power, many certainly insist that youth and the general public should bemore informed and properly educated on nuclear power and how it is going to be harnessedand what measures the locals should take in case of an accident that could become harmful tothose living in proximity to the plant(s). After the incident in Japan there has been an outcryfor the government to be more open and willing to hear the thoughts of the people and to taketheir ideas into account when making big decision that will affect many for many long yearsto come.

5.5 Commentary on Video Component 34

Although the video for the project did not have a huge role in helping to gather moresurvey responses, it did help get some and it promoted creativity of the peer researchers,allowing the ETYNG to spread the message on a potentially global, level. The process of making the video was an enjoyable one for all members. From writing the script to editing,every member was involved and was excited to make a video that was aesthetically pleasing

34 Appendix J


18/67


18

and really explained an important message in a clear and youth-friendly manner. After thevideo's creation, it was possible to use it as a foundation for people that did not know muchabout the matter of the DNGS refurbishment. Youth being accustomed to and familiar withmany technologies nowadays allowed for the facilitated reception of information from theETYNG. The video was used as a technological approach to get youth involved and to

encourage them to complete the survey after being given a chance to inform themselves moreabout the refurbishment.

6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

A strength of this project was the combination of quantitative and qualitative researchmethodologies (survey and focus groups). In this section we seek to draw from and integrate theresults of the two approaches.

(1) Awareness level of youth:

While youth rate their own knowledge level of nuclear power issues as moderate, the projectsuggests a need to better inform youth about nuclear power and other energy issues.

First only about one in four survey respondents was aware of plans to refurbish the Darlingtonnuclear reactor. For a project of that size and duration and real and potential impacts, that isunacceptable.

Second, there is a desire on the part of youth to learn more about nuclear power and other energyissues, and to have a say in decisions relation to energy in Ontario, since these decisions will impacttheir lives in the future.

Third, while majority received information about nuclear power in school, there is a sense that thedepth and scope of this information is lacking. Indeed, youth in focus groups showed a desire for more

information comparing energy sources. Youth in the Oshawa area suggested the need for more safetypreparedness.

(2) Youth energy preferences:

Youth preferences for sources of electricity fall in three tiers. At the top, there is strong, nearlyunanimous support for solar power, wind power, hydro power and other renewable sources of energy. The second tier includes nuclear power and gas plants, where opinion almost exactly split. Atthe bottom is coal, which has little support amongst youth.

It appears from our study that youth are slightly less supportive of nuclear power than adults (36%of youth surveyed in this project supported nuclear power, whereas 54% of Ontario adults supported

nuclear power in the Canadian Nuclear Association survey).(3) Youth views of refurbishment of nuclear reactors in general and at Darlington

The project led to a few clear conclusions on youth views of refurbishment of nuclear reactors.Youth are more supportive of refurbishing nuclear reactors than they are of building new nuclearreactors. Youth recognize the economic benefits of nuclear power in terms of jobs, and they see this asa reason for supporting the refurbishment of plants.


19/67


19

However, while youth are moderately supportive of the refurbishment of nuclear reactors, there isnot unconditional support. Focus groups and survey responses indicated a number of conditions thataffect youths support for refurbishment.

First, refurbishing nuclear reactors is clearly a second preference to the expansion of wind, solarand hydro power and other renewable power sources. Therefore, youth want to be clear that therefurbishment of nuclear reactors is necessary to meet our power needs.

Youth also want to minimize the costs and length of the life extension of nuclear plants, becausethey see new energy technologies as rapidly emerging, and they do not want to lock in to nuclear fora long period when new alternatives are emerging. They also want to ensure that spending on nuclearpower does not divert resources away from research on renewable energy alternatives.

Similarly, focus group participants were clear that that refurbishment must be more that simplyreplacing parts it should involve improving the safety of reactors and the technology generally.

Finally, a number of youth expressed the view that the issue of dealing with nuclear waste shouldbe resolved before the refurbishment of Darlington or other nuclear plants proceeds.

(4) Youth views on the Darlington station refurbishment

As mentioned, the majority of youth are not aware of plans to refurbish the Darlington nuclearplant. This is concerning given the significant short and long-term implications of the plan.

The survey and focus group responses suggest some clear youth views on what issues the reviewpanel should consider and what factors should inform its decision on whether or not to approve therefurbishment.

First, youth were clear that the review should explore alternative ways to meet Ontario powersneeds. This means examining other sources of power, but also modifications to the plant (e.g. asmaller less expensive plant, relocating the plant away from densely populated area, locating the planton an artificial lake).

Second, youth were strongly of the opinion that the review should assess the impacts of allconceivable accidents, not ruling out certain events in advance. Youth described the world asincreasingly unpredictable, and hence argued that not all possible scenarios can be determined inadvance, and therefore that the worst possible accidents should be planned for.

Third, youth felt that impacts should be assessed carefully, and all reasonable measure taken tominimize impacts. For example, the vast majority of survey respondents said that the impact on fishshould be minimized, even if the killing of fish was not likely to impact on the overall fish populationin Lake Ontario. Youth in focus groups suggested a range of measures to consider to reduce theimpact on fish population, including a man-made barrier or cooling towers). Focus group participantswere clear that efforts should be made to reduce the impacts on other species and the environment,even if this would increase the costs of the reactors.

Interestingly, youth views largely mirrored the position of the numerous expert submissions (aswell as the ETYNGs interim submission) made to the CNSC calling for a) exploration of need forand alternatives to the refurbishment; b) a wider definition of what constitutes a significant eventso that, for instance, killing of fish population is not taken into account; c) wider consideration of mitigative actions to reduce impact on the environment.


20/67


20

(5) Public and youth involvement

Youth believe strongly that they should have a say over decisions related to energy in Ontario.They recognize the need for education in order to make informed decisions. They clearly have a desireto learn more and to be part of the decision making process related to the refurbishment of the

Darlington reactor. It is a striking statement that only one in four youth are aware of therefurbishment plan.

7. PROJECT EVALUATION

This project was an innovative initiative. It sought to engage youth in a leadership role inconducting research on the views of other youth about nuclear power. We believe that it has generatedsome important findings in terms of what youth think about nuclear power and the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear reactor.

We conducted a group evaluation 35 on the project at a group meeting with seven peer researchers

present. Other peer researchers sent in their individual comments36

.Key positives from the project included significant learning by peer researchers, success in getting

a relatively large number of surveys completed, and strong participation in focus groups.

Challenges included organizational challenges in terms of lack of delegation and clarity aroundtasks, delay in getting the video completed, and a lack of survey responses from the Darlington area.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on this study's findings, the ETYNG makes the following recommendations to the CNSC:

(1) The CNSC should not approve the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS until youth living inthe Greater Toronto Area have been made more aware of the proposal. Specifically, the CNSC shouldengage youth through flyers, Facebook and other youth-friendly media. It is striking that youthconsider themselves aware of the benefits and risks of nuclear power in general, but they are notaware of a specific nuclear initiative which would have significant impact on them.

(2) The CNSC should not approve the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS until youth have beenprovided with an opportunity to provide input on the decision. To this end, we suggest that the CNSCset up youth-friendly ways to provide input such as on-line suggestion boxes, and the CNSC considerdoing a fuller survey of the views of youth themselves.

(3) The CNSC should not approve the proposed refurbishment of the DNGS until it hasreconsidered its decision not to explore alternative ways to provide electricity, and has revisited itsdecision to dismiss wide scale killing of fish as non-significant, and also exclude from considerationlow-probability catastrophic or malevolent acts. As it stands, the CNSCs review of the proposedrefurbishment is out of sync with the values and youth. While we understand that the CNSC has

35 Appendix G36 Appendix H


21/67


21

indicated that it has already determined its definition of significant events we urge it to reconsiderthat definition in light of new information on the views of youth.

9. METHODOLOGIAL LIMITATIONS

The main weakness of the survey is that the sample may not be representative. While there is agood mix of gender, age, and some diversity of place of residence, it is difficult to know whether thosewho agreed to do the survey have different characteristics than those who did not choose to completethe survey. It may be that those who chose to complete the survey are more aware of nuclear powerissues or more interested in nuclear power issues. Another limitation was the lack of respondents fromthe Oshawa/Darlington area, meaning that we could not explore whether the views of youth living inthe direct vicinity of the Darlington reactor are different from those living in other parts of the GreaterToronto Area.

10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The ETYNG gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the CNSC through its ParticipantFunding Program. We also thank the Canadian Health and Environment Education Foundation for itscontribution to the project. In addition, we thank RiverdaleMac and Cyclemania for in-kind donations.Lastly, we thank Dr. George Tomlinson of the Toronto General Hospital for his assistance with thestatistical analysis 37 involved in the project.

11. APPENDICES

11.1 Appendix A - Table of Peer Researchers

First Name Last Name Gender Age Home SchoolAlexander Anderson Male 14 Toronto Malvern CollegiateAishwarya Baskaran Female 16 Scarborough Woburn CollegiateAshwin Baskaran Male 19 Scarborough The University of TorontoEvelyn Butler Female 18 Toronto R.H. King AcademyRebecca Cuddy Female 20 Oakville The University of Western OntarioIvy Leao-Hill Female 17 Toronto St. Joseph CollegeBowen Pausey Male 17 Toronto Malvern CollegiateAndrew Polanyi Male 14 Toronto Monarch Park CollegiateSaravanan Sivarajah Male 18 Scarborough The University of Toronto

Thomas Waugh Male 14 Toronto Toronto French School (College Franaise)Logan Ye Male 15 Scarborough Victoria Park CollegiateJason Zhang Male 17 Toronto Danforth Collegiate Institute

37 Appendix I


22/67


22

11.2 Appendix B - Copy of Survey

Ontarios nuclear power plants are aging and some or all of the electricity they produce

needs to be replaced.

The Ontario government is planning to spend $6-10 billion to refurbish (rebuild)the Darlington nuclear plant east of Toronto so that it can operate for another 40 years.

The East Toronto Youth Nuclear Group is conducting a short survey of youthto get their views on this plan.

We will share the results with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the body that will decide whetheror not to approve the refurbishment of the Darlington plant.

Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. There are no right or wrong answers.Your individual responses will be kept confidential.

1. I was aware, before taking this survey, of the Government of Ontarios plan torefurbish (rebuild) the Darlington nuclear plant:

___ Yes ___ No

2. I feel that I am informed about the benefits and risks of nuclear power(please circle the answer that best reflects your view) :

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

3. I have received information about the benefits and risks of nuclear power in thefollowing ways (please check all that apply) :

in class at schooloutside of class at school (e.g. at an assembly)from TV or radiofrom a newspaper or magazinefrom the internet.from friends or relatives.other:


23/67


23

4. Please tell us how much you support or oppose the following ways of producingelectricity. If you dont know anything about these forms of electricity, its okay to sayso! (please check the box that best reflects your view) :

Stronglysupport

Somewhatsupport

Somewhatoppose

Stronglyoppose

I dont know aboutthis form of electricity

generationCoal plants

Hydro plants(waterpower)

Natural gasplants

Nuclear plants

Solar panels

Wind turbines

5. In order to help meet Ontarios future electricity demand, would you support or oppose(please check your answer)

Stronglysupport

Somewhatsupport

Neutral Somewhatoppose

Stronglyoppose

Upgrading and refurbishingexisting nuclear plants

Building new nuclear plants

Expanding renewable power (e.g.solar and wind power)

Expanding energy efficiency andconservation (e.g. insulating

homes, installing high-efficiencyfurnaces)


24/67


24

6. The environmental review of the Darlington nuclear plant refurbishment highlightedseveral considerations. Tell us how much you agree or disagree with the followingstatements:

Stronglyagree

Somewhatagree

Somewhatdisagree

Stronglydisagree

Unsure

Refurbishing the plant is a good ideabecause it will create many good paying

jobs.

Catastrophic accidents or malfunctionsare extremely unlikely and do not need

to be considered.Thousands of fish are killed by the planteach year but the overall fish populationin Lake Ontario is probably not harmed,

so this is does not need to be

considered.Other ways to produce electricity

should be considered in the review inorder to minimized environmental

impacts.

7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Stronglyagree

Somewhatagree

Somewhatdisagree

Stronglydisagree

Unsure

Youth should have a say indecisions about how power will be

generated in Ontario.Youth should have a say in whether

or not nuclear power plants arebuilt or refurbished.

I would like to learn more about thebenefits and risks of nuclear power.


25/67


25

8. Please tell us a bit about yourself to help us analyze the results:

What is your gender? ___ Male ___ Female How old are you? ___ YearsIn what city or town do you live? ____________________Does anyone in your family work in the nuclear industry? ___Yes ___ No ___ Unsure

9. Please write any additional comments you wish to share below:

10. If you would like your name to be entered into a draw to receive a prize, please provideeither your email address or phone number and full name below so that we can contact you

if you win. Your name and contact information will not be shared.

Name: _______________________

Phone/Email: _______________________

Please check the optional follow-up opportunities below accordingly. If you do, pleaseleave your contact information above so we may contact you.

___ I would like to be kept informed about the results of the survey.___ I would like to participate in a focus group.

*********** Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey! ***********


26/67


26

11.3 Appendix C - Focus Group Interview Agenda

Brief Introduction

- Welcome - thank you very much for give up some of your time on a Saturday- Introduce ourselves- About session

o A part of a research project on youth views about electricity issues in Ontario,particularly nuclear power

o We will present our findings to a government panel that is reviewing a proposal torefurbish or rebuild the Darlington nuclear reactor

o This is a large project it would cost several billion dollars and would extend the life of the reactor for another 30 years

o We will be asking you a number of questionso The purpose of this session is to get as many opinions as possible about each topic it is

not to make decisions or persuade each othero Saravanan and I will facilitate the discussion

o We will recognize people who want to speak please signal uso We will try to make sure that one person speaks at a timeo We strongly encourage you to state your personal opinions no matter what the opinions

others in the group may holdo We will have to keep the discussion moving so at time we may have to interrupt to

move on to another questiono We are tape recording this session so please speak clearly and try not to bang table

moderators will ask questions- Introductions/Warm up

o Lets take a few minutes to introduce ourselveso Perhaps each person could introduce their name, school and grade/year, and a hobby or

interest you have- Ground rules

- Before we start we would like to propose some ground rules for the discussion.- Hold up chart and read over

PROPOSED GROUND RULESYES NO

Speak your truth tell what you know and believe InterruptingAsk questions of other participants Fixing Blame

Talk with respect for others and yourself Personal attacksFollow moderators guidance about time and whose

turn it is to talk

- How does this sound? Is it agreeable?


27/67


27

Questions -

THEME A: Meeting Ontarios electricity needs (about 20 minutes)

1. Over the next 20 years Ontario will need new sources of electricity to replace coal plants and agingnuclear plants. What options do you see for replacing electricity?

PURPOSE: Give participants an initial opportunity to share their knowledge and views

about what they see as options for future electricity supply How do they frame the choices that we have?

2. Here is a chart showing the current electricity supply mix. Think for a moment, and perhaps writedown on your paper, which source of energy would you like to see increased and which would you liketo see reduced. Discuss.

PURPOSE: - Explore how participants feel about the CURRENT mix of electricity supply in Ontario

- Start to move into a more detailed discussion of the pros and consof each electricity supply option

- Try to probe their views of each option so if someone says lessnuclear ask them to explain their position, and ask others whatthey think

- Try to cover off solar, wind, hydro, natural gas (might need toexplain what this is ie plants that burn natural gas to produceenergy), other

3. What is most important to you when it comes to choosing between sources of electricity?

PURPOSE:- let participants identify some of the key considerations that should

influence choice of power sources (e.g. cost, job creation, airpollution, waste, reliability, future impacts etc)

- if they need help you can help by posing some examples of trade-offs (e.g. some say solar has less impact that gas or nuclear, butthat it is intermittent or the cost of solar per MW produced is

higher than nuclear, but nuclear has long term impacts)

4. Should the government build new power plants or should they encourage people like us to use lesselectricity in their homes?

PURPOSE- get participants to share views about the potential for conservation,

and the how much it should be a priority?


28/67


28

- Could ask them about whether they think it is cheaper to retrofithomes for instance, than to build new plants

- Can explore how feasible it is to get people to reduce electricityuse.

5. Do you have a sense of whether, overall, nuclear power is on the rise, or in decline, in Ontario, but alsoaround the world? What are some reasons for its rise or decline?

PURPOSE- encourage reflection on trends related to nuclear power

THEME B: Views on Refurbishment of Darlington Reactor (about 15 minutes)

6. The Ontario government wants nuclear power to continue to provide about half of Ontarios electricityfor at least the next 20 years. To ensure this, they are proposing to renovate the Darlington NuclearGenerating Station and extend its life to 2050. Are you aware of this proposal? What do you knowabout it? How do you feel about it?

PURPOSE:- start a discussion about feelings and views on refurbishment- what do they know?- They may say things like it should only happen if it is necessary- Try to probe to get more (e.g. what would convince you that it is

necessary to rebuild the plant?)- You can also give them additional pieces of information and see

how they respond (e.g. this project will cost $6 B to $10 Bdollars.does that influence your opinion? or Quebec hasdecided not to refurbish a similar but smaller reactor because it istoo expensive and potentially a health riskbut Ontario is muchmore reliant on nuclear power.what do you think about that?)


29/67


29

THEME C: Review of Proposal to rebuild the Darlington reactor (about 20 minutes)

7. A review of the environmental impacts of refurbishing or rebuilding the Darlington plant is beingundertaken by a federal government agency called the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. What doyou think it is important for the Commission to consider in deciding whether the refurbishment of theDarlington reactor should go ahead?

PURPOSE- start to get them thinking about key considerations that should

influence decision on whether or not the refurbishment goes ahead

8 .How important do you think it is that the study compare the impacts of refurbishing the Darlington plantwith the impacts of other options, like conservation or building more wind mills, solar panels or hydrodams?

PURPOSE

- explore their sense of the scope of review (indirectly gets atquestion of whether it should be a screening review or acomprehensive review)

- PROBE: There is some debate as to whether the review shouldlook at non-nuclear alternatives. Some say it is beyond the scope of the review to do so because it is already government policy topursue nuclear power. Others say that environmental reviews of large projects this one are supposed to consider the need for theproject and alternatives. What do you think?

11.4 Appendix D - Table of Focus Group Participants

Focus GroupLocation

Initials Gender Age Hometown

Oshawa A.C. Female 17 CourticeOshawa B.W. Female 18 WhitbyOshawa R.W. Male 19 WhitbyOshawa A.A. Female 18 OshawaOshawa M.G. Male 17 WhitbyOshawa C.C. Male 16 WhitbyOshawa H.A. Male 16 WhitbyToronto K.E. Male 17 ScarboroughToronto N.L. Female 19 OshawaToronto S.B. Male 17 TorontoToronto C.M. Male 18 TorontoToronto T.H. Male 17 North York Toronto K.M. Female 16 TorontoToronto S.J. Female 18 TorontoToronto N.H. Female 18 Toronto


30/67


30

11.5 Appendix E - Focus Group Detailed Findings

1. Youth participants prefer solar, wind and hydro to gas, nuclear and coal, but understand that costs,intermittency and other issues pose barriers to increasing these sources.

2. Youth felt some locations were more suitable to some sources of power than others.

3. Participants were surprised about how much nuclear power contributes to the grid in Ontario, andhow little solar does.

4. Participants see nuclear power as fraught with trade-offs: it has the potential to produce asignificant amount of power, it supports many jobs, and it is considered less expensive than othersources, but on the other hand it is potentially the most harmful source of power.

Nuclear energy has the biggest, pretty much most of the waste but also produces most of the energy so its a very, very interesting tradeoff (C.M., Toronto)

As long as you are with wind, hydro and solar they know the effects, while nuclear thereare tons of reasons people get cancer around itstill dont really know with nuclear (R.W., Oshawa)

5. Youth participants think that a range of factors should inform the choice of power sources,including cost, environmental impact, safety, byproducts, controllability of impacts, uncertainty of impacts.

6. Most youth participants were not aware of plans to refurbish the Darlington plant.

I know about it.did not take a lot of views of the general public. They took a lot of consideration of the higher ups, what they thought was better for people. Should havetaken consideration, not all of Ontario, but asked the people[they] looked at somedownsides, but money was a big influence, so that was what happened (B.W., Oshawa)

7. Youth have mixed feelings about the refurbishment. Some participants felt the large amount of money proposed for the refurbishment would be better spent on developing less environmentallyimpacting technologies. There were different views and the need for more information aboutthe implications of not proceeding with the refurbishment and instead shutting down the plant.Some participants felt that lost power would need to be replaced with less desirable sources coal orgas, while others felt it was possible that or more acceptable power sources such as wind, solar,hydro and geothermal could meet demand).

Money [would be] better used in other forms of energy and develop them better, oneclose, hydro could make up for a lot of this, turn a little more to gas (B.W., Oshawa)

Find a cheaper way, more cost efficient way to use the wind and gas instead of nuclear (K.M., Toronto)

8. Youth were concerned about the amount of money that would be spent on the refurbishment andthe long time period over which the plans would operate because they felt that better optionsmight be found within the next 30 years. Likewise some felt that less money should be spent on


31/67


31

the refurbishment and perhaps the life of the reactors should be extended for a shorter period, andsome of the money shifted to researching and improving cleaner alternatives like solar and wind.

If we shut itwould have to increase coal and gas, better to refine nuclear than tocompletely disregard it others are worse than nuclear, can fix long term effects of nuclear, effects of coal and gas are a lot more long term (H.A., Oshawa)

I dont think you can replace nuclear power; there has to be a balance, but always willbe more nuclear power needed (N.H., Toronto)

9. Youth felt strongly that if the refurbishment goes ahead, there should be significant improvementsto the technology used, for example improved safety (based on learnings from the Japanexperience) and other ways to reduce the impact of the plants (e.g. moving them farther frompopulations, using artificial lakes, cooling water before releasing it to Lake Ontario, installingbarriers to keep fish away from the plant, and refining the waste so that it is less dangerous).

I think by 2050 there will be a lot of newer sources of power like even ones that we

havent considered and so I think it is kind of a waste to extend that period all the way tothat time (N.L., Toronto)

[The] plants are pretty old good idea to refurbish, their security would be a bit old, sobest reason to refurbish plants because security is not up to date (H.A., Oshawa)

I think I would refurbish it but my concern is that, the one thing that is important is, for example, if someone makes a car, they are not going to release the same model the next

year. So it has to be something different, more security, or maybe a branch of research.You have to convince people that it is a better product and you arent just rebuilding thesame thing (T.H., Toronto)

10. Some participants felt it would be better to move the plant to a less populated area (to protect incase of an accident) but others felt that would cost more and that jobs in the Darlington area wouldbe lost.

11. Participants felt that the environmental review should explore alternatives for meeting electricityneeds.

I think it is important to compare the different options, whether investing in something elsewould be better or not (C.M., Toronto)

What else the money could going tohow other things affect the environmentdidnt really

consider it only looked at nuclearthe impacts of other effects, not just focus on nuclear,look at other potential types of energy, wider spectrum (B.M., Oshawa)

Yes [they] should still consider alternatives, try to get more efficient types of energy (T.H.,Toronto)

12. Youth were particularly concerned about the long term radioactive waste produced by the plant,including the unfairness of leaving the burden of waste on future generations, and some felt thatthe refurbishment should not proceed until the waste issue was addressed.


32/67


32

I think one important factor to consider is waste disposalI think it is one of the biggest problemsit takes many,many, many years to get rid of the risk factor in it, so I think they should first try to figure that out how to get rid of the waste (T.H., Toronto)

First Nations talk about next seven generations.need to contain waste for 10,000 years,like space junk, keep making itgiving problem to future generations (S.J., Toronto)

There should be research into better ways to be able to dispose of and or recyclemaybeway to condense it into a solid or melt it or if all else fails we can maybe blast it off into space because basically nothing matters there if we can manage a way to do it cost effectively (C.M., Toronto)

I think they need to find more ways to store it or do something with it or theres no pointin thinking about starting [to refurbish](S.B., Toronto)

One of the first things they [should] think about before refurbishing the plantsuch asecofriendly containers (N.L., Toronto)

13. Participants had different views about the seriousness of impacts on fish population.

I think its acceptable, depending on where fish are being killed, if it is basically beingriver fish not being consumed, or if it is critical fish that people eat or critical toecosystem, then not acceptable (C.M., Toronto)

Depends on how many fish compared to population in Ontarioif it is 20-30% that is alot (H.A., Oshawa)

Fish are part of food chain, what other animals are being affected, also might affect humans (T.H., Toronto)

I dont know if we eat fish from Lake Ontario, but if we dont then I think its fine (K.M.,Toronto)

14. In general, participants agreed that efforts to mitigate or reduce the impacts of the plants on theenvironment should be undertaken, even if additional costs were involved. For example, when toldthat building cooling towers might reduce the impact on fish most participants supported this, eventhough it could make electricity more expensive.

If we are going to use nuclear want benefits without dealing with effectsshould beresponsiblenot avoiding the impacts (C.C., Oshawa)

That should be part of the plant costwe have to take care of thisthat is part of the paymentno question of should we do this (R.M., Oshawa)

Build them definitely because maybe the cost will comeback and bite usLike Supermansays, with great power comes great responsibility. A lot of power from plants.great responsibility (H.A., Oshawa)


33/67


33

15. Youth felt that even though the likelihood of a serious accident was small, given changing weatherpatterns, global tensions and the potential for terrorism, and the other unpredicted events (e.g. acomet falling to earth), that serious accidents should be considered in the environmental reviewand efforts made where possible to reduce the risks.

With the environment changing the weather conditions changing, we could have evenmore serious storms, prepared for what we normally have but if it changes suddenlywere screwed (A.C., Oshawa)

Chernobyl rare event, but then in a short time period, Japan, so some countries taking it as a possible effect in the lifetime. (B.W., Oshawa)

We are so reliant on nuclear, not only everyone already stressed, but no one would have power. (R.W., Oshawa)

There are lots of tensions with Iran and I know that this sounds crazy but what if there is

a terrorist attack or something? (S.J., Toronto)

I agree with her about taking into account a possible attack or other ways in which power could become eliminated or disabled so they should take into considerationredundant means of power so we are not stranded as a people and a society (C.M.,Toronto)

16. Youth felt that conservation and energy efficiency were important, and in some ways better thanbuilding new sources, but they did not see conservation as a replacement for building new powersources (both would be needed).

We really should try to reduce as much consumption as we can, in everyway.conservation so much easier than developing new techstill can have new ways to

find energy, new fuel.but more resources to encourage population to use a lot less.start enforcingput penalties on people that consume too muchwe can offset alot of pollution from electricity generation if we produce less (C.M., Toronto)

17. Youth felt that there was significant potential to ramp up energy conservation programs, but alsorecognized the real barriers to getting people to reduce their electricity use (e.g. sense of entitlement, refusal of the people to give anything up).

I like the idea of putting a penalty on how much energy you use a day (N.L., Toronto)

18.

Participants felt that the public have a right to a say about the refurbishment, as citizens, taxpayersand residents of the area.

Absolutely [should consult], especially Darlington area, should do surveys, at least do a poll to see what people think, havent done any (C.C., Oshawa)

If we are using energy, we should have a say in how it is being produced (H.A., Oshawa)


34/67


34

Nice if people had a say, but a lot of people dont know, not educated about this (N.H.,Toronto)

It is part taxpayer money, people entitled to opinion, but at same time cant haveeveryone in Toronto agreeing, you will never come to a decision, maybe somecommitteesa certain group of people selected from each communityrepresentativescan discuss (T.H., Toronto)

19. There was a sense that there is a role for both experts and the general public in decision-makingaround refurbishment.

Need both, public or whatever should have a say as well, especially if it around wherethey are living or something, should have a say if they want that in their neighbourhood,and experts should have a say, they are obviously experts (N.H., Toronto)

There should be a good amount of transparency, where we know when they are startingto go through process and when they come to decision, come to the public in terms and

bring the why of the decision and why they want to do what they want to do, and we cansay if we agree or disagree (C.M., Toronto)

Experts should be guidelining effects that are really going to happen, facts, from their the public can gage reaction (R.W., Oshawa)

Experts presenting ideas, and listing to reactions, and what we believe, hand in hand (C.C., Oshawa)

As long as they [decision-makers] come back to us, reflect ideasshould bealrightthey are the experts, the professionals, they are paid we are not as long asthey come back to us relatively often take into consideration what we want that is good (C.M., Toronto)

20. Participants talked about the importance of government and experts providing accessibleinformation to the public on the refurbishment.

Most Canadians are busy taking care of families, dont have time to read a one hundred page report using big words (N.H., Toronto)

[Should have] a website having most technical information that is happening, important stuff so earnest researchers look at exactly what is going down, then smaller morecondensed thing for the media to report (this is what has been proposed, 5 minute

think to go over), then another report for schools (this is what happening in the future,what you can learn about), then resources for everyone to look for (C.M., Toronto)

Out of sight is out of if you dont see information, dont see pamphlets, not aware of it,information should be available (T.H., Toronto)

Make information more clear to immigrants, parents feel like they cant make adifference, dont speak language, should be made more welcome, part of Canada, thenthey can make a difference (S.J., Toronto)


35/67


35

As long as people know there are resources available and know where they find them and encouraged to go and figure it out for themselves when the time comesas it is now

population not completely really [informed] (C.M., Toronto)

21. Participants felt generally that youth should have a say since youth will be using power in overthe next 40 years but there was a recognition that many youth dont have the knowledge level tocontribute.

We [youth] should have a say, we are the ones that going to have to live withconsequence as well as generations after us (K.M., Toronto)

To make decisions, need some level of experience to know how things works, so cant make all decisions through youth but the opinions of youth should matter. (T.H.,Toronto)

22. There was a feeling that currently most youth lack the knowledge to make a decision about nuclear

power and the refurbishment.

I dont know enough about the details to be informed enough to make a decision (T.H.,Toronto)

I dont think the majority of the people have enough information to make a proper decision for themselves (S.B., Toronto)

If they were to have a vote then people would want to learn about it (N.L., Toronto)

23. Generally, participants felt they learned something about nuclear power at school (and through themedia) but they had a very incomplete picture.

[They] did emphasize effects of stuff, didnt tell you solar was better than coal or gas.didnt define the differences (R.W., Oshawa)

I only hear about nuclear energy when Japan or Pickering or something the bad thingsuse the media to educate people (N.L., Toronto)

Adults may be a little more informed from news. [I] dont think youth get much exposure. I think it is important. Youth are going to be adults at some point. They are going to bemaking decisions need to educate the youth about these issue. (T.H., Toronto)

24.

Participants suggested that there was a need for further education in schools and the community(e.g. assemblies, videos, pamphlets, projects, in the curriculum).

See a method that worked to inform youth, such as pamphlets that you distribute inschoolstrying to use projects that worked in the past (T.H., Toronto)

Videos, course materials, and even if they did projects for youth (N.L., Toronto)


36/67


36

Go to school boards, and try setting up assembliestwice or three times a year indifferent schools, show, teach the youth. (S.B., Toronto)

Better if they have these things in assemblies in school, dont have a choice (K.E.,Toronto)

Dont educate everyone on everything but some things you need to know, look it up, haveresources, people can go and learn about it themselves, understand an overall view of what they should know and learn the details themselves (C.M., Toronto)

Put it in the curriculumearly stage school science. More detailed view of what goes onwith regards to energy and have resources available. Media should be exposing more tothe positive aspects of it and general things that go on with the plants, not just negativethings so we know that it is safe, procedures for safety (C.M., Toronto)

25. There was concern among some participants that they lacked knowledge or preparation about whatto do in case of a nuclear accident.

Since we know very little about nuclear, people arent prepared protect themselves, weare not really educated in terms of you have to get out before it gets worse (B.W.,Oshawa)

My dad taught me about drills. They did nothing like that at school. If something were tohappen people just sitting ducks. lockdown if fire, if something happens with nuclear,

people will run around will have no idea (R.W., Oshawa)

Counteract health riskshave some sort of drill. [We] have lock downs if jail break,should be prepared for a nuclear fallout, major effect that most dont know what the hellto do, I dont know what to do (C.C., Oshawa)

26. There were different views about the extent to which government actually desires the input of adults and youth. Some felt government and decision-makers really didnt want the views of youth, and it was up to youth to organize themselves and raise their views.

We dont really have a say in it, they dont really care what we think (K.M., Toronto)

Only way to show interest to governments attention is rallies, protests, so many issueswe are not aware of.youth not informed (N.H., Toronto)

Government doesnt really care if youth care, meetings to make it look like they care in

this country a lot of people are really blind to these issuesAs long as we are happy weare quiet, dont raise issue, government is happy with that (S.J., Toronto)

Problem with society is they treat us like children but expect us to act like adults, so I guess a lot of youth are saying it wont affect us, if we try to change that that youthhave a role to play.then more youth would start caring There is power in numbers,Facebook, Twitter what happened in Egyptget more and more people to learn about this we can make a difference not just about this but about any issue(S.J., Toronto)


37/67


37

Probably that [decision-makers] do care, someone on Board said this should happenhave a budget, dont know how effective it is to reach out to people, want to start out small, then build up more in the future, as long as we should we want our voicesee if more people want this (C.M., Toronto)

27. Others said government probably didnt know how or whether it was possible to involveyouth.

If this was a government initiative and no one signed up, then they wont addressitonce government sees a source of interest will do something (T.H., Toronto)

If media or government can show people that this can or will affect you in your lifetimeand should do something about it start with discussion, talking, start small, prosper into more of an interest (C.M., Toronto)

28. In general, some of the most important issues to participants were the need for more education,

dealing with the nuclear waste issue, educating the public and researching cleaner and more costeffective solutions.

Persuade society to use more eco-frie

etyng research project - report - [10.16.12]

Documents