The petition seeks clarification on alleged procedural deficiencies in the federal government’s impact assessment of the Peace River Nuclear Power Project. The petition claims that the project’s tailored impact statement guidelines do not require a comparative analysis of the nuclear facility's societal risks against those of competing technologies like natural gas with carbon capture, advanced battery storage, and geothermal generation. According to the petition, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has taken the position that it does not conduct the benefit-versus-harm balancing analysis that section 63 of the Impact Assessment Act requires for nuclear projects. The petition alleges that the combination of these 2 things creates a structural defect across the government’s regulatory framework for new nuclear projects. The petition asks whether the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada will amend the project’s tailored impact statement guidelines to require the mandated comparator analysis.
The petition asks what the government has done to ensure that a proper benefit-versus-harm balancing analysis is conducted for nuclear projects. Furthermore, it seeks to determine how the government will ensure that radiation-protection considerations are incorporated into the impact assessment process for the Peace River Nuclear Power Project. The petition also asks whether the government will address concerns raised in 3 previous participant submissions by publishing responses to those submissions on the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s registry before the impact statement is filed.