A1

Rob Linke
Telegraph-Journal

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

4 Comment(s)

OTTAWA - The Telegraph-Journal will ask a Court of Queen's Bench judge today to order the provincial energy department to make public a study Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. did on the case for a second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau.

The feasibility study, which AECL and its partners paid for and own, was submitted to Energy Minister Jack Keir last February.

The study contains details of Team Candu's proposal to build a 1,100-megawatt new-generation ACR-1000 reactor at Lepreau.

The plant's construction would be privately financed. It would be owned by Team Candu, a consortium that includes AECL and four leading technology and engineering corporations, but operated by NB Power.

The study would include preliminary pricing for the multibillion-dollar project as well as an evaluation of the market for electricity and all aspects of the overall business case.

Also in February, the Telegraph-Journal promptly filed a request under the Right to Information Act for both the Team Candu study and separate third-party study, by MZ Consulting Inc.

That study also examined the case for a second reactor at Lepreau.

The energy department released the MZ Consulting report to the newspaper within two weeks, but in April Keir wrote to say the AECL study did not qualify for release under the law.

The province's legislation allows parties that disagree with a decision to withhold information to ask a judge to rule on the government's refusal.

"The newspaper's editorial board supports the development of Lepreau 2 and the economic opportunities it represents for all New Brunswick as part of greater Saint John's energy sector," said Telegraph-Journal editor Shawna Richer.

"Our journalists also believe a project of this magnitude deserves thorough public scrutiny and well-informed public discussion.

"This is our newspaper's goal, and it is why we are vigorously pursuing the study's disclosure."

In documents filed with the Court of Queen's Bench in Moncton, the newspaper's lawyer points to a pattern of rulings in New Brunswick courts in previous cases involving individuals or journalists seeking information about Point Lepreau.

"There is a clear history of the province refusing access to such requests for information," says the newspaper's brief, but time and again, courts have found those refusals to be contrary to the legislation.

Under the law, the onus is on the government to prove why the study should not be released in whole or in part.

Keir did write Atomic Energy in February to ask the federal Crown corporation to authorize release of the study, assuring AECL any confidential or commercially sensitive material would be removed first.

AECL did not consent to the study's release.

AECL, which has sought intervener status in the case, argues that under specific exemptions to releasing information allowed by the law, the newspaper has no right to a copy of the study.

"It contains opinions and recommendations to the Minister of Energy, would disclose legally protected confidential information, would jeopardize negotiations leading to an agreement or contract and would cause financial loss to AECL and other members of Team Candu," AECL says in its brief to the court.

AECL says the members of Team Candu all signed confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary information and commercially sensitive pricing information.

AECL says confidential scientific information developed over 50 years would be disclosed.

"Scientific secrets will be leaked and any potential for poaching these secrets will be increased," says AECL's brief.

The newspaper counters that Keir, AECL and Team Candu have not offered any evidence to support the argument that they will suffer any loss or that AECL's competitors would gain from the study becoming public.

The newspaper calls that argument "entirely speculative."

The government also argues that the study was intended to be and contains advice to the minister, which is legally exempted from release.

The newspaper disputes that the entire report would meet that test.

The newspaper asks the court to order the entire report disclosed, or a copy that omits only those sections that can be excluded under the law.