December 21, 2006The Hon. Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P. - 2 - ccm 2006-000467 In establishing the process...

950729.tif December 21, 2006 37-2-6-1; 10-64-0; ccm 2006-000467 The Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P. Minister of the Environment Les Terrasses de la Chaudière 10 Wellington Street, 28th Floor Gatineau, QC KIA OH3 Subject: Deep Geologic Repository Project - Environmental Assessment

Recommendation Dear Minister: Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (Commission) on December 2, 2005, of its intent to seek the Commission’s approval to prepare a site, construct and operate a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) on the Bruce Nuclear Site within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. The DGR would be located approximately 1.5 km from the Lake Huron shoreline and would be constructed in the sedimentary rock approximately 500 to 700 meters below the ground surface. The purpose of the DGR would be for the long-term storage of low and intermediate level radioactive waste. The Commission’s authorization of OPG’s request would ultimately require the issuance of licences under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA). Before considering OPG’s application for the necessary licences under the NSCA, the Commission must determine the results of an environmental assessment (EA). This determination includes making a decision on the potential for the project to cause adverse environmental effects, and determining a subsequent course of action under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). As OPG’s DGR Project falls within the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEA Act and is subject to a comprehensive study, the Commission is required to submit an Environmental Assessment Track Report to you, as the federal Minister of the Environment, including a Recommendation on the proposed track for the EA to either continue the EA as a comprehensive study or refer the EA to a review panel or mediator. The Commission is the sole responsible authority for this EA.

…/2

The Hon. Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P. - 2 - ccm 2006-000467 In establishing the process to assist the Commission in making its recommendation, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to hold a public hearing on the matter. A hearing was held on October 23, 2006, in Kincardine, Ontario. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the Commission’s process for determining matters under the CEA Act and Rule 3 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Rules of Procedure. During the public hearing, the Commission received written submissions and heard oral presentations from Commission staff and OPG. The Commission also considered oral and written submissions from 57 intervenors. The Commission, in making its decision, considered all the information presented at the hearing. Its detailed Record of Proceedings, including Reasons for Decision, is enclosed for your information. It will be published today in both official languages. Pursuant to subsection 21 (2) of the CEA Act and following the public consultation on the Environmental Assessment Scoping Document and the public hearing of the Commission, the Commission prepared the Environmental Assessment Track Decision Report. The Report covers the following: the scope of the project; the factors to be considered in its assessment and the scope of those factors; public concerns in relation to the project; the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects; and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project. Finally, the Report includes the recommendation that the DGR Project EA be undertaken by means of a review panel. As the sole responsible authority, the Commission hereby submits to you the Environmental Assessment Track Decision Report for the DGR Project. Should you accept the recommendation that the proposed project be referred to a review panel, the Commission wishes to advise you that it is available to discuss process options to further assist in the effective conduct of this review, including the option of the Commission leading the review panel. This offer is based on the extensive expertise and experience of the Commission, and its Governor in Council (GiC) appointed members, in nuclear projects in Canada, its international network and its status as an independent agency and court of record under the NSCA. Yours truly, Original signed by Linda J. Keen c.c. The Honourable Gary Lunn, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard, President, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Mr. James Hankinson, President and CEO, Ontario Power Generation Enclosures: - Record of Proceedings, including Reasons for Decision - Environmental Assessment Track Decision Report

Environmental Assessment Track Report Ontario Power Generation’s Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste December 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1

2.0 Project Overview _______________________________________________________ 2

3.0 Scope of Assessment_____________________________________________________ 2

4.0 Public Consultation _____________________________________________________ 3 4.1 CNSC Staff Lead Consultation _______________________________________________ 3

4.1.1 Advertising for Public Comment _____________________________________________________3 4.1.2 Summary of Comments Received ____________________________________________________4 4.1.3 First Nations Consultation __________________________________________________________5

4.2 Public Hearing of the Commission_____________________________________________ 6 4.2.1 Advertising for Public Hearing_______________________________________________________6 4.2.2 Summary of Public Concerns Voiced at the Public Hearing of the Commission _________________6

5.0 Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental Effects_________________ 7 5.1 Potential Adverse Effects during Site Preparation________________________________ 8 5.2 Potential Adverse Effects during Construction __________________________________ 8 5.3 Potential Adverse Effects during Operation _____________________________________ 9 5.4 Potential Adverse Effects in the Long Term _____________________________________ 9

6.0 Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project______ 10 6.1 Public Concerns ___________________________________________________________ 10 6.2 Commission Concerns______________________________________________________ 13

7.0 Summary and Recommendation __________________________________________ 14

8.0 References ___________________________________________________________ 14 APPENDIX 1: Environmental Assessment Scoping Document APPENDIX 2: Notices Requesting Public Comment on the Scoping Document and for the

Pubic Hearing APPENDIX 3: Table of Predicted Effects

EA Track Report December 2006

Proposed Deep Geological Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste

1.0 Introduction In a letter dated December 2, 2005 (Ref. 1), Ontario Power Generation (OPG) indicated its intent to prepare a site and construct a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) on the Bruce Nuclear Site that is located within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. The proposal involves the preparation, construction and operation of the DGR. This is an undertaking in relation to a physical work and, as such, is a “project” as defined under Section 2 of the CEAA. The CNSC issues licences for activities involved in OPG’s proposal under the authority of Section 24(2) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which is prescribed on the Law List Regulations. Therefore there is a “trigger” for an EA pursuant to paragraph 5(1)(d) of the CEAA. There are no identified exclusions from environmental assessment for this project, pursuant to Section 7 of the CEAA and the Exclusion List Regulations of the CEAA. Accordingly, CNSC must conduct a federal EA in accordance with the provisions of the CEAA prior to consideration of an application to authorize the project under the NSCA. The CNSC is the only Responsible Authority for the project as defined under the CEAA. Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada have identified themselves as federal authorities and will provide expert advice in relation to the environmental assessment upon request. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) is the federal environmental assessment coordinator (FEAC) for the proposed project and is responsible for coordinating the review activities of the responsible authority and expert federal authorities in accordance with Section 12 of the CEAA. The proposed project is subject to a comprehensive study under the CEAA, because the proposal would involve the construction of a new Class 1B facility on a site not within the boundaries of an existing licensed nuclear facility, and would be used for the management of radioactive nuclear substances. As such, under Part VI, Section 19(g)(iii) of the Comprehensive Study Regulations of the CEAA, and pursuant to Section 21 of the CEAA, the CNSC must ensure that a Comprehensive Study of the project is initiated, and that a report must be provided to the federal Minister of the Environment. This report has been prepared by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for the Minister of the Environment under section 21 of the CEAA. The report describes and discusses:

• the scope of the project; • the factors to be considered in its assessment and the scope of those factors; • public concerns in relation to the project; • the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects; and • the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.

EA Track Report 2 December 2006


This report also contains the Commission’s recommendation to the Minister of Environment to refer the project to a review panel. 2.0 Project Overview OPG intends to prepare a site, construct and operate a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) on the Bruce Nuclear Site within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. OPG’s project description (Ref. 1) indicates that the DGR would receive low and intermediate level radioactive waste currently stored on the Bruce Site, as well as waste produced from the continued operation of existing OPG-owned generating stations at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington, Ontario. Much of the waste is currently stored in interim facilities at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the Bruce Site, and the remainder would be produced over the remaining lives of the existing OPG-owned nuclear generating stations. The proposed undertakings include the site preparation, construction, operation and long-term performance of above-ground and below-ground facilities. The surface facilities would consist of components such as the underground access and ventilation buildings, associated temporary or permanent buildings and related infrastructure. The underground facilities would comprise components such as shafts, ramps and tunnels, emplacement rooms, and various service areas and installations. Surface and underground facilities are expected to be located within the boundaries of the Bruce Site. Operations would involve those activities required to operate and maintain the DGR facility, remove waste from the WWMF, receive waste from the WWMF and existing nuclear generating stations, emplacement of the waste into the repository, as well as closure activities and monitoring of the repository. 3.0 Scope of Assessment Scoping is a procedural step in the federal EA process under the CEAA, and requires that the responsible authority of a project determine three components of the EA: the scope of the project; the assessment factors; and the scope of the assessment factors. The scope of the project refers to those components of the proposal that are considered to be part of the project for the purposes of the EA. The ‘assessment factors’ are legislated requirements that are prescribed in Section 16 of the CEAA and other factors that the CNSC considers appropriate. The scope of the assessment factors refers to the extent to which the factors are to be considered in the EA. A draft EA Scoping Document was prepared by CNSC staff and sent to Federal Authorities (Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, and Environment Canada) and the CEA Agency for review and comment. The Scoping Document information is presented in Appendix 1. Section 2.0 of the Scoping Document identifies the Scope of the Project pursuant to Section 15 of the CEAA. The Scope of the Project includes all of the surface and underground physical works that would be involved in this project, and all undertakings in relation to these physical works. All components of OPG’s proposal have been included in the Scope of Project.



Section 3.0 of the Scoping Document identifies the factors to be considered pursuant to subsection 16(1) and 16(2) of the CEAA. For example, the environmental effects of the project, including environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents and cumulative environmental effects, would be considered in the assessment. With the discretion allowed for in paragraph 16(1)(e) of the CEAA, the CNSC also requires that the purpose of the project, and consideration of traditional knowledge be included in the factors. Section 4.0 of the Scoping Document describes the scope of the factors for the assessment, and identifies specific information requirements. The methodology requires an examination of the project and how it would interact with the environment. The assessment would then focus on the identified project-environment interactions. The methodology also requires a detailed examination of how the DGR facility would perform over the long term. 4.0 Public Consultation Public consultation was conducted by CNSC staff and by the Commission of the CNSC at a public hearing. CNSC staff consulted the public during the preparation of the scope of the environmental assessment. During this time, the public was invited to comment on the following:

• the proposed scope of the project for the purposes of the EA (Section 2 of the scoping document);

• the factors proposed to be considered (Section 3 of the scoping document); • the proposed scope of those factors (Section 4 of the scoping document); and • public concerns in relation to the proposed project including:

the potential for the project to cause adverse environmental effects, and the ability of a Comprehensive Study to address issues relating to the project.

CNSC staff established a public registry file for the project and a Notice of Commencement was posted on the CNSC website and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR). The CEAR reference for this EA is 06-05-17520. The ‘Commission’ of the CNSC held a public hearing on this EA Track Report in Kincardine. A draft of the EA Track Report (included the Scoping Document that was revised following CNSC staff consultation) was made available to the public 60 days prior to this hearing. The public was provided the opportunity to intervene orally or in writing before the Commission. 4.1 CNSC Staff Lead Consultation 4.1.1 Advertising for Public Comment CNSC staff lead consultation occurred between June 5th, 2005 and July 17th, 2006. An invitation for public comment was announced on the CNSC website, the CEAR website, and by direct mailing to over 60 individuals and organizations (including a copy of the document). The CNSC also hosted an open house meeting in the Kincardine area during the first week of consultation. The purpose of the open house was to explain the EA process, explain the scoping document,



and to explain how members of the public could participate and comment. The open house was advertised by mailing notices to more than 60 individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in the Bruce Nuclear Facility in the past, and by advertising in the following newspapers:

• the Kincardine Independent; • the Owen Sound Sun Times; • the Kitchener Record; • the Walkerton Herald Times; and • the Shoreline Beacon.

Advertisements for the open house were also made by way of radio broadcast at the following radio stations:

• CKNX Radio (AM 920, FM 102 and 94.5 The Bull); • CIYN 95.5 FM The Coast; • Bayshore Broadcasting (MIX 106, Country 93 and 98 The Beach); • CHFN 100.1 FM; and • CKRZ 100.3 FM.

The open house was held on June 12, 2006 with an afternoon session and an evening session. It was attended by approximately 30 individuals. Representatives from the CEA Agency, Health Canada and Environment Canada were in attendance.

4.1.2 Summary of Comments Received There were 44 written comments received as a result of CNSC staff lead consultation. Several resolutions were passed as a result of consultation and are summarized below. Citizens for Renewable Energy, endorsed by 2 large Michigan environmental organizations and adopted by the Great Lakes United Coalition

Resolution requesting that the Minister of the Environment refer the proposal to a review panel as a result of public concern.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie

Council approves of the way OPG is proceeding and is of the opinion that the public is informed.

Municipality of Brockton Council supports in principal the proposed DGR.

Kincardine and District Chamber of Commerce Resolved to support moving forward with a comprehensive study.

Comments were received from municipal, provincial and federal governments representing their constituents. All three levels of government (Mayors and council for five surrounding



municipalities; the Member of Provincial Parliament for Huron-Bruce; the Member of Parliament for Huron-Bruce) indicated support for the project and indicated that their constituents (including seasonal residents) have not expressed significant opposition to the DGR proposal. Both the Member of Provincial Parliament and the Member of Parliament supported continuation of the EA process as a comprehensive study. Some individuals expressed support for the project and the comprehensive study, and other individuals expressed concern for the project and requested a panel review. Similarly, some local organizations and non-governmental organizations offered support for the project and the comprehensive study process, and others offered opposition to the project and requested a panel review. Comments were also received concerning the content of the Scoping Document. The most frequent topic of concern was the requirement to assess several substantial alternatives to the proposed project. The CNSC has modified the Scoping Document to clarify and correct deficiencies noted in the public comments. The revised document is attached (Appendix 1). The public expressed the following concerns about the proposed project:

• The siting of this facility is too close to Lake Huron. • This type of project has never been done before. • Because the radioisotopes would have very long half-lives, the project would have the

potential to affect human health and the environment for many generations and the DGR facility would pose a risk to downstream communities of the Great Lakes in Canada and the United States of America.

• The proposal would involve the use of Ordovician Sedimentary rock which have not been proven to be scientifically suitable for the DGR facility.

• It is difficult to predict subsurface water movement. Problems associated with subsurface water movement would only be identified after a problem has occurred and nuclear substances have been released from the facility.

• Based on past experience, it is not possible to build a safe, leak proof facility. • The Great Lakes are already under considerable stress.

4.1.3 First Nations Consultation

CNSC staff met with the Chiefs and some council members of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation on June 13, 2006, September 21, 2006 and September 28, 2006. In addition to several specific comments on the scoping document (all comments lead to a revision of the document), the First Nations requested the following during the meeting and in subsequent correspondence:

• significant involvement of the Saugeen Ojibway First Nation in the assessment of the project and follow-up monitoring; and



• that the EA process remain flexible enough to consider additional issues as they arise over the course of the environmental assessment.

During the meetings, the SON emphasized the importance of following an appropriate process with respect to the Crown’s duty to consult Aboriginal Peoples and accommodate their interests. 4.2 Public Hearing of the Commission 4.2.1 Advertising for Public Hearing A Panel of the Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) considered information presented for a hearing held on October 23, 2006 in Kincardine, Ontario. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the Commission’s process for determining matters under the CEAA and Rule 3 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Rules of Procedure. An announcement of the public hearing was made on the CNSC website, the CEAR website, by direct mailing to more than 60 individuals and organizations, and by advertising in the following newspapers:

• The Kincardine News; • The Owen Sound Sun Times; • The Windspeaker; and • The Shoreline Beacon.

The CNSC newswire service also sent notices out to all local media, including radio and television in the surrounding area.

4.2.2 Summary of Public Concerns Voiced at the Public Hearing of the Commission

During the public hearing, the Commission received written submissions and heard oral presentations from 57 interveners (members of NGOs and the public). After hearing the interventions, the Commission posed questions to CNSC staff, OPG and to members of the public. The Commission then deliberated on what they heard at the public hearing, and published a Record of Proceedings (Ref. 2). In the Record of Proceedings, the Commission described public concerns. The concerns are summarized below. In its intervention, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) explained their concerns with the DGR, including their concern about the possibility of long-term adverse environmental effects on the land and Lake Huron. The SON explained that the DGR could affect their vital interests throughout their traditional territory, including residential communities, places of cultural and spiritual significance, and fisheries. The SON maintained that the project would not be acceptable until a high degree of certainty that harm to the environment would be avoided over many hundreds of years is established. Many intervenors, including individuals and Greenpeace, were concerned with the lack of a



federal policy on low and intermediate level waste disposal. CNSC staff responded that there exists a federal policy that states that waste producers and owners are responsible for managing the waste they produce. Furthermore, the CNSC staff noted that it regulates the ongoing management of radioactive waste under the NSCA. Other intervenors opposed the use of nuclear energy and requested consideration of the phase-out of nuclear energy. In this regard, CNSC staff stated that because much of the waste destined for the DGR is already stored at the WWMF the need for the project would remain, regardless of provincial energy policy. The Commission concurred with CNSC staff that policy decisions would be beyond the scope of an EA for this specific project. Furthermore, the Commission notes that nuclear policy is not within the mandate of the CNSC. Another public concern voiced at the hearing was the issue of transportation of waste from OPG’s sites to the DGR. The Commission sought clarification from CNSC staff regarding this. CNSC staff stated that this activity is already licensed by the CNSC. CNSC staff explained that transportation of nuclear substances and radioactive materials such as radioactive waste is governed by two regulations: the Transport and Packaging Regulations, which are under the NSCA, and Transport Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. CNSC staff noted that the transportation of waste from the WWMF to the DGR would be assessed in the EA. 5.0 Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental

Effects The proposed DGR would receive low and intermediate level radioactive waste currently stored at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the Bruce Site, as well as waste produced from the continued operation of existing OPG-owned generating stations at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington, in Ontario. The WWMF site was initially developed in 1974 to accommodate waste from reactor operation and maintenance. There is, therefore, more than 30 years experience with managing the low and intermediate level waste that would be placed in the DGR. The WWMF facility has undergone Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA), and was the subject of environmental assessments under the CEAA; the latest being completed in the spring of 2006. In all cases, the assessments indicated that the environment would be protected from the management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste at the WWMF. Furthermore, many years of environmental monitoring data have been reviewed by the CNSC. These data provide assurance that the current management of low and intermediate level waste at the WWMF is providing adequate protection of the environment. The purpose of the proposed DGR is to place the low and intermediate level radioactive waste in an environment that is more stable than the WWMF and more suitable for long term management of that waste. In the short term, the facility would be expected to perform better than the WWMF and the environment would continue to be protected. Because the purpose of the DGR is to further isolate the waste from the environment, it would be expected that the DGR would also protect the environment in the long term. A preliminary assessment of OPG’s project was completed by CNSC staff. This assessment is based on CNSC staff experience with the site, experience with assessments of similar projects



(i.e., projects that dealt with long term management of radioactive waste), international experience, and knowledge of the project description. A detailed and rigorous assessment will be conducted after the track decision has been made, during the course of the EA process. A table of project-environment interactions is provided in Appendix 3. This table illustrates where the project may potentially interact with the environment and where adverse effects are likely. Potential project-environment interactions are identified by an open square (□). Interactions marked with a solid circle (•) indicate project-environment interactions that could result in an adverse environmental effect. 5.1 Potential Adverse Effects during Site Preparation During site preparation, project-environment interacts would likely result from the generation of dust, surface runoff, clearing of vegetation, the construction of roads and stream crossings, vehicle traffic and vehicle emissions, and noise. Socio-economic effects would also likely occur, as they would throughout the life of the proposed project, because of the increased labour force that would be required. No radioactive emissions would occur during the site preparation phase. These types of effects are well known for both nuclear and non-nuclear projects and mitigation measures exist to minimize the impacts to the environment. Loss of up to approximately 15 Ha of terrestrial vegetation would result from land clearing. A crossing over a railway ditch (aquatic habitat) would be required. However, the site is on an existing industrial site that has previously been disturbed. Nevertheless, the loss of vegetation would result in the loss of some wildlife habitat and there is the potential for loss of aquatic habitat at the ditch crossing. Potential adverse effects resulting from the generation of noise and dust would likely result during the site preparation period. These effects, however, would be spatially limited and temporary. Mitigation measures such as water spraying to control dust, vehicle maintenance standards to reduce noise and air emissions, and scheduling certain activities during daylight hours would minimize the magnitude of these effects. Effects during site preparation would be limited to the Bruce site and would have little effect on land uses or cultural activities. Nevertheless, OPG has committed to an archaeological assessment prior to site preparation. 5.2 Potential Adverse Effects during Construction The construction phase would involve the construction of surface facilities and the construction of underground facilities and workings. The management of waste rock and water would also be required during construction. Project-environment interacts would likely result from the generation of dust and noise, surface runoff, drilling, rock excavation and management, dewatering of underground workings, vehicle traffic and vehicle emissions. No radioactive emissions would occur during the construction phase.



Potential adverse effects resulting from noise and dust generation would be spatially limited and temporary. Mitigation measures such as water spraying to control dust would also minimize the magnitude of these effects. It is expected that runoff from rock stock piles and other areas will be managed to minimize effects. Potential effects resulting from the discharge of water would be mitigated by way of monitoring and, if needed, treating the water. Effects during construction would be limited to the Bruce site and would have little effect on land uses or cultural activities. 5.3 Potential Adverse Effects during Operation The potential adverse effects expected during the operational phase of the proposal would be similar to those of the current operations at the WWMF. The operational effects would likely include effects to air quality as a result of vehicle emissions and exhaust from the repository, effects to surface water quality as a result of storm runoff and discharge water from underground workings, effects on worker health and safety as a result of accidents, and effects of radiation exposure to workers and non-human biota. Potential adverse effects to the atmospheric environment resulting from repository exhaust and vehicle emissions would be spatially limited. The exhaust from the repository would be mitigated at the vent shaft. Potential effects resulting from the discharge of water would be mitigated by way of monitoring and, if needed, treating the water. Radiation doses to workers would not be expected to exceed the dose currently observed by workers that handle the same waste in the WWMF, which are below the regulatory limits. Similarly, radiological effects to non-human biota would not be expected to exceed effects observed over the last 30 years of operating the WWMF. The magnitude of these adverse effects is therefore known, and acceptable to the CNSC. Effects during operation would be limited to the Bruce site and would have little effect on land uses or cultural activities. 5.4 Potential Adverse Effects in the Long Term OPG’s long-term plan for the facility is to decommission and close the DGR. Decommissioning activities would likely include removing equipment and surface facilities and sealing the repository. Long-term environmental effects would likely result from the generation of dust and noise during the removal of facilities, and the potential release of constituents from the waste in the repository.



Potential adverse effects resulting from noise and dust generation would be spatially limited and temporary. Mitigation measures such as water spraying to control dust would also minimize the magnitude of these effects. The migration of constituents from the repository is expected to be very slow such that radionuclides would decay before release to the environment. Preliminary studies conducted by OPG (Golder, 2003; Quintessa, 2003 – Refs. 4, 5) indicate that there will be no measurable impacts over the long term. 6.0 Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating

to the Project 6.1 Public Concerns The public was consulted on the ability of a comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project. The following organizations submitted comments in support of the project and the comprehensive study process:

• Kincardine & District Chamber of Commerce; • Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce; • Kincardine Probus Club; • The Rotary Club of Port Elgin; • Kincardine Xi Zeta Gamma chapter of Beta Sigma Phi; • South Bruce Impact Advisory Committee; • The Power Workers Union; • Society of Energy Professionals; • Rotary Club of Walkerton; and • Bruce Hydro Retirees Association.

Some individuals also expressed support for the project and the comprehensive study. The rationale that the public provided for requesting that the EA process remain as a comprehensive study includes the following:

• They (elected officials) have not heard of significant concerns from ratepayers and residents.

• OPG has done a good job communicating with the public, and the public is informed. • Acknowledgement that information sessions and opportunities for public comment would

continue under a comprehensive study. Comments were received from municipal, provincial and federal governments, representing their constituents. All three levels of government (Mayors or local council for five surrounding municipalities; the Member of Provincial Parliament for Huron-Bruce; the Member of Parliament for Huron-Bruce) indicated support for the project, and continuation of the EA



process as a comprehensive study. The following organizations, together with some individuals, provided written comments that did not support the proposal and requested a panel review under the CEAA:

• Sierra Club of Canada; • Women’s Healthy Environments Network; • Nuclear Information Resource Service, and endorsed by:

Maryland USA; Lone Tree Council; West Michigan Environmental Action Council; Michigan Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life; Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes; and Don’t Waste Michigan.

• Citizens Resistance at Mermi Two; • Environment Michigan; • Voices for Earth Justice; • David Suzuki Foundation; • National Council of Women of Canada; • Citizens For Renewable Energy, Great Lakes Coalition; • NORTHWATCH; • Citizens for Alternative to Chemical Contamination; • GREENPEACE; and • Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

As reasons for requesting that the project should be assessed by review panel, the public and First Nations stated that they believe that:

• CNSC in not independent. • This proposal sets a precedent for permanent underground disposal of radioactive waste. • The proposal poses a threat across international borders. • The public has always expressed concern about radioactive waste disposal. • A review panel could produce an EA report that would be authoritative to both the

government and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation • A review panel may broaden the scope of the environmental assessment

The CNSC’s Independence The CNSC is an independent federal government agency that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources Canada. The CNSC is comprised of two components: the Commission and the CNSC staff. The 'Commission' refers to the agency's tribunal component and the 'CNSC' refers to the organization and its staff in general. The Commission is an independent administrative tribunal that makes legally binding decisions, much like a court. The Commission members are appointed by Order in Council and as such, are independent of industry and independent of CNSC staff who would administer decisions of



the Commission. It is the ‘Commission’ that has the responsibility of making decisions and recommendations for this EA. The rationale that the CNSC is not independent would not warrant referral to a review panel because the Commission is indeed independent. This proposal sets a precedent The Commission recognizes that the proposal represents a new, first initiative for managing low and intermediate level waste in Canada. In its submission, CNSC staff agreed with that statement but stated that the DGR does not represent a precedent for waste disposal at other locations due to the fact that it is specific to the particular site. CNSC staff explained that other sites have different initiatives for waste disposal. However, the Commission notes that this is the first permanent low and intermediate level waste repository in Canada. The Commission is of the view that the uniqueness and novelty of the project is an important factor to consider. The Commission is not convinced that the proposed project for a DGR does not set a precedent in Canada. The potential for the project to pose a threat across international borders It is unlikely that the proposal poses a threat across international borders. The management of waste on surface (at the WWMF) has demonstrated that, even with surface facilities that are exposed to ambient conditions, transborder effects are not occurring. The proposed DGR would likely further reduce the possibility of transborder effects. The public is concerned about radioactive waste disposal CNSC staff acknowledge that some members of the public have concerns regarding the management of radioactive waste. However, this concern does not necessarily warrant a panel review for any one project that deals with the management of low and intermediate level radioactive waste. This rationale for a panel review may be more appropriate for a strategic environmental assessment that would be required for policy decisions on waste management. This is not the case for this proposed DGR. Nevertheless, this concern would warrant efforts to ensure the public is informed and consulted at several stages throughout the EA process. A review panel could produce an EA report that would be authoritative to both the government and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation The SON was of the opinion that only a review panel could produce an EA report that would be authoritative to both the government and the SON. The SON stated that a review panel would include persons who are familiar with the whole range of technical and social issues, including the perspective, rights and interests of the SON. The SON also asked that it be consulted respecting the membership and the Terms of Reference for that panel. The SON also indicated that the only appropriate process that would facilitate their needs would be through a panel review. CNSC staff’s preliminary analysis indicated that the SON have potential and established Aboriginal and Treaty rights that may be impacted by the proposed project. Although environmental assessments under the CEAA would not necessarily discharge the Crown’s duty to consult, and panel reviews are independent from government and may not include the



Crown’s duty to consult as part of their mandate and terms of reference, the CNSC is of the opinion that a panel review would provide a meaningful exchange of information between the SON and the Crown. A review panel may broaden the scope of the environmental assessment A panel may have the ability to broaden the scope of the EA under a panel review. Several public comments were received that requested the scope of the assessment to be broadened. The following topics were requested to be expanded upon or added to the scoping document:

1. assess worst case accident scenarios; 2. include decommissioning waste in planning; 3. include an assessment of several substantial alternatives; 4. transport from existing nuclear facilities to the proposed DGR; 5. alternatives to waste incineration; 6. consideration of the phase-out of nuclear energy; and 7. consideration of federal policy on long term management of low and intermediate level

waste. The scoping document was revised to address the topics 1 through 3. The scoping document was not revised to address topics 4 and 5 because these are activities that are currently approved under the NSCA. While a panel could consider these topics, it is not likely that the CNSC could respond to any recommendations that a panel would make under the CEAA for activities that are already authorized. The final two topics concern waste management and nuclear energy, in general. The Seaborn Panel (Ref. 3), when dealing with a review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd’s (AECL) proposed concept for deep geologic disposal of used fuel, specifically excluded energy policies and the role of nuclear energy within these policies from the panel’s terms of reference. Similarly, it is unlikely that a review panel dealing with low and intermediate level waste would include policies on waste or energy production in the scope of assessment for OPG’s proposed DGR. It is the opinion of CNSC staff that a review panel would not address any of the scoping concerns that would not be considered in a comprehensive study for this proposal. 6.2 Commission Concerns The Commission considered the information submitted at the public hearing to determine the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the proposed project. Furthermore, in the absence of important scientific and engineering data, the Commission is of the view that independent international expertise might be a benefit in order to identify further issues that can be addressed by the EA. In this regard, the Commission notes that a panel review has the benefit of having access to expertise in addition to the licensee and CNSC staff in order to address certain issues, including the geological and hydrological complexity of the project. The Commission notes that a review panel may provide the public with additional beneficial



consultation opportunities, including a public hearing at the end of the panel review. The Commission feels that a public hearing is a necessary step in the EA process and could address the perceived credibility and transparency of the process. 7.0 Summary and Recommendation Pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the CEAA, the CNSC has ensured public consultation with respect to the proposed scope of the project for the purposes of the environmental assessment, the factors proposed to be considered in its assessment, the proposed scope of those factors and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project. Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the CEAA, the CNSC is providing this document to report to the Minister of Environment regarding:

• the scope of the project, the factors to be considered in its assessment and the scope of those factors (Appendix 1);

• public consultation in relation to the project (Section 4); • the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects (Section 6); and • the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project (Section 7).

The Commission is of the view that a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment for a referral to a review panel appears to be appropriate under the circumstances, given the wastes to be managed and the uniqueness, first of kind nature and importance of the project. Based on information presented, the Commission is of the opinion that the issues surrounding the uncertainties associated with the project and the concerns identified to date would be better addressed in a review panel. The Commission concludes that a review panel EA of the project is warranted. Therefore, the Commission, pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(b) of the CEAA, recommends that the Minister of the Environment refer the project to a review panel. 8.0 References

1. Letter, K.E. Nash (OPG) to B. Howden (CNSC), “Intent to Construct a Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Waste”, December 2, 2005. BITS #1294561 (includes Project Description attachment).

2. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission., 2006, Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons

for Decision: In the Matter of, Environmental Assessment Track Report Regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s Proposal to Construct and Operate a Deep Geologic Repository Within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario. December 2006.



3. Report of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental

Assessment Panel (Seaborn Panel). Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process: Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept. February 1998.

4. Golder Associates ltd. 2003. LLW Geotechnical Feasibility Study Western Waste

Management Facility, Bruce Site, Tiverton Ontario. Rpt. No. 021-1570

5. Quintessa, 2003. Preliminary Safety Assessment of Concepts for a Permanent Waste Repository of the Western Waste Management Facility Bruce Site. Report No. QRS-1127B-1 v1.0, March 2003.

APPENDIX 1

Environmental Assessment Scoping Document

Comprehensive Study Scoping Document Environmental Assessment of the Proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste August 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................- 1 -

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED SCOPING DOCUMENT................................................................. - 1 - 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS .............................................................................. - 1 - 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... - 3 - 1.4 APPLICATION OF THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT ................................. - 3 - 1.5 FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL COORDINATION .......................................................................... - 4 - 1.6 DELEGATION OF ASSESSMENT STUDIES TO ONTARIO POWER GENERATION .......................... - 4 -

2.0 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT ...........................................................................................................- 6 -

3.0 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY.................................- 8 -

4.0 SCOPE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY ..- 10 -

4.1 STRUCTURE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT......................................................... - 10 - 4.2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. - 11 -

4.2.1 Executive summary.........................................................................................................- 11 - 4.2.2 Introduction.....................................................................................................................- 11 - 4.2.3 Project Description..........................................................................................................- 11 - 4.2.4 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project ..............................................................- 14 - 4.2.5 Scope of the Assessment.................................................................................................- 14 - 4.2.6 Public Consultation Program ..........................................................................................- 14 - 4.2.7 Description of the Existing Environment .......................................................................- 15 - 4.2.8 Prediction of Environmental Effects of the Project ........................................................- 17 - 4.2.9 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment...........................................................- 17 -

5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..........- 25 -

5.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY REPORT ..................................... - 25 - 5.2 PUBLIC REGISTRY ................................................................................................................ - 25 - 5.3 CONTACT FOR ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ - 25 -

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................- 26 -

Proposed Comprehensive Study August 2006 Scoping Document

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Proposed Scoping Document The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the scope of project, the factors and the scope of the factors for the environmental assessment (EA) to be conducted as a result of the proposal by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) for a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) at the Bruce Nuclear Site, located within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. A federal EA of the proposed project is required under the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Under the CEAA, the scope of the project, the factors and the scope of the factors included in the assessment are to be determined by the Responsible Authority (RA) which, in this case, is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). This proposed scoping document describes the basis for the conduct of the EA, and focuses the assessment on relevant issues and concerns. The document also provides specific direction to the proponent, OPG, on how to document the technical EA study, which will be delegated to it by the CNSC pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the CEAA. The document indicates the necessary information to be submitted by OPG to the CNSC to facilitate the development of the EA Comprehensive Study Report. In addition, this document provides a means of communicating the EA process to stakeholders. 1.2 Environmental Assessment Process The following points indicate the key steps likely to be followed by the CNSC during the EA process: • determination of the application of the CEAA to the project, including application of the

Federal Coordination Regulation; establishment of a Public Registry; and stakeholder notification;

• preparation of a draft scoping document and distribution to the proponent, federal

authorities and the public; receipt of comments from federal authorities and the public; • CNSC review and disposition of comments received; and • revision of the draft scoping document, and submission of final scoping document to the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) and the federal Minister of the Environment.

Following the public consultation associated with this document as described in Section 5 and pursuant to Subsection 21(2) of the CEAA, the CNSC must provide a report to the federal Minister of the Environment (Minister). The report from the responsible authority to the Minister must include:

Proposed Comprehensive Study - 2 - December 2006 Scoping Document

• the scope of the project, the factors to be considered in the EA and the scope of those factors;

• public concerns in relation to the project; • the project’s potential to cause adverse environmental effects; and • the ability of the Comprehensive Study to address issues relating to the project.

The CNSC must also recommend to the Minister whether the EA should be continued by means of a Comprehensive Study, or whether the project should be referred to a mediator or review panel. After considering the responsible authority’s report and recommendation, the Minister will decide whether to refer the project back to the responsible authority so that they may continue the Comprehensive Study process, or refer the project to a mediator or review panel. If the Minister refers the project to a mediator or review panel, the project would no longer be subject to the Comprehensive Study process under the CEAA. The Minister, after consulting the responsible authority and other appropriate parties, would set the terms of reference for the review, and appoint the mediator or review panel members. If the Minister does not refer the project to a mediator or review panel, the project will go back to the responsible authority to continue the Comprehensive Study process. As a result, the project cannot be referred to a mediator or review panel in the future. If the Minister refers the project back to the CNSC to continue the Comprehensive Study, the following steps to be taken are:

• issuance of the scoping document by the CNSC and delegation of both technical studies and some public consultation to OPG;

• receipt of EA study report (technical studies) from OPG; • distribution of the draft EA study report to the review team (CNSC, federal authorities), and

revision by the proponent of the EA study report, as appropriate; • preparation of a draft Comprehensive Study Report by the CNSC; • public review and comment on the draft Comprehensive Study Report; • review and dispositioning of public comments by the CNSC, and completion of the

Comprehensive Study Report; • submission of the Comprehensive Study Report to the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency and to the Minister by the CNSC; and • decision on the Comprehensive Study Report by the Minister.

The Comprehensive Study Report would present a conclusion by the CNSC as to whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the appropriate mitigation measures. The CNSC would make recommendations to the Minister on making decisions on the EA and project-related public concerns, consistent with section 23 of the CEAA. The Minister would then render a decision on the Comprehensive Study Report. If the Minister concludes that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the appropriate mitigation measures, then the CNSC may proceed with licensing hearings and decisions on licensing applications by OPG to excavate construct and operate the DGR.


1.3 Project Background In a letter dated December 2, 2005 (Ref. 1), OPG indicated its intent to prepare a site and construct a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) on the Bruce Nuclear Site within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. The letter included a project description for the proposal, which indicated that the DGR would receive low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste currently stored on the Bruce Site, as well as waste produced from the continued operation of OPG-owned generating stations at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington, Ontario. Much of the waste is currently stored in interim facilities at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the Bruce Site, and the remainder will be produced over the remaining lives of the OPG-owned nuclear generating stations. The DGR project includes the site preparation, construction, operation and long-term performance of above-ground and below-ground facilities. The surface facilities would consist of components such as the underground access and ventilation buildings, associated temporary or permanent buildings and related infrastructure. The underground facilities would comprise components such as shafts, ramps and tunnels, emplacement rooms, and various service areas and installations. All surface and underground facilities are expected to be located within the boundaries of the Bruce Site. Operations would involve those activities required to operate and maintain the DGR facility, remove waste from the WWMF, receive waste from the WWMF and nuclear generating stations, emplacement of the waste into the repository, as well as closure activities and monitoring of the repository. 1.4 Application of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act CNSC staff have determined, pursuant to section 5(1)(d) of the CEAA, that a federal EA is required before the CNSC can authorize OPG to proceed with activities involved with the DGR project. The proposal involves the preparation, construction and operation of the DGR. This is an undertaking in relation to a physical work and, as such, is a “project” as defined under Section 2 of the CEAA. The CNSC is a federal authority as defined in the CEAA. Paragraph 5(1)(d) of the CEAA requires that an EA be conducted before a federal authority exercises a regulatory power or duty prescribed in the Law List Regulations under the CEAA. The CNSC issues licences for activities involved in OPG’s proposal under the authority of Section 24(2) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA), which is prescribed on the Law List Regulations. Therefore there is a “trigger” for an EA. There are no identified exclusions from the EA for this project, pursuant to Section 7 of the CEAA and the Exclusion List Regulations of the CEAA.


Accordingly, CNSC authorization of the proposed project would require that a federal EA be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the CEAA. The CNSC is a Responsible Authority for the project as defined under the CEAA. Furthermore, the proposed installation is a new Class 1B facility on a site not within the boundaries of an existing licensed nuclear facility, and would be used for the disposal of radioactive nuclear substances. As such, under PART VI, Section 19(g)(iii) of the Comprehensive Study Regulations of the CEAA, and pursuant to Section 21 of the CEAA, the CNSC must ensure that a Comprehensive Study of the project is initiated, and that a report must be provided to the federal Minister of the Environment. At this time, CNSC staff have not identified any issues associated with this project which would suggest a need for it to be referred to a mediator or review panel pursuant to Section 25 of the CEAA. 1.5 Federal and Provincial Coordination The CNSC is the only Responsible Authority under the CEAA identified for this Comprehensive Study. Through application of the CEAA Federal Coordination Regulations, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada and Health Canada have been identified as Federal Authorities for the purpose of providing expert assistance to the CNSC during the EA. CNSC staff have confirmed with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that there are no provincial EA requirements under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act that are applicable to this proposal. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is the Federal Environmental Assessment Coordinator (FEAC) for this project because it is described on the Comprehensive Study List. The role of the FEAC is to coordinate the participation of federal authorities in the EA process and to facilitate communication and cooperation among them. 1.6 Delegation of Assessment Studies to Ontario Power Generation Based on authority given to a responsible authority in subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, the CNSC will delegate to OPG the conduct of technical support studies for the EA, the development and implementation of a public consultation program, and the preparation of an EA study report (EASR). OPG’s public consultation program, in the context of this EA, would include the provision of information about the project and the results of technical studies. Should the project continue as a Comprehensive Study and not be referred to a mediator or review panel, OPG would submit its EASR and technical support studies to the CNSC. The CNSC, in conjunction with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, would distribute the EASR and supporting documentation to Federal Authorities and the appropriate provincial authorities for


review and comment. Based on comments received, the CNSC may request that the proponent revise its EASR. When the EASR is formally accepted as satisfactory by the CNSC, the FEAC and all Federal Authorities, the CNSC would use the information and analysis in the accepted EASR to prepare a draft EA Comprehensive Study Report. The draft Comprehensive Study Report would be made available for review and comment by the public and by Federal Authorities. The CNSC would then consider the comments received on the draft Comprehensive Study Report, make appropriate revisions and submit a revised Comprehensive Study Report to the Minister for consideration and decision.


2.0 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT In establishing the scope of a project for a Comprehensive Study EA under the CEAA, the physical works that are involved in the proposal and any specific undertaking that would be carried out in relation to those physical works must be determined. The physical works for this project would include both surface facilities and underground facilities. Surface facilities include two permanent buildings, plus buildings required for ancillary facilities. The principal structures of the surface facilities are:

• Receipt/Access Building: this building would contain facilities for underground access by ramp or shaft. If access is by shaft, this building would include a hoist/headframe/cage. If access is by ramp, this building would include ramp access. This building would also contain facilities for staff, as well as the heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Low- and intermediate-level waste would be received at this building and staged for transfer to the DGR. This building would also be used for transfer and removal of excavated rock during construction activities.

• Ventilation Shaft Headframe Building: this building would provide cover for the ventilation

shaft, exhaust fans, sampling/monitoring devices, a hoist and mechanical/electrical systems. Underground facilities include the following:

• Ramp or Main Shaft: the main shaft would be excavated using drill and blast methods. The ramp would be tunneled into the rock. Either the ramp or the shaft would be used to bring materials and waste into the DGR.

• Ventilation Shaft: the ventilation shaft would be used to route air and provide emergency

egress. This shaft would be excavated by drill and blast or raise bore methods. • Underground Tunnels: these tunnels would provide access from the underground receipt

area to the operational level. • Emplacement Rooms: these rooms would provide approximately 160,000 m3 capacity for

low- and intermediate-level waste. • Operational Level Office, amenities and maintenance areas: these would be constructed

adjacent to the main shaft/ramp and used for servicing underground equipment, and serve as a distribution point for services.

The physical works also include site infrastructure such as power, sanitary sewer system, potable water system, storm water system, subsurface drainage system, construction laydown area, access roadways, fencing, rockpile and associated roads, security and roadway for linking the DGR to the existing WWMF.


The undertakings in relation to the physical works comprise site preparation, construction and operation of the facility. These activities are:

• Site Preparation: clearing a portion of the site (15 hectares are wooded) and development of roads to provide site access.

• Construction: construction of surface facilities, the shaft or ramp, the ventilation shaft, and

the underground excavation of tunnels and an initial set of emplacement rooms. Construction would also result in storage of rock in a temporary pile on the Bruce site, and the subsequent end-use for the rock.

• Operation: operational activities include retrieving waste from the WWMF and

transferring it to the DGR, followed by the emplacement of the low- and intermediate-level waste into the DGR. The operational phase may also include construction campaigns for additional emplacement rooms.

While decommissioning is not part of the project, a preliminary decommissioning plan for the facility will be included in the assessment.


3.0 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY The scope of the Comprehensive Study under the CEAA must include all the factors identified in paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) and 16(2)(a) to (d) of the CEAA and, as provided for under paragraph 16(1)(e), any other matter that the CNSC or the Minister requires to be considered. Paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) require that the following factors be included:

• the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project, and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out;

• the significance of the effects identified above; • comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEAA and its

regulations; • measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any

significant adverse environmental effects of the project; • the purpose of the project; • alternative means of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible

and the environmental effects of any such alternative means; • the need for, and the requirements of, any follow-up program in respect of the project; and • the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project

to meet the needs of the present and those of the future. For the purpose of an EA under the CEAA, the “environment” means the components of the Earth, and includes:

1. land, water and air, including all layers of the atmosphere; 2. all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms; and 3. the interacting natural systems that include components referred to in (1) and (2) above.

An “environmental effect” means, with respect to a project:

• any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any change it may cause to a listed wildlife species, its critical habitat or the residences of individuals of that species, as those terms are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Species at Risk Act;

• any effect of any environmental effect on:


o health and socio-economic conditions o physical and cultural heritage o the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons,

or o any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or

architectural significance

• any change to the project that may be caused by the environment. With the discretion allowed for in paragraph 16(1)(e) of the CEAA, the CNSC also requires consideration of:

• the need for the project and the benefits of the project; and • consideration of traditional and local knowledge, where relevant.

Additional or more specific factors or issues to address in the EA may be identified during the conduct of the EA following consultation with the Minister, expert Federal Authorities and other stakeholders.


4.0 SCOPE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY

The scope of factors assessment includes a determination of the environmental effects to be addressed, the scope of the environmental effects to be assessed, and the effects to be considered in making decisions regarding the project. The scope of the factors is described in this section. This section also provides guidance on how the scope of the factors should be documented in a Comprehensive Study Report. 4.1 Structure of the Comprehensive Study Report Should the Minister direct the CNSC to continue the Comprehensive Study process, the CNSC would prepare a Comprehensive Study Report under the following section headings. The CNSC recommends that the proponent’s technical study report use a similar structure.

Comprehensive Study Report

Executive Summary 1) Introduction 2) Project Description 3) Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project 4) Scope of the Assessment 5) Public Consultation Program 6) Description of the Existing Environment 7) Predicted Environmental Effects of the Project

° Description of assessment methodology ° Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment ° Criteria of Assessment ° Effects of the Project on the Environment ° Demonstration of Long-Term Safety ° Effects of the Environment on the Project ° Effects of the Project on the Capacity of Renewable and Non-Renewable

Resources ° Cumulative Environmental Effects

8) Determination of Significance 9) Follow-up Program 10) Conclusions and Recommendations 11) References

The recommended structure serves as a framework for explaining how the assessment factors required by Section 16(1) and 16(2) of the CEAA are to be considered systematically in the Comprehensive Study Report. Information about the project and the existing environment is necessary to permit such a systematic consideration. The results of the technical study report consideration will be documented in the Comprehensive Study Report to be prepared.


The parts of the assessment that are to be delegated to OPG, in accordance with subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, are to be documented in the form of a technical EASR in a manner consistent with this structure. The EASR will be made available to the public as a support document. 4.2 Project-Specific Information Requirements 4.2.1 Executive summary This section should briefly describe the project, indicating the main predicted environmental effects. The key aspects of the project and of the environment affected by the project should be highlighted, and the proposed mitigation measures that will render effects insignificant should be tied to the predicted effects. Any public concerns and uncertainties should also be noted. 4.2.2 Introduction The introduction should include an overview of the project, including location, project components, associated activities, scheduling details and other key features. This section should also identify the project proponent. The intent of this overview is to provide context rather than description. 4.2.2.1 Purpose The proposed project will be designed to achieve certain specific objectives. These objectives should be adequately described as the “purpose of the project”. The rationale for locating the DGR at the Bruce site should be provided. If alternative sites were considered, these should be assessed as described in subsection 4.2.4. 4.2.2.2 Need The “need for the project” should be established from OPG’s perspective and describe the problem or opportunity the project is intending to solve or satisfy. The introduction should also identify the CNSC’s application of the CEAA, describing why the assessment is being carried out, including which triggers have led to the assessment. This information will provide reviewers with an understanding of the context of the EA and the issues that have been addressed in it. 4.2.3 Project Description The main objective of the project description is to identify and characterize those specific components and activities that have the potential to interact with, and thus result in a likely change or disruption to, the surrounding environment under both normal operations and malfunctions and accidents during the life cycle of the project (site preparation and construction, operations, decommissioning and long-term performance).


The description of the project will refer to, and elaborate on, the items identified in the project scope, supported with appropriate maps and diagrams. It will include a proposed schedule for the different phases of the project as well as a detailed description of OPG, including its ownership, organization, structure and technical capabilities. The project description should include the following information, provided in summary form with references made to more detailed information where applicable:

• the location of the project; • the DGR concept, its components and supporting infrastructure (includes the basic

configuration, layout, shape, size, and key design features); • the description of the characteristics of the waste containment system and the way its

components will function to contain and isolate the waste from humans and the environment in the long-term;

• the type of waste streams to be emplaced in the DGR including the inventories and

characteristics of nuclear substances and other hazardous materials to be stored at the facility;

• the description of the waste characteristics including source, chemical hazard, radiological

hazard and half life of each isotope; • the waste handling, packaging, transport and final emplacement processes; • the design and longevity of container systems with reference to international experience

with such containers, if available; • the sources, types and quantities of radioactive, hazardous and non-hazardous waste

predicted to be generated by the project; • the processes for the collection, handling, transport, storage and disposal of radioactive,

hazardous and non-hazardous waste to be generated by the project; • the sources and characteristics of any fire hazards; • the sources and characteristics of any noise, odour, dust and other likely nuisance effects

from the project; • the sources and characteristics of any potential risks (including radiological risks) to

workers, the public or the environment from the project; • the predicted doses to workers involved with the associated operations and activities that are

within the scope of this project;


• the key operational procedures relevant to protection of workers, the public and the environment relating to the project;

• the identification and description of engineered and administrative controls, including the

use of an approved margin of subcriticality for safety, which would assure that the entire process will be subcritical;

• the description of any specific criticality events and demonstration of how the consequences of the events do not violate criteria established by Health Canada and the International Atomic Energy Agency as a trigger for a public evacuation;

• the key components of the facility and its physical security systems (excluding prescribed

information) that are relevant to management of malfunctions and accidents that may occur during the siting and construction activities, and during the subsequent operations; and

• the predicted sources, quantities and points of release from the project of emissions and

effluents containing nuclear substances and hazardous materials. Malfunctions and Accidents Information on potential malfunctions and accidents is also necessary to permit consideration of relevant environmental effects in the assessment. Early in the conduct of the EA studies, the potential malfunctions and accidents to be considered in the EA will be reviewed and must be accepted by CNSC staff.

• a description of specific malfunction and accident events that have a reasonable probability of occurring during the life of the project, including an explanation of how these events were identified for the purpose of this environmental assessment;

• a description of the source, quantity, mechanism, rate, form and characteristics of

contaminants and other materials (physical, chemical and radiological) likely to be released to the surrounding environment during the postulated malfunctions and accidents;

• a description of specific criticality events and a demonstration that consequences of the

events do not violate criteria established by international standards (Ref. 2) and national guidance (Ref. 3) as a trigger for a temporary public evacuation; and

• a description of any contingency, clean-up or restoration work in the surrounding

environment that would be required during, or immediately following, the postulated malfunction and accident scenarios.

Expected scenarios include, but are not limited to, container collapse/failure, seismic events, and various degrees of loss of barrier including total loss of barrier.


Preliminary Decommissioning Plan A preliminary decommissioning plan (PDP) for the facility will be included in the assessment. The preliminary plan will document the preferred decommissioning strategy, including a justification of why this is the preferred strategy. The PDP will also include end-state objectives; the major decontamination, disassembly and remediation of surface and underground facilities; the nature and approximate quantities and types of waste generated during decommissioning; and an overview of the principal hazards and protection strategies envisioned for decommissioning. The long-term performance of the facility will be assessed based on this PDP. 4.2.4 Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project The Comprehensive Study Report must include various technically and economically feasible ways other than the proposed DGR, for the project to be implemented and carried out. Under the CEAA, the consideration of these alternatives and the selection criteria used to identify a preferred alternative must include environmental factors and may include economic, technical and social factors. The information being used to make that decision and the decision-making process must be documented in the Comprehensive Study Report. Alternative means should include, but are not limited to, the following:

• surface and near-surface storage; • alternatives to ‘natural’ containment (i.e., engineered barrier); • the status quo (WWMF); • alternative storage systems; and • reduction at source.

The alternatives must be identified, information must be collected on each alternative and a selection criterion must be applied to determine a preferred alternative. The selection criteria may include economic, technical, social and environmental factors. 4.2.5 Scope of the Assessment The scope of the assessment includes the scope of the project, the factors to be considered in the environmental assessment and the scope of those factors. Therefore, the scope of the assessment is a summary of this proposed scoping document. No additional contribution is required of OPG. 4.2.6 Public Consultation Program The assessment will include notification of, and consultation with potentially affected stakeholders, including the local public and First Nations, as well as the municipal governments in the project area. Various media will be used to inform and engage individuals, interest groups, local governments and other stakeholders (including those from the U.S.) in the assessment.


OPG will be expected to hold appropriate public consultation/information meetings, and OPG’s stakeholder consultation program will be monitored by CNSC staff throughout the EA process. The purpose of OPG’s program would be to inform the public on the project and to consult the public on the results of technical studies. The CNSC will retain the responsibility to consult the public on the interpretation of technical studies, on recommendations and conclusions, and on the draft version of the Comprehensive Study Report (CSR). The CEAA Agency will be responsible to consult the public on the revised CSR. Various stakeholders, including the following, will be consulted throughout the EA process:

• federal government; • provincial government; • local government; • First Nations and aboriginal communities; • established committees; • neighbouring residents; • general public; • local businesses; and • non-governmental organizations and interest groups.

The Comprehensive Study Report will contain a summary review of the comments received during the EA process. The report will indicate how issues identified have been considered in the completion of the assessment, or where relevant, how they may be addressed in any subsequent CNSC licensing and compliance process. The program will also include opportunities for the public to review and comment on the Comprehensive Study Report prior to its submission to the Minister. The CNSC will ensure that the public is consulted on the following:

• Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs); • scenarios for alternative means; and • accident and malfunction scenarios.

4.2.7 Description of the Existing Environment A description of the existing environment is needed to determine the likely interactions between the project and the surrounding environment and, conversely, between the environment and the project, during the life cycle of the project. The description includes both the biophysical environment (such as ecological, geological, hydrological, geochemical, geomechanical and climatic conditions) and the socio-economic environment (human, cultural). The description of the existing environment should include sufficient information on the baseline conditions to allow the environmental impacts of the activities to be assessed. The baseline


information should include existing monitoring data and site characterization information, for monitoring environmental effects throughout the project. The subsurface environment will play a dominant role in containing and isolating the waste from humans and the environment in the long term. It is therefore expected that the information on the subsurface site characterization data will be sufficient to allow the development of site-specific assessment models that will predict with reasonable confidence the long-term performance of the proposed repository. It is expected that OPG will consult with CNSC staff with regards to the adequacy of the subsurface characterization data to support the EA. An initial screening of likely project-environment interactions will be used in identifying the relevant components of the environment that need to be described. In general, the environmental components that are typically described in the various study areas include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• meteorology and climate; • air quality; • noise; • geomorphology and topography; • soil quality; • geology; • seismicity; • hydrogeology; • geochemistry; • geomechanics; • groundwater quality (physical and chemical); • surface hydrology; • surface water quality (physical and chemical); • aquatic ecology; and • terrestrial ecology.

The description of the human components of the above environment should include, but should not necessarily be limited to:

• population (including relevant demographic characteristics); • economic base; • community infrastructure and services; • renewable and non-renewable resource use; • existing and planned land use; • health; • heritage, cultural and archaeological sites; • recreation areas; and • use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons.


Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) are environmental attributes or components identified as having a legal, scientific, cultural, economic or aesthetic value. Where relevant, VECs in the existing environment will be identified and used as specific assessment end-points. VECs should be identified following consultations with the public, First Nations, federal and provincial government departments and other relevant stakeholders. The VECs proposed in the EA methodology for this project must be reviewed and accepted by CNSC staff in the early phases of the EA study. The required level of detail in the description of the existing environment will be less where the potential interactions between the project and various components of the environment are weak or remote in time and/or space. Relevant existing information, including traditional and local knowledge, may be used to describe the environment. Where that information is significantly lacking, additional research and field studies may be required. CNSC staff will review any work done by OPG to fill identified gaps in information as progress is being made. 4.2.8 Prediction of Environmental Effects of the Project 4.2.8.1 Description of the Assessment Methodology The consideration of environmental effects in the Comprehensive Study should be done in a systematic and traceable manner, and the assessment methodology should be summarized. The results of the assessment process should be clearly documented using summary matrices and tabular summaries where appropriate. 4.2.9 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment The consideration of the environmental effects in the Comprehensive Study needs to be conceptually bounded in both time and space. This is more commonly known as defining the study areas and time frames, or spatial and temporal boundaries, of the Comprehensive Study assessment. Study Areas The geographic study areas for this Comprehensive Study must encompass the areas of the environment that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the project, or which may be relevant to the assessment of cumulative environmental effects. Study areas will encompass all relevant components of the environment, including the people; non-human biota; land; water; air and other aspects of the natural and human environment. Study boundaries will be defined taking into account ecological, technical and social/political considerations. The following geographic study areas are suggested:


• Site Study Area: The Site Study Area includes the facilities, buildings and infrastructure at the Bruce Nuclear Site, including the existing licensed exclusion zone for the site on land and within Lake Huron, and particularly the property where the Deep Geologic Repository is proposed.

• Local Study Area: The Local Study Area is defined as that area existing outside the site study area boundary, where there is a reasonable potential for immediate impacts due to either construction activities, ongoing normal activities, or to possible abnormal operating conditions. The Local Study Area includes all of the Bruce Nuclear Site and the lands within the Municipality of Kincardine closest to it, as well as the area of Lake Huron abutting the facility. The boundaries may change as appropriate following a preliminary assessment of the spatial extent of potential impact.

• Regional Study Area: The Regional Study Area is defined as the area within which there is

the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects. This area includes lands, communities and portions of Lake Huron around the Bruce Nuclear Site that may be relevant to the assessment of any wider-spread effects of the project. This area may also include downstream communities in the North Channel of Lake Huron, Manitoulin Island, the North Shore of Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and the French River.

Assessment Time Frames The assessment should provide a rationale for the assessment time frame used. The approach taken to determine the temporal boundary of assessment should take into account the following elements:

• the hazardous lifetime of the contaminants associated with the waste; • the duration of the operational period (before the facility reaches its end state); • the design life of engineered barriers; • the duration of both active and passive institutional controls; and • the frequency of natural events and human-induced environmental changes (e.g., seismic

occurrence, flood, drought, glaciation, climate change, etc). As a minimum, the assessment is expected to include the period of time during which the maximum impact is predicted to occur. This timeframe would only be acceptable for worst-case scenarios. Both the study areas and time frames will remain flexible during the assessment to allow the full extent of a likely environmental effect to be considered in the Comprehensive Study. For instance, should the results of modelling demonstrate that there is dispersion of a contaminant that is likely to cause an environmental effect beyond the boundaries identified above, it will be taken into account in the assessment.


4.2.9.1 Assessment of Effects Caused by the Project on the Environment during Operations The assessment will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following general method: 1) Identify the potential interactions between the project activities and the existing environment

during site preparation and construction, normal operations, decommissioning and in the long term, and during identified relevant malfunctions and accidents.

Specific attention will be given to interactions between the project and the identified VECs. In this step, the standard design and operational aspects from the project description that prevent or significantly reduce the likelihood of interactions occurring with the environment should be reviewed. Opportunities for additional impact mitigation measures are addressed in step 3 below.

2) Describe the resulting changes that likely would occur to the components of the environment

and VECs as a result of the identified interactions with the project. Each environmental change must be described in terms of whether it is direct or indirect, and positive or adverse. Identified changes in socio-economic conditions and various aspects of culture, health, heritage, archaeology and traditional land and resource use may be limited to those that are likely to result from the predicted changes that the project is likely to cause to the environment. The consideration of public views, including any perceived changes attributed to the project, should be recognized and addressed in the assessment methodology. This would include the identification of First Nations as a critical group. Quantitative as well as qualitative methods may be used to identify and describe the likely adverse environmental effects. Professional expertise and judgment may be used in interpreting the results of the analyses. The basis of predictions and interpretation of results, as well as the importance of remaining uncertainties, will be clearly documented in the EA study report. 3) Identify and describe mitigation measures that may be applied to each likely adverse effect

(or sequence of effects), and that are technically and economically feasible. Mitigation strategies should reflect avoidance, precautionary and preventive principles; that is, emphasis should be placed on tempering or preventing the cause or source of an effect, or sequence of effects, before addressing how to reverse or compensate for an effect once it occurs. Where the prevention of effects cannot be assured, or the effectiveness of preventive mitigation measures is uncertain, further mitigation measures in the form of contingency responses including emergency response plans will be described.


Where cost/benefit analyses are used to determine economic feasibility of mitigation measures, the details of those analyses will be included or referenced.

4) Describe the significance of the environmental effects that likely will occur as a result of the

project, having taken into account the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. The criteria for judging and describing the significance of the residual (post-mitigation) effects will include: magnitude, duration, frequency, timing, and probability of occurrence, ecological and social context, geographic extent, and degree of reversibility. Specific assessment criteria proposed in the EA methodology for this project will be submitted to CNSC staff in the early phases of the EA study for review and acceptance. Existing regulatory and industry standards and guidelines are relevant as points of reference for judging significance. However, professional expertise and judgement should also be applied in judging the significance of any effect. All applicable federal and provincial laws must be respected. The analysis must be documented in a manner that readily enables conclusions on the significance of the environmental effects to be drawn. The CNSC, as the responsible authority for the EA project, must document in the Comprehensive Study Report a conclusion, taking into account the mitigation measures, as to whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. 4.2.9.2 Demonstrating the Long-term Safety of the Deep Geological Repository Detailed regulatory guidance on how to assess the long-term safety of the deep geological repository is provided in the CNSC draft regulatory guide G-320. Demonstrating long-term safety consists of providing reasonable assurance that the waste disposal facility will perform in a manner that protects human health and the environment. This demonstration is achieved through the development of a safety case. The safety case includes a safety assessment complemented by additional arguments and evidence in order to provide confidence in the long-term safety of the facility. The safety assessment is central to the safety case. It involves an analysis to evaluate the performance of the overall waste disposal facility and its impact on human health and the environment. A long-term safety assessment is generally based on a pathways analysis of contaminant releases, contaminant transport, receptor exposure and potential effects based on a scenario of expected evolution of the disposal facility and the site. Selection of Assessment Scenarios The first step in conducting a safety assessment is the development of scenarios. A scenario is a postulated or assumed set of future conditions or events to be modeled in an assessment. Long-term assessment scenarios should be sufficiently comprehensive to account for all of the potential future states of the site and the environment. It is common for a safety assessment to


include a central scenario of the normal (or expected) evolution of the site and facility with time, and additional scenarios that examine the impacts of disruptive events or modes of containment failure. A normal evolution scenario should be based on reasonable extrapolation of present-day site features and receptors lifestyles. It should include expected evolution of the site and degradation of the waste disposal system (gradual or total loss of barrier function) as it ages. Disruptive events scenarios postulate the occurrence of low-probability events leading to the possible abnormal degradation and loss of containment Scenarios should be developed in a systematic, transparent and traceable manner based on current and future conditions of site characteristics, waste properties and receptor characteristics and their lifestyles. The safety assessment should demonstrate that the set of scenarios developed is credible and comprehensive. Some scenarios may be excluded from the assessment because there is an extremely low likelihood that they would occur or because they would result in a trivial consequence. The approach and screening criteria used to exclude or include scenarios should be justified and well-documented. The anticipated evolution of the repository under different scenarios has to be supported by a combination of expert judgment, field data on the past evolution of the site, and also mathematical models that might need to couple chemical, hydrologic and mechanical processes that play key roles in the repository evolution. Additional Arguments in the Safety Case Due to increasing uncertainty as predictions are made far into the future, the long-term safety assessment should also be supported by additional arguments and multiple lines of reasoning such as:

• use of different safety assessment strategies: for example by using a combination of assessment approaches such as scoping and bounding calculations, deterministic and probabilistic approaches etc.;

• demonstration of the robustness of the waste disposal system: this entails demonstrating that

the waste disposal system will maintain its safety function under extreme conditions, disruptive events or unexpected containment failure. The safety case should illustrate and explain the relative role of the different components of the disposal system that contribute to its overall robustness; and

• use of complementary safety indicators to doses and environmental concentrations that are

usually calculated for comparison with regulatory limits. Other parameters that are illustrative of safety include: waste dissolution rates; groundwater age and travel time;


fluxes of contaminants; concentrations of contaminants in specific environmental media (for example, concentration of radium in groundwater); or changes in toxicity of the waste.

Confidence in Mathematical Models The proponent should provide adequate confidence in the mathematical models used to support the safety case. The equations of the mathematical models are usually solved numerically with computer codes. Proper verification of these codes has to be demonstrated, to ensure that the codes adequately solve the equations of the mathematical models. In addition, confidence in the mathematical models can be provided by performing any of the following activities:

• performing independent predictions using entirely different assessment strategies and computer tools;

• demonstrating consistency amongst the results of the long term assessment model and complementary scoping and bounding assessments;

• applying the assessment model to an analog of the waste management system; and • performing model intercomparison studies of benchmark problems.

In addition, scientific peer review by publication in open literature and widespread use by the scientific and technical community will add to the confidence in the assessment model. Interpretation of Assessment Results and Comparison with Acceptance Criteria Compliance with the acceptance criteria and with regulatory guidance must be evaluated, and the uncertainties associated with the assessment should be analyzed. Acceptance criteria are the numerical values (regulatory limits) used to judge the results of assessment model calculations. These acceptance criteria ensure compliance with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) and its associated regulations, and by other applicable legislation. The principal regulatory limits are the radiological dose and environmental concentrations of hazardous substances, and it is expected that these parameters are calculated in long-term assessments as primary indicators of safety. Acceptance criteria for a long-term assessment are current regulatory limits, standards, objectives and benchmarks. Adopting a fraction of these acceptance criteria (such as dose constraints or factors of safety) for a long-term assessment provides additional assurance that the uncertainty in the predictions and in future human actions would not result in unreasonable risk in the future. It is expected that OPG will establish and justify the acceptance criteria adopted for any assessment. It is also expected that CNSC staff will be consulted on the suitability of the acceptance criteria and on the balance between conservatism in the assessment and conservatism in the acceptance criteria. When interpreting the assessment results, the applicant should demonstrate a thorough understanding of the underlying science and engineering principles which are controlling the assessment results. The results of the assessment should be analyzed to show they are consistent with expectations of system performance and with the complete set of assumptions and


simplifications used in developing the model(s) and scenarios. Any unexpected assessment results or discrepancies should be investigated and explained. A formal uncertainty analysis of the predictions should be performed to identify the sources of uncertainty. This analysis should distinguish between uncertainties arising from uncertainties in the input data, in assumptions of the scenario, in the mathematics of the assessment model or in the conceptual models. The effects of these uncertainties on safety should be determined; for the uncertainties which have important impact on long-term safety, follow-up field and laboratory investigation programs in combination with refinement of mathematical models should be proposed. 4.2.9.3 Assessment of Effects of the Environment on the Project The assessment must take into account how the environment could adversely affect the project; for example, from severe weather or seismic events. The assessment must also take into account any potential effects of climate change on the project, including an assessment of whether the project might be sensitive to changes in climate conditions during its life span. This part of the assessment will be conducted in a step-wise fashion, similar to that described for the foregoing assessment of the project effects. The possible important interactions between the natural hazards and the project will be first identified, followed by an assessment of the effects of those interactions, the available additional mitigation measures, and the significance of any remaining likely adverse environmental effects. 4.2.9.4 Assessment of the Effects on the Capacity of Renewable and Non-Renewable Resources The potential interactions between the project and the environment will be identified and assessed in order to determine the likelihood of interactions between the project and resource sustainability. 4.2.9.5 Assessment of Cumulative Effects The effects of the project must be considered together with those of other projects and activities that have been, or will be carried out, and for which the effects are expected to overlap with those of the project (i.e., overlap in same geographic area and time). These are referred to as cumulative environmental effects. The management of decommissioning waste, for example, would be a potential future project that would be included in an assessment of cumulative effects. An identification of the specific projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects will be included in the Comprehensive Study Report. In general, the cumulative effects assessment will consider the combined effects of the project with the neighbouring or regional industries and other developments. The information available to assess the environmental effects from other projects can be expected to be more conceptual and less detailed as those effects become more remote in distance and time to the project, or where information about another project or activity is not available. The


consideration of cumulative environmental effects may therefore be at a more general level of detail than that considered in the assessment of the direct project-environment interactions. Where potentially significant adverse cumulative effects are identified, additional mitigation measures may be necessary. 4.2.10 Determination of Significance The preceding steps in the Comprehensive Study will consider the significance of the environmental effects of the project on the environment; of the natural hazards on the project; of project malfunctions and accidents; and of other projects and activities that could cause cumulative effects. The Comprehensive Study will consider all of these effects in coming to a final conclusion as to whether the project, taking into account the mitigation measures, will likely cause significant adverse environmental effects. The CNSC, as the responsible authority, will document this conclusion in the Comprehensive Study Report. 4.2.11 Follow-up Program The purpose of the follow-up program is to assist in determining if the environmental and cumulative effects of the project are as predicted in the Comprehensive Study Report. It is also to confirm whether the impact mitigation measures are effective, and to determine if any new mitigation strategies may be required. The design of the program will be appropriate to the scale of the project and the issues addressed in the EA. If a licence is issued to OPG under the NSCA, the CNSC licensing and compliance program will be used as the mechanism for ensuring the final design and implementation of any follow-up program and the reporting of program results. The follow-up program would be based on the regulatory principles of compliance, adaptive management, reporting and analysis. The follow-up program will include a description of ‘what is being monitored’ and ‘why’. The program will also include thresholds/triggers for implementing contingency plans/adaptive management.


5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5.1 Public Consultation on the Comprehensive Study Report The public will be given an opportunity to participate in the conduct of the EA through public meetings to be held by the proponent, the CNSC and the CEA Agency. The requirements for this participation are set out in Section 4.2.6 of this document. If the EA continues as a Comprehensive Study, the public will also be provided with an opportunity to examine the EASR and comment on an early draft of the Comprehensive Study Report. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will facilitate public consultation on a final draft of the Comprehensive Study Report. 5.2 Public Registry A public registry for the assessment has been established as required by Section 55 of the CEAA. This includes identification of the assessment in the CEAR, which can be accessed on the Web site of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency at www.ceaa.gc.ca. The CEAR number for this project is 06-03-17520. The CEAR will include the following documentation:

• description of the project; • notices of commencement and termination; • EA Decisions; and • notices requesting public input.

Interested parties will be able to obtain copies of these documents when they are available by accessing the CEAR website, and downloading the files. Interested parties may obtain copies of specific documentation on the list from the CNSC contact for the project (see section 5.4). 5.3 Contact for Assessment Persons wishing to obtain additional information or provide comments on the EA being conducted on the proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste at the Bruce Nuclear Site near Tiverton, Ontario may do so through the following contact:

Don Howard, Project Manager Wastes and Decommissioning Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O. Box 1046 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9 Phone: 1-800-668-5284 Fax: (613) 995-5086 Email: [email protected]


6.0 REFERENCES 1. Letter, K.E. Nash (OPG) to B. Howden (CNSC), “Intent to Construct a Geologic

Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Waste”, December 2, 2005. BITS# 1294561 (includes Project Description attachment)

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Atomic Energy

Agency, International Labour Organization, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Pan American Health Organization, United Nations Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, World Health Organization, “Preparedness and Response for a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency, Safety Requirements”, Safety Standards Series No. GS-R-2, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2002

3. Health Canada, “Canadian Guidelines for Intervention during a Nuclear Emergency”,

Document H46-2/03-326E, Ottawa, Ontario, 2003 November

APPENDIX 2

Notices Requesting Public Comment on the Scoping Document And for the Public Hearing

OPEN HOUSEJune 12, 2006

from 2:30 to 5:00 PM

(presentation at 3:30 PM)and

from 6:00 to 8:30 PM (presentation at 7:00 PM)

at the

Bruce Township Community Centre1240 Concession 6, Tiverton, Ontario

The CNSC is holding an Open House to consult the public onthe draft guidelines (or Scoping Document) for the environmentalassessment regarding Ontario Power Generation’s proposal tobuild and operate a Deep Geologic Repository for the long-termmanagement of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastewithin the Bruce Nuclear site in Kincardine.

To find out more about the CNSC and for a copy of the Scoping Document,please consult our Web site at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca or send an email [email protected]. Media may also contact Aurèle Gervais at (613) 996-6860.

July 31, 2006 Ref. 2006-H-12 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will hold a one-day public hearing on the Scoping Document (Environmental Assessment Guidelines) regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s (OPG) proposal to construct and operate a Deep Geological Repository within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario. Hearing: October 23, 2006 Place: Davidson Centre, Kincardine Hall, 601 Durham Street, Kincardine, Ontario Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) has notified the CNSC of its intent to apply for authorization to prepare, construct and operate a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for the long-term management of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The DGR would hold the waste currently stored on the Bruce Nuclear Site as well as the waste produced from the continued operations of the OPG-owned Bruce, Pickering and Darlington nuclear generating stations. A Comprehensive Study Environmental Assessment of the project must be conducted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) before the CNSC can proceed with OPG’s licence application. A draft Scoping Document was issued for public comment on June 5, 2006, and the comment period closed on July 17, 2006. The revised Scoping Document, taking public comments into account, and OPG’s submission will be made available to the public on August 24, 2006. The public is invited to comment on the revised Scoping Document by providing a written submission and, if so desired, by presenting an oral summary of the submission. Requests to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission by September 22, 2006 at the address below along with a request, if so desired, to make an oral presentation. In accordance with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Rules of Procedure, requests to intervene must include a written submission and, where applicable, the complete text of any oral presentation to be made to the Commission. Agendas and information on the public hearing process are available on the CNSC Web site at www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca. Hearing documents (submissions) are not available on-line and must be requested through the Secretariat at the following address:

APPENDIX 3

Table of Predicted Effects

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS

Hum

an H

ealth

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Atm

osph

ere

Aqu

atic

En

viro

nmen

t

Geo

logy

/ H

ydro

geol

ogy

Terr

estri

al

Envi

ronm

ent

Land

R

esou

rces

Cul

tura

l and

A

borig

inal

En

viro

nmen

t

Soci

o-Ec

onom

ic

Con

ditio

ns

Likely Interactions between the Project and Environmental

Components R

adia

tion

Dos

es to

Gen

eral

Pu

blic

Rad

iatio

n D

oses

to W

orke

rs

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to P

ublic

Che

mic

al E

xpos

ure

to W

orke

rs

Phys

ical

Haz

ards

Rad

ioac

tivity

in su

rfac

e w

ater

Surf

ace

Wat

er Q

ualit

y (C

hem

ical

/The

rmal

)

Flow

/Lev

el

Shor

e/B

otto

m A

ltera

tion

Dra

inag

e A

ltera

tion

Rad

ioac

tivity

in A

tmos

pher

ic

Envi

ronm

ent

Air

Qua

lity

(Che

mic

al)

Noi

se, D

ust

Rad

ioac

tivity

in A

quat

ic E

nv.

Aqu

atic

Bio

ta

Aqu

atic

hab

itat

Soil

Qua

lity

(che

mic

al, p

hysi

cal)

Gro

undw

ater

Qua

lity

and

Flow

Rad

ioac

tivity

in g

roun

dwat

er

Veg

etat

ion

Com

mun

ities

and

Sp

ecie

s R

adio

activ

ity in

Ter

rest

rial

Envi

ronm

ent

Wild

life

Hab

itat

Spec

ies a

t Ris

k

Land

Use

s

Tran

spor

tatio

n ne

twor

k an

d El

emen

ts

Land

scap

e an

d V

isua

l Set

ting

Trea

ty R

ight

s and

Lan

d C

laim

s

Cul

tura

l Her

itage

Popu

latio

n an

d Ec

onom

ic B

ase

Com

mun

ity In

fras

truct

ure

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ces

Mun

icip

al F

inan

ce a

nd

Adm

inis

tratio

n

Res

iden

ts a

nd C

omm

uniti

es

Ren

ewab

le /

non-

rene

wab

le

Res

ourc

es

THE PROJECT SITE PREPARATION

Site Clearing and Road Development □ □ □ • • • □ □ □ □

CONSTRUTION ACTIVITIES

Construction of Surface Facilities □ □ • • • □ □

Construction of Underground Workings and Facilities □ • □ • •

Management of resultant rock material □ • • • •

OPERATION ACTIVITIES Retrieving waste from the WWMF and transferring waste to the DGR • □ □ □

Construction campaigns for additional emplacement rooms □ • □ • •

LONG TERM PERFORMANCE

Performance of the Facility in the long-term □ □ □ □ • •

□ Potential Adverse Effect • Likely Adverse Effect

Record of Proceedings, Including Reasons for Decision

In the Matter of

Applicant Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Subject Environmental Assessment Track Report

Regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s Proposal to Construct and Operate a Deep Geologic Repository Within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario

Hearing Date

October 23, 2006

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Applicant: Ontario Power Generation Inc. Address/Location: 700 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X6 Purpose: Environmental Assessment Track Report regarding Ontario Power

Generation Inc.’s proposal to construct and operate a Deep Geologic Repository within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario

Application received: August 2006 Date of hearing: October 23, 2006 Location: Davidson Centre, Kincardine Hall, 601 Durham Street, Kincardine,

Ontario Members present: L.J. Keen, Chair

A. Harvey C.R. Barnes

Secretary: M.A. Leblanc Recording Secretary: M. Young General Counsel: J. Lavoie

Applicant Represented By Document Number • K. Nash, Vice President, Nuclear Waste Management Division• F. King, OPG Director, Repository Development and Safety • M. Jensen, OPG Manager of Geoscience • T. Squire, OPG Director of Public Affairs • Dr. D. Moffatt, Principal with Golder Associates • K. Raven, President of INTERA • Dr. D. Martin, University of Alberta

CMD 06-H22.1

CMD 06-H22.1A CMD 06-H22.1B

CNSC staff Document Number • B. Howden • P. Thompson • M. Rinker

• M. Ben Balfadhel • B. Lojk • C. Taylor

• S. Mihok • D. Howard • S. Nguyen

CMD 06-H22

CMD 06-H22.A Intervenors See appendix A Others E. Advokaat, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Date of Decision: October 23, 2006

i

Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 Decision .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Issues and Commission Findings ................................................................................................. 4

Application of the CEAA.......................................................................................................... 4 Type of Environmental Assessment......................................................................................... 4 Federal Coordination ............................................................................................................. 4

Scope of the Project .................................................................................................................. 5 Scope of the Assessment ........................................................................................................... 7

Project Description ................................................................................................................. 7 Description of the Existing Environment ................................................................................ 9 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment ................................................................... 9 Conclusion on the Scope of the Assessment.......................................................................... 11

Public Consultation................................................................................................................. 12 Recommendation to the Minister of the Environment ........................................................ 14

Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental Effects ....................................... 14 Public Concerns.................................................................................................................... 16 Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project .................... 18

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – Intervenors ............................................................................................................ 1

Introduction 1. Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety

Commission (CNSC1) of its intent to seek the Commission’s approval to prepare a site, construct and operate a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) on the Bruce Nuclear Site within the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. The DGR would be located approximately 1.5 km from the Lake Huron shoreline and would be constructed in the sedimentary rock approximately 500 to 700 m below the ground surface. The purpose of the DGR would be for the long-term storage of low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

2. CNSC authorization of OPG’s request would ultimately require the issuance of a licence. Before considering OPG’s application for a licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act2 (NSCA), the CNSC must determine the results of an environmental assessment (EA). This determination includes making a decision on the potential for the project to cause adverse environmental effects, and determining a subsequent course of action under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act3 (CEAA). As OPG’s project falls within the Comprehensive Study List Regulations4 of the CEAA, the CNSC is required to submit an Environmental Assessment Track Report to the federal Minister of Environment which includes a Recommendation to the Minister of the Environment on the proposed track for the EA. These possible tracks are to either continue the EA as a comprehensive study or refer the EA to a review panel or mediator. The Commission is the sole responsible authority5 for this EA.

3. In carrying out this responsibility under the CEAA, the Commission must also determine the scope of the project and the scope of the assessment. To assist the Commission in this regard, CNSC staff prepared a draft Environmental Assessment Scoping Document (EA Guidelines) in consultation with other government departments, the public and other stakeholders. The draft Scoping Document (EA Guidelines) Regarding Ontario Power Generation Inc.’s Proposal to Construct and Operate a Deep Geological Repository Within the Bruce Nuclear Site in Kincardine, Ontario contains statements of scope for the approval of the Commission. The draft Scoping Document is appended to the EA Track Report included in CNSC staff’s document CMD 06-H22.

1 In this Record of Proceedings, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is referred to as the “CNSC” when referring to the organization and its staff in general, and as the “Commission” when referring to the tribunal component. 2 S.C. 1997, c. 9. 3 S.C. 1992, c. 37. 4 SOR/94-638. 5 Responsible Authority in relation to an EA is determined in accordance with subsection 11(1) of the CEAA.

- 2 -

Issues 4. In considering the Scoping Document, the Commission was required to decide,

pursuant to subsections 15(1) and 16(3) of the CEAA respectively:

a) the scope of the project for which the EA is to be conducted; and b) the scope of the factors to be taken into consideration in the conduct of the

EA.

5. Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the CEAA, the Commission was also required to report to the Minister of the Environment regarding

(i) the scope of the project, the factors to be considered in its assessment and the scope of those factors; (ii) public concerns in relation to the project; (iii) the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects; and (iv) the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.

6. Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(b) of the CEAA, the Commission was also required to

recommend to the Minister of the Environment that CNSC continue with the EA by means of a comprehensive study, or to refer the project to a mediator or review panel.

Public Hearing 7. Pursuant to section 22 of the NSCA, the President of the Commission established a

Panel of the Commission to hear this matter.

8. The Panel of the Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission), in making its decision, considered information presented for a hearing held on October 23, 2006 in Kincardine, Ontario. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the Commission’s process for determining matters under the CEAA and Rule 3 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Rules of Procedure6. In establishing the process, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to hold a public hearing on the matter. During the public hearing, the Commission received written submissions and heard oral presentations from CNSC staff (CMD 06-H22 and CMD 06-H22.A) and OPG (CMD 06-H22.1, CMD 06-H22.1A and CMD 06-H22.1B). The Commission also considered oral and written submissions from 57 intervenors (see Appendix A for a detailed list of interventions).

6 SOR/2000-211.

- 3 -

Decision 9. Based on its consideration of the matter, as described in more detail in the following

sections of this Record of Proceedings,

the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission a) approves the Environmental Assessment Scoping Document set out in the

EA Track Report and as modified by the Commission below; that is, the scope of the project and the scope of the assessment were appropriately determined in accordance with sections 15 and 16 of the CEAA;

b) will submit to the Minister of the Environment the EA Track Report set

out in CMD 06-H22, as modified by the Commission below, pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the CEAA; and

c) will recommend to the Minister of the Environment to refer the project to

a Review Panel, pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(b) of the CEAA.

10. The Commission modifies the above-referenced Scoping Document to include the requirement to establish a baseline, using existing monitoring data and site characterization information, for monitoring environmental effects throughout the project.

11. The Commission makes the following changes to the above-referenced EA Track Report, in addition to the changes to the Scoping Document:

Section 7.0 Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project is modified as per the discussion found in the same-named section of this Record of Proceedings. Section 8.0 Summary and Recommendation is modified so that the Commission recommends to the Minister of Environment to refer the project to a review panel. APPENDIX 1, Proposed Review Schedule is removed.

- 4 -

Issues and Commission Findings

Application of the CEAA

12. The CEAA requires that an EA be completed if there is both a prescribed action by a federal authority (commonly referred to as a “trigger”) and a “project”. The proposal involves the site preparation, construction and operation of the DGR. This is an undertaking in relation to a physical work and as such is a “project” for the purposes of the CEAA.

13. The CNSC issues licences for activities involved in OPG’s proposal under the authority of Section 24(2) of the NSCA, which is prescribed in the Law List Regulations7. Therefore, there is a “trigger” for an EA. The project is also not of a type listed in the Exclusion List Regulations8 of the CEAA.

14. The Commission therefore concludes that an EA of the proposed project to prepare, construct and operate a DGR is required pursuant to the CEAA.

Type of Environmental Assessment

15. Although the proposed project would be located within the Bruce Nuclear site, the proposal would involve a new Class 1B facility on a site not within the boundaries of an existing licensed nuclear facility and would be used for the disposal of radioactive nuclear substances. As such, OPG’s project falls within the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEAA. Therefore the CNSC must ensure that a comprehensive study of the project is initiated.

16. CNSC staff reported that the CNSC, as a responsible authority for a project, has certain obligations under the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEAA. These responsibilities include developing scoping information (the EA Scoping Document), to consult the public on specific topics, and to make recommendations to the Minister of Environment on the adequacy of a comprehensive study to address the issues. Thus the CNSC is required to submit an Environmental Assessment Track Report to the federal Minister of Environment which includes a Recommendation to the Minister of the Environment on the proposed track for the EA.

Federal Coordination

17. The CNSC is the only responsible authority under the CEAA identified for this Comprehensive Study. Through application of the CEAA Federal Coordination Regulations9, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada and Health Canada

7 SOR/94-636. 8 SOR/94-639. 9 SOR/97-181.

- 5 -

have been identified as Federal Authorities for providing expert assistance to the CNSC during the EA.

18. CNSC staff reported that it had consulted with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and confirmed that there are no provincial EA requirements under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act10 that are applicable to the proposal.

19. The Commission therefore concludes that a joint EA with the Province of Ontario is not required in this case. However, the Commission expects that the Province of Ontario will provide expert advice as appropriate.

Scope of the Project

20. OPG described the proposed DGR that would receive existing low and intermediate level radioactive waste, as well as waste produced from the continued operation of OPG-owned nuclear generating stations (NGSs) at Bruce, Pickering, and Darlington in Ontario. OPG noted that much of the existing waste is currently stored in interim facilities at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the Bruce Site and the remainder will be produced over the remaining lives of the existing OPG-owned NGSs. OPG noted that the proposed project does not include provisions for decommissioning waste from the OPG-owned reactors.

21. OPG explained that the DGR project includes the site preparation, construction, operation and long-term performance of above-ground and below-ground facilities. The surface facilities would consist of components such as the underground access and ventilation buildings, associated temporary or permanent buildings and related infrastructure. The underground facilities would be comprised of components such as shafts, ramps and tunnels, emplacement rooms, and various service areas and installations. Surface and underground facilities are expected to be located within the boundaries of the Bruce site. Operations would involve those activities required to operate and maintain the DGR facility, remove waste from the WWMF, receive waste from the WWMF and NGSs, emplacement of waste into the repository, as well as closure activities and monitoring of the repository.

22. CNSC staff described the scope of the project in the Scoping Document included in the EA Track Report. As part of its presentation to the Commission, CNSC staff explained the purpose of the DGR and described the physical works associated with the surface and below ground facilities as well as the undertakings that would include site preparation, construction and operation.

23. To ensure that the project scope sufficiently covered all potential activities, the Commission enquired whether the DGR would receive future decommissioning waste or waste generated from possible new NGSs.

10 R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18.

- 6 -

24. OPG responded that only current waste temporarily stored at the WWMF and waste to be generated from the continued operation of the existing NGSs would be considered for the purpose of this project. The project description does not include decommissioning waste as there is no definitive plan for decommissioning at this time or for the management of decommissioning waste. OPG noted in its project description that an EA is expected to be required for the decommissioning activities for each of the generating stations and the management of the decommissioning waste could be addressed through that EA process at that time.

25. CNSC staff noted in its description of the project that the operational phase may include construction of additional emplacement rooms but, in concurrence with OPG’s description of the source of the waste, this would not be for the purpose of accommodating waste resulting from decommissioning activities or the operation of possible new reactors.

26. The Commission sought further information on the possibility of retrieving the stored waste once the facility is sealed. OPG responded that, although difficult, it would still be possible to recover the material once the facility was closed.

27. Taking into consideration the information presented, the Commission concludes that the scope of the project has been adequately determined for the purpose of the Scoping Document.

28. However, the Commission is concerned with the estimate of the volume of waste to be received by the DGR, as the life extension plan for existing NGSs in Ontario has yet to be determined by the operators (i.e., OPG and Bruce Power) or approved by the CNSC. The Commission is also of the opinion that further clarification is required as to the future disposition of the decommissioning waste from OPG’s NGSs.

29. Therefore, the Commission expects more information regarding the waste characteristics, including volume, as part of the project description discussed in paragraphs 42 and 43 below. In this regard, the Commission expects that the EA to be carried out will accurately determine the scope of the waste and consequently allow any modifications to the proposed project as appropriate. For example, the EA should consider the future construction of additional emplacement rooms to accommodate increased volumes of waste.

30. Furthermore, the Commission is not convinced that there exists a clear indication of what measures could be taken within the current conceptual design of the facility or the consequences that would result in the case of an emergency that required the retrieval of the waste. Thus the Commission expects that the concept of waste retrieval be included in the project description.

- 7 -

Scope of the Assessment

31. CNSC staff stated that the assessment factors would include all of the factors identified in subsections 16(1) and 16(2) of the CEAA. CNSC staff stated that the mandatory factors in subsection 16(1) of the CEAA are: the environmental effects of the project, including those that may be caused by malfunctions or accidents and any cumulative environmental effects with other projects; the significance of the effects identified above; comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEAA and its regulations; and measures that are technically and economically feasible that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project. CNSC staff stated that the mandatory factors in subsection 16(2) of the CEAA are: the purpose of the project; alternative means of carrying out the project; the need for and requirement of a follow-up program; and the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future.

32. CNSC staff stated that the CNSC, with the discretion allowed for in paragraph 16(1)(e) of the CEAA, also requires that consideration of traditional and local knowledge be included in the factors as well as the need for and the benefits of the project.

33. The Commission is satisfied that the proposed factors are appropriate and meet the requirements of the CEAA, whether the CNSC continues with the Comprehensive Study or if the project is referred to a Review Panel or a mediator.

34. The Commission considered the scope of the factors to be assessed as proposed by CNSC staff in the Scoping Document. Specific issues raised by the Commission and intervenors at the hearing with respect to the scope of factors are described in the following paragraphs.

Project Description

35. CNSC staff noted that the main objective of the project description is to identify and characterize those specific components and activities that have the potential to interact with the surrounding environment under both normal operations and malfunctions and accidents.

36. The Commission sought further information with respect to the average dose rate emitted by the intermediate level waste. OPG responded that the average radiation level of intermediate level waste, as listed in its waste characterization program database, is 20 millisieverts per hour (mSv/h). OPG explained that this data was based on the dose as the waste is initially stored in the facility and did not account for radioactive decay that would ultimately decrease the dose.

- 8 -

37. In response to the Commission’s concern with the possible heat that could be generated from the waste, OPG noted that the low level waste is not heat generating in any significant way. Although some of the intermediate level waste can generate heat, OPG does not expect heat to be a design-setting issue for the DGR.

38. With respect to the characterization of the waste, the Commission inquired whether an upper limit on the radioactivity level had been set for intermediate level radioactive waste. CNSC staff responded that there was no limit but rather that the design of the facility would have to ensure that it could adequately manage the waste that is intended for the DGR.

39. CNSC staff noted that a formal classification system for these types of waste did not currently exist although such a system was under development. CNSC staff further explained CNSC’s approach to regulate waste management by the characteristics of the waste, i.e. its chemical, biological, and radiological properties, and the design of the facility that can adequately manage this waste. OPG noted that its waste characterization program database contains information on all of the waste that is destined for the DGR.

40. In the absence of a classification system in Canada and in consideration of OPG’s research into existing repositories internationally, the Commission asked how Canada’s definitions of low and intermediate level radioactive waste compare to international standards. OPG responded that low level wastes are very similar, internationally. OPG also stated that although its intermediate level waste differs from that generated by other sites outside of Canada with respect to the amount of specific radionuclides, this waste is ultimately considered similar in nature.

41. The Commission expressed its concerns with respect to the uncertainty associated with the characterization of the waste, as a result of the absence of a classification system for low and intermediate level waste. Although it is not within the scope of an EA to address this issue, the Commission is of the view that a clear classification system would bring added clarity to nuclear waste categorization in Canada.

42. The Commission also expressed its concern with respect to potential quantities and origins of the waste, as a result of the possible refurbishment and life extension of the existing NGSs in Ontario and as discussed in paragraph 28 above.

43. Therefore, the Commission expects that the project description to be included in the EA will adequately address its concern regarding the type of waste streams and the waste characteristics, including the information on the source, volume, and chemical and radiological hazard.

44. With respect to malfunctions and accidents, the Commission also expressed concerns about the potential for collapse of the cavities, groundwater ingress into the system as a whole, the high lateral stress fields, and the potential for contamination into Lake Huron. In this respect, the Commission expects that various scenarios be included

- 9 -

early in the conduct of the EA studies to ensure that all potential malfunctions and accidents that have a reasonable probability of occurring are described and considered for their relevant environmental effects. Furthermore, as discussed in paragraph 30, the Commission expects that the concept of waste retrieval be included in the project description.

Description of the Existing Environment

45. CNSC staff explained that a description of the existing environment is needed to determine the likely interactions between the project and the surrounding environment. CNSC staff provided a list of environmental components that are typically described in the various study areas and a description of the human components of these environmental components.

46. The Commission expressed the concern that insufficient information had been provided at this stage with respect to the geological formations of the area being considered for the DGR. Furthermore, the Commission expressed the view that there was a lack of information in regard to the geological characterization and hydrology factors underlying the project and that certain elements such as local stratigraphic variation, permeability, subsurface fracture pattern, and effects of high lateral stress fields may not have been accurately considered by the proponent.

47. Although the Commission is satisfied that the environmental and associated human components proposed by CNSC staff are adequate, the Commission is concerned that the description of the existing environment may not include sufficient information on the baseline conditions to allow the environmental impacts of the proposed activities to be assessed. Therefore, the Commission expects that further detailed information be provided early in the conduct of the EA to ensure an adequate characterization of the existing environment. Further discussion with respect to site characterization is found in the section entitled Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental Effects.

Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment

48. CNSC staff defined the geographic study areas that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the project.

49. Several intervenors, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Canada, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and individuals and organizations from Michigan, United States, expressed the view that the regional study area may not be adequately described in the Scoping Document. Specifically, the intervenors were of the opinion that the study area was not sufficiently large to ensure that potential trans-boundary impacts of the project will be addressed during the conduct of the EA study. These intervenors were concerned with the possibility of negative effects on Lake Huron

- 10 -

and the neighbouring regions, including the United States.

50. In this respect, the Commission inquired about the extent of the study area. CNSC staff stated that the study area itself and the timeframes are flexible to ensure that the geographic extent of all effects and the timeframes in which those effects would occur is captured within the EA. For example, if downstream communities were impacted, they would be included as part of the assessment.

51. The Commission sought further information regarding potential trans-boundary effects of the project. CNSC staff responded that, based on preliminary safety assessments, the concentrations of radionuclides that may reach the lake deep in the sediments are very small compared to numbers that are of concern to humans and to the ecosystems. CNSC staff thus concluded that it would be difficult to detect that these effects would occur beyond a very localized scale.

52. Further to the trans-boundary effects and with respect to the assessment of timeframes, the Commission expressed concern over the potential for transport of contaminants to move from above the site into Lake Huron waters within human lifetimes. CNSC staff responded that one of the principles of CNSC Regulatory Policy P-290 Managing Radioactive Waste11 on managing radioactive waste is that radioactive waste should be managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment of current and future generations. This is achieved by ensuring that the future impact associated with radioactive waste management is not greater than the one that is accepted by our generation. Regulatory Policy P-290 requires that, in terms of timeframes, the assessment be carried out until the maximum impact is predicted, and then the criteria that are used to assess or judge that maximum impact are not greater.

53. The Commission sought further information with respect to the assessment of the long-term safety of the DGR. CNSC staff confirmed that it was utilizing international experience to develop the safety assessment. Similarly, OPG described the international investigations that it has carried out with respect to repositories in other countries in support of the safety cases.

54. CNSC staff noted that the international community agrees that certain sedimentary rock formations are adequate for containing and isolating radioactive waste. CNSC staff further noted that a large body of information on the characteristics of sedimentary rock is available from existing programs focussed on sedimentary rock. In this respect, CNSC staff stated that safety assessments for facilities set in certain sedimentary rocks have predicted radiation doses that are well below the regulatory limits.

55. Further to the subject of safety assessments, several intervenors asked for an assessment time of one million years in order to encompass the lifetime of the waste. The Commission asked if this was appropriate. OPG responded that according to the

11 CNSC Regulatory Policy Document P-290 Managing Radioactive Waste, July 2004.

- 11 -

draft Safety Assessment Requirements document, the safety assessment calculations would continue until the dose peaks. OPG stated that this would be on the order of several hundred thousand years.

56. Regarding the assessment of cumulative effects, the Commission enquired whether the activities associated with the potential future builds of NGSs and the decommissioning of the existing NGSs will be considered. CNSC staff stated that these effects would be assessed under the context of cumulative effects, as part of the EA study.

57. The Commission also asked about the impact of cumulative effects from this project with other projects at the Bruce site. OPG responded that it would identify projects which are predicted in the near future as part of the EA studies and focus on the direct effects of DGR. OPG stated that it would look at whether effects from other projects that might overlap in terms of space and time. CNSC staff concurred with OPG’s statements.

58. With respect to a follow-up program, the Commission noted that there was very little in the Scoping Document about the baseline and long-term monitoring program, despite its critical nature. OPG stated that it would address the requirements concerning post-closure monitoring and operational monitoring that are documented in the Scoping Document in the submission of its EA and follow-up report.

59. The Commission queried the need to establish a baseline for monitoring effects throughout the project. CNSC staff responded that the baseline could be more explicitly identified in the Scoping Document. CNSC staff explained that the existing environmental monitoring data and site characterization information would be included in the assessment, as well as the need for the site characterization program information to be tightly linked to the EA.

60. The Commission is satisfied that the spatial and temporal boundaries of the assessment will remain flexible during the assessment to allow the full extent of a likely environmental effect to be considered. In this regard, should the results of modelling demonstrate that there is a possible dispersion of a contaminant that is likely to cause an environmental effect beyond the boundaries identified in the Scoping Document, it will be taken into account in the assessment.

Conclusion on the Scope of the Assessment

61. Taking into consideration the above information with the fact that the project is at the preliminary stage of an EA, the Commission is satisfied that the factors to consider in the assessment of project and the scope of those factors have been adequately described in the Scoping Document appended to the EA Track Report included in CMD 06-H22.

- 12 -

62. The Commission is of the view that the EA study will include more information in regard to the elements that are uncertain at this stage such as the retrieval of the nuclear substances, subsurface geology, structure and hydrogeology, potential trans-boundary effects, international comparison with similar projects, and mitigation measures. This will ensure an adequate assessment of the effects of the project on the environment and the significance of these effects, taking into consideration mitigation measures.

Public Consultation 63. CNSC staff reported that consultation is an important aspect of the EA, in both a

comprehensive study and in a panel review. CNSC staff stated that a public registry file was established for the project and a Notice of Commencement was posted on the CNSC website and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (CEAR).

64. CNSC staff explained that several consultation activities were conducted by CNSC staff, including an open house meeting that was advertised in local newspapers and radio, as well as direct mailing to over 60 individuals and organizations. The purpose of the open house was to explain the EA process, explain the Scoping Document and explain how members of the public could participate and comment. The open house was held with an afternoon and an evening session, and representatives from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency), Health Canada and Environment Canada were in attendance.

65. CNSC staff reported that it had received comments in support of the DGR, as well as comments that showed concern with the project. CNSC explained that the public’s concerns, discussed in a later section of this Record of Proceedings, included the site of the DGR (proximity to Lake Huron), the uniqueness of the project, the nature of the waste destined for the DGR, and the geological and hydrological stability of the site. CNSC staff also stated that it had incorporated some of the public’s comments in a revision of the Scoping Document.

66. CNSC staff also reported that meetings were also held with the Chiefs and some council members of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation. Collectively, these First Nations are referred to as the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON). CNSC staff reported that these meetings were held in order to arrange a consultation plan.

67. In its intervention, the SON requested that it be properly consulted throughout the EA process. The SON explained that the consultation and accommodation obligations require appropriate collaborative procedures, designed on a case-by-case basis to reflect the importance of the SON’s rights and interests at risk, the extent of potential infringements, and the nature and complexity of the issues that need to be addressed. The SON noted that it wanted to reach an agreement in this regard.

- 13 -

68. CNSC staff stated that Health Canada, NRCan and Environment Canada were all provided with an opportunity to review the Scoping Document. CNSC staff noted that Health Canada and NRCan offered support of the Scoping Document, while Environment Canada provided comments, which were incorporated into the Scoping Document.

69. OPG reported that it had run a Community Consultation Centre in order to educate the public on the issues surrounding the DGR, as well as to answer any questions the public might have had. OPG also stated that it distributed fact sheets to the media and launched an informational website, which allowed for electronic comments to be addressed.

70. OPG reported that it had conducted a telephone poll through an independent contracting service in order to gauge public support for the DGR. OPG presented the results of the poll as being positive and in favour of the DGR.

71. Council from the Municipality of Kincardine stated that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with OPG in order to explore the options for long-term storage of the low and intermediate level radioactive waste. Council stated that the DGR was the preferred option, based on the studies that had been conducted. Council reported that a hosting agreement was reached in order to set out the terms and conditions under which the municipality would host the facility.

72. Council from the Municipality of Kincardine stated that OPG conducted an information campaign in order to provide the Municipality of Kincardine with information to make an informed decision. Council noted that the telephone poll conducted by OPG indicated public support for the project.

73. Council members from the four communities surrounding Kincardine, including the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, the Municipality of South Bruce, Municipality of Brockton and the Municipality of Huron-Kinloss, reported that they, along with council from the Municipality of Kincardine, regularly meet with OPG for updates on the project and for the opportunity to input local opinion. They indicated that OPG has conducted an open consultation process and that the majority of the residents in the four communities surrounding Kincardine have voiced support for this project.

74. Paul Steckle, MP for Huron-Bruce, also stated that OPG had undertaken an extensive and open communications effort on the DGR proposal. Mr. Steckle noted that the public in his riding is aware of the project and it has not been an issue of significance. Mr. Steckle was of the opinion that the majority of his constituents agrees with the proposed project.

75. Several intervenors, including members of the public and organizations including the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce, stated that the public consultation conducted by OPG was open and transparent.

- 14 -

76. In its intervention, Greenpeace stated that the surveyed region should have been expanded to include the surrounding municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Huron Kinloss, Arran-Elderslie and Brockton, as well as First Nations. In addition, Greenpeace felt that the Durham Region should have been consulted due to the involvement of the OPG NGSs in Pickering and Darlington.

77. The Commission is satisfied with the consultation process and that interested parties, stakeholders, First Nations and the general public were adequately consulted on the scope of the assessment and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues, as described in CMD 06-H22 and CMD 06-H22.A. However, the Commission is concerned that the technical challenges of the project and the details of the geology and hydrogeology of the site may not have been presented in sufficient detail during the public consultations and as such, expects that this information will be made available further in the EA process.

78. With respect to future consultation during the EA study, the Commission notes that all affected regions should be consulted, including any regions that would be impacted by the environmental effects of the proposed project and the timeframes in which those effects would occur, as discussed in paragraph 50. Consultations should also include the communities from which the waste is generated. The Commission also notes that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the International Joint Commission should be consulted, as appropriate, if there is a potential for the contamination of Lake Huron.

Recommendation to the Minister of the Environment

79. To make its recommendation to the Minister of the Environment on the continuation of the EA process going forward, the Commission considered the potential adverse environmental effects of the project, the public concerns in relation to the project and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues related to the project. These considerations are described in the following paragraphs.

Potential of the Project to Cause Adverse Environmental Effects

80. In order to assess the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects, CNSC staff carried out a preliminary assessment of the proposed project. During the hearing, CNSC staff provided information with respect to the preliminary assessment, wherein it identified the potential adverse effects during each stage of the project (Site Preparation, Construction, Operation and Long Term). The assessment was based on CNSC staff experience with the site, experience with assessments of similar projects (i.e., projects that deal with long term management of radioactive waste), international experience, and knowledge of the project description.

- 15 -

81. CNSC staff also noted that a detailed and rigorous assessment of effects was not conducted due to it being at a very early stage in the EA. CNSC staff added that the analysis is based on how the DGR would be expected to perform and does not consider abnormal events such as malfunctions or accidents or unexpected findings that would result from a more rigorous assessment of geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at the site.

82. The Commission was not convinced that sufficient information has been considered to support the proposed site for the DGR when taking into consideration the details of the shale and limestone stratigraphy, potential subsurface fractures, and the proximity to one of the Great Lakes. In this respect, the Commission sought assurance that the preliminary assessments for the geological and hydrological studies were not overly simplified.

83. OPG responded that the preliminary study (Golder Associates’ Independent Assessment Study) was completed based on information available at the present time and at the early stage of assessment. OPG stated that further, extensive studies would be completed as part of the site characterization plan, and these studies would confirm whether the site would be appropriate for the proposed DGR. CNSC staff stated that it would have to review and approve the site characterization plan before the project assessment could begin.

84. The Commission sought further information concerning the site’s proximity to Lake Huron. OPG responded that the Golder Associates’ Independent Assessment Study stated that there would be no discharge to Lake Huron. OPG stated that if the site characterization plan were to show that the site is unacceptable, the project would not proceed.

85. With regards to the fact that the project is a new undertaking for Canada, the Commission sought assurance that the international consultation conducted by OPG was applicable and appropriate for the proposed site. OPG stated that it was using experts through the International Geoscience Review Group and experience based on the existing facilities in various countries.

86. The Commission concludes that, based on the preliminary assessment carried out by CNSC staff, the project has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects during the site preparation, construction, operation and decommissioning. Furthermore, the Commission is satisfied that this potential has been adequately described in the EA Track Report included in CMD 06-H22.

87. However, the Commission expresses its concern at the level of uncertainty involved with the mitigation measures described to eliminate or minimize these potential adverse effects. Therefore, the Commission expects that the EA will further explore the mitigation measures necessary under the circumstances that would be technically and economically feasible for the proponent to put in place.

- 16 -

88. Furthermore, the Commission is not convinced that the international experience used by OPG and CNSC staff to determine the potential environmental effects is sufficient and relevant to the proposed site for the DGR and the scope of the waste. Thus, the Commission expects that the information obtained from international experience will be validated early in the EA process.

Public Concerns

89. As described in the Public Consultation section above, the Commission is satisfied that OPG and CNSC staff consulted appropriately with the public, First Nations and other interested stakeholders. The Commission is therefore satisfied that the public had adequate opportunity to become informed about the project and express any concerns.

90. CNSC staff reported several public concerns in relation to the proposed project, including the following:

• the proximity of the facility to Lake Huron; • this type of project has never been done before; • the long-lived radioisotopes pose a risk for many generations; • the suitability of sedimentary rock for the DGR; • the unpredictability of subsurface water movement; • the possibility of a leak; and • the added stress on the Great Lakes.

91. Many of these issues are addressed in the Scope of the Project section of this Record

of Proceedings, including the proximity to Lake Huron, the suitability of the limestone, the subsurface water movement, and the lifetime of the radioisotopes. These issues were also raised by intervenors during the hearing.

92. Some intervenors questioned the methods used to solicit public support, such as the host community agreement between OPG and the Municipality of Kincardine. The Commission inquired concerning this agreement, but maintained that this issue was beyond the purview of the CNSC.

93. Citizens for Renewable Energy inquired about comments from Environment Canada in the draft Scoping Document. CSNC staff stated that it had received a letter from Health Canada and NRCan explaining that the Scoping Document was acceptable and that comments were received from Environment Canada. CNSC staff further explained that there is not an obligation to supply these comments in an EA track report, but they are part of the public registry for this EA.

94. In its intervention, the SON explained its concerns with the DGR, including the possibility of long-term adverse environmental effects on the land and Lake Huron. The SON explained that the DGR could affect its vital interests throughout its

- 17 -

traditional territory, including residential communities, places of cultural and spiritual significance, and fisheries. The SON maintained that the project would not be acceptable until a high degree of certainty that harm to the environment would be avoided over many hundreds of years is established.

95. The Commission recognizes that the SON is dependent on the fishing in Lake Huron. The Commission stresses the need to establish further certainty in regards to the possible impact that the DGR may have on the fish in Lake Huron. The Commission expects that this issue will be sufficiently addressed during the EA process.

96. The Commission also stresses the importance of preserving any sacred ground that may be affected by the DGR, throughout the project. During the hearing, the Commission sought confirmation that this would be the case. OPG stated that if there is any indication that an artifact or a sacred area might be impacted in any way, the follow-up program recommended during the EA would include a requirement that archeologists be present during excavations.

97. Many intervenors, including individuals and Greenpeace, were concerned with the lack of a federal policy on low and intermediate level waste disposal. CNSC staff responded that there exists a federal policy that states that waste producers and owners are responsible for managing the waste they produce. Furthermore, the CNSC staff noted that it regulates the ongoing management of radioactive waste under the NSCA.

98. Other intervenors opposed the use of nuclear energy and requested consideration of the phase-out of nuclear energy. In this regard, CNSC staff stated that because much of the waste destined for the DGR is already stored at the WWMF the need for the project would remain, regardless of provincial energy policy.

99. The Commission concurs with CNSC staff that policy decisions would be beyond the scope of an EA for this specific project. Furthermore, the Commission notes that nuclear policy is not within the mandate of the CNSC.

100. Another public concern was the issue of transportation of waste from OPG’s sites to the DGR. The Commission sought clarification from CNSC staff regarding this. CNSC staff stated that this activity is already licensed by the CNSC. CNSC staff explained that transportation of nuclear substances and radioactive materials such as radioactive waste is governed by two regulations: the Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations12, which are under the NSCA, and Transport Canada’s Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act13. In its submission, CNSC staff noted that the transportation of waste from the WWMF to the DGR would be assessed in the EA.

12 SOR/2000-208. 13 S.C. 1992, c. 34.

- 18 -

101. Other intervenors, including the five municipalities surrounding the Bruce site, members of the public, and various organizations, including the Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce and The Society of Energy Professionals, expressed support for the DGR. These intervenors felt that OPG conducted an open and transparent communication process and expected that this would continue throughout the EA process. Intervenors noted OPG’s safety record and felt that, based on the information provided, the DGR would not cause significant adverse environmental effects.

102. The Commission is satisfied that the public concerns have been adequately described in the Scoping Document appended to the EA Track Report included in CMD 06-H22.

Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project

103. The Commission considered the information submitted to determine the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the proposed project.

104. CNSC staff presented a summary of the public comments received on the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project along with the responses to the issues raised through the consultation process.

105. CNSC staff explained that the entire scope of the project would be included in a comprehensive study, as would be the case for a panel review. In CMD 06-H22, CNSC staff presented a comparison between a comprehensive study and a panel review.

106. The Commission sought confirmation that the comparison between a comprehensive study and a panel review provided in CNSC staff’s CMD was accurate. A representative of the CEA Agency concurred with CNSC staff’s comparison.

107. The Commission asked for an explanation of the extent of technical studies that would be done for the comprehensive study track compared to the panel review track. CNSC staff stated that the extent, seriousness and rigour of the technical studies that would be required for the EA would be the same for either track. The comprehensive study track and the review panel track would not change the level of technical information that is required or the level of review of the technical information that would be done.

108. Several intervenors, including the Power Workers’ Union and the Society of Energy Professionals, expressed their support for the project to proceed as a comprehensive study. These intervenors concurred with CNSC staff’s assessment and believed that all of the issues surrounding the project would be properly addressed in a comprehensive study.

- 19 -

109. Other intervenors requested that the Commission refer the project to a review panel.

Several reasons for this were provided, including:

• the proposal is a new project and may set a precedent for permanent underground disposal of radioactive waste;

• the proposal poses a threat across international borders; • concern about radioactive waste disposal; and • the CNSC is not independent.

110. In its submission, CNSC staff agreed that the proposal represents a new, first

initiative for managing low and intermediate level waste in Canada. However, CNSC staff was of the view that the DGR does not represent a precedent for waste disposal at other locations due to the fact that it is specific to the particular site. CNSC staff explained that other sites have different initiatives for waste disposal.

111. The Commission is not convinced that the proposed project for a DGR does not set a precedent in Canada. The Commission notes that this project would represent the first permanent low and intermediate level waste depository in Canada. Thus the Commission is of the view that the uniqueness of the project is an important factor to consider regarding the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues related to the project.

112. Regarding the threat across international borders, the Commission is of the opinion that the spatial and temporal boundaries of assessment, as discussed in paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of this Record of Proceedings, will remain flexible during the EA study to take into account, if applicable, possible trans-boundary effects. However, the Commission, based on the uncertainty regarding this issue, is of the view that trans-boundary effects would be better addressed by a review panel. This would also facilitate a broader consultation with potential stakeholders and interested parties, including the International Joint Commission.

113. With respect to concerns on radioactive waste disposal, CNSC staff stated that the public’s concerns would likely not expand the scope of a panel review beyond what is presented in the Scoping Document. CNSC staff explained that it was unlikely that activities currently approved under the NSCA, such as transport of waste, would be considered by a review panel. In addition, CNSC staff explained that policy decisions, such as nuclear phase out, would be beyond the scope of an EA for this specific project. The Commission agrees with CNSC staff’s position on this matter.

114. Further to the First Nation’s comments discussed in paragraph 94, the SON felt that a panel review was the best option to address its concerns. The SON stated that it would not believe that the proposed DGR is safe for future generations unless that conclusion is reached by a credible, independent and thorough investigation that addresses all of the issues. The SON further expressed the view that the EA process should be conducted in public with full participation from the SON.

- 20 -

115. The SON was of the opinion that only a review panel could produce an EA report

that would be authoritative to both the government and the SON. The SON stated that a review panel would include persons who are familiar with the whole range of technical and social issues, including the perspective, rights and interests of the SON. The SON also asked that it be consulted respecting the membership and the Terms of Reference for that panel.

116. The Commission notes that a review panel may provide the public and First Nations with additional beneficial consultation opportunities through its public hearing process. The Commission feels that a public hearing is a necessary step for this EA and that it could address the perceived credibility and transparency of the process.

117. In considering the comment on the independence of the CNSC, the Commission stated that it is a quasi-judicial independent tribunal and court of record of the Canadian government whose members are appointed by Order in Council. The Commission emphasized that it is independent from any governmental, political or private sector influence. Thus, the Commission does not feel that the issue of independence warrants a referral to a review panel.

118. In addition to the above issues raised by the public and First Nations, the Commission has expressed concern with the uncertainty and assumptions regarding the retrieval of the waste, as discussed under the Scope of the Project, and the scope and nature of the waste, as discussed under the Project Description. The Commission also raised concern with the uncertainties associated with the boundaries of the assessment, as discussed under the Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of Assessment.

119. Furthermore, in the absence of important scientific and engineering data, the Commission is of the view that independent international expertise might be a benefit in order to identify further issues that can be addressed by the EA. In this regard, the Commission notes that a panel review has the benefit of having access to expertise in addition to the licensee and CNSC staff in order to address certain issues, including the geological and hydrological complexity of the project.

120. Based on information presented, the Commission is of the opinion that the issues surrounding the uncertainties associated with the project and the concerns identified to date would be better addressed by a review panel.

121. The Commission is also of the opinion that a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment for a referral to a review panel appears to be appropriate under the circumstances, given the wastes to be managed and the uniqueness, first of kind nature and importance of the project.

122. The Commission concludes that a review panel EA of the project is warranted. Therefore, the Commission, pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(b) of the CEAA, will recommend that the Minister of the Environment refer the project to a review panel.

- 21 -

Conclusion 123. The Commission has considered the information and submissions of the proponent,

CNSC staff and the intervenors as presented for reference on the record for the public hearing.

124. The Commission, pursuant to sections 15 and 16 of the CEAA, approves the Scoping Document (EA Guidelines) Environment Assessment of the Proposal by Ontario Power Generation for a Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste set out in the EA Track Report appended to CMD 06-H22.

125. Pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the CEAA, the Commission is satisfied that the public has had adequate opportunity to express any concern with respect to the scope of the EA and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.

126. The Commission is satisfied that the EA Track Report appended to CMD 06-H22 adequately describes the scope of project and the scope of the assessment, the public concerns in relation to the project, the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects and the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.

127. To fulfil its reporting requirements to the Minister of the Environment pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the CEAA, the Commission will submit the EA Track Report Proposed Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste to the Minister as set out in CMD 06-H22 and modified as follows:

Section 7.0 Ability of the Comprehensive Study to Address Issues Relating to the Project is modified as per the discussion found in the same-named section of this Record of Proceedings. Section 8.0 Summary and Recommendation is modified so the Commission recommends to the Minister of Environment to refer the project to a review panel. APPENDIX 1, Proposed Review Schedule is removed.

- 22 -

128. As part of the EA Track Report, the Commission will also provide the Scoping Document included in the EA Track Report and modified to include the requirement to establish a baseline, using existing monitoring data and site characterization information, for the monitoring environmental effects throughout the project.

129. Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the CEAA, the Commission determines that, taking into account the implementation of any appropriate mitigation measures, the project has the potential to cause adverse environmental effects.

130. Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(b) of the CEAA, the Commission determines that the ability of the comprehensive study to address issues related to the project warrants a recommendation to the Minister of the Environment for her referral to a review panel.

131. The Commission will therefore recommend to the federal Minister of the Environment that the project be referred to a federal Environment Assessment review panel.

Linda J. Keen, President Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Date of decision: October 23, 2006 Date of release of Reasons for Decision: December 21, 2006

Appendix A – Intervenors Intervenors Document Number

Town of Saugeen Shores, represented by Mayor M. Kraemer CMD 06-H22.2 County of Bruce, represented by Mayor R. Oswald CMD 06-H22.3 Municipality of Kincardine, represented by Mayor G. Sutton CMD 06-H22.4 Liz and Frank Barningham CMD 06-H22.5 Citizens For Renewable Energy, represented by F. Barningham CMD 06-H22.6 Keith Battler CMD 06-H22.7 Lawrence A. (Larry) Kraemer CMD 06-H22.8 South Bruce Impact Advisory Committee, represented by H. Ribey CMD 06-H22.9 Northwatch CMD 06-H22.10 Patti Chmelyk CMD 06-H22.11 Peter Tabuns CMD 06-H22.12 Paul Steckle, M.P., Huron-Bruce, represented by D, Henkenhaf, Assistant to Paul Steckle

CMD 06-H22.13

Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes, represented by M. Keegan CMD 06-H22.14 Power Workers’ Union, represented by P. Falconer CMD 06-H22.15 Sierra Club of Canada CMD 06-H22.16 Gordon Edwards CMD 06-H22.17 Greenpeace Canada, represented by D. Martin CMD 06-H22.18 Nuclear Information and Resource Service, other organizations and individuals, represented by K. Kamps

CMD 06-H22.19

Chris Peabody CMD 06-H22.20 Corporation of the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie CMD 06-H22.21 Mariah Branch CMD 06-H22.22 George Macdonald CMD 06-H22.23 Hazel Lynn CMD 06-H22.24 Murray E. Miller CMD 06-H22.25 Saugeen Shores Chamber of Commerce CMD 06-H22.26 Bruce Hydro Retirees Association, represented by F. Baker CMD 06-H22.27 Canadian Nuclear Association CMD 06-H22.28 Southampton Rotary Club CMD 06-H22.29 Municipality of South Bruce CMD 06-H22.30 Great Lakes United CMD 06-H22.31 Frank E. Caiger-Watson CMD 06-H22.32 Energy Solutions Expo CMD 06-H22.33 Algoma-Manitoulin Nuclear Awareness CMD 06-H22.34 Bill Henderson CMD 06-H22.35 Friends of the Earth Canada CMD 06-H22.36 Jeff Harti CMD 06-H22.37 Bruce Power CMD 06-H22.38 PROBUS Club of Kincardine CMD 06-H22.39

Douglas R. Cornett CMD 06-H22.40 Women’s House Serving Bruce and Grey CMD 06-H22.41 Jim Cameron CMD 06-H22.42 Doug Freiburger CMD 06-H22.43 Lynn Ehrle CMD 06-H22.44 Rosemarie Morris CMD 06-H22.45 Canadian Environmental Law Association CMD 06-H22.46 Anna Przychodski CMD 06-H22.47 Gary A. Karch CMD 06-H22.48 Fred Fuller CMD 06-H22.49 Phyllis Creighton CMD 06-H22.50 Art Hanson CMD 06-H22.51 Natalie Hanson CMD 06-H22.52 Vitold Kreutzer CMD 06-H22.53 Energy Probe Research Foundation CMD 06-H22.54 Society of Energy Professionals, represented by Dr. J. F. Canosa CMD 06-H22.55 International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Toronto CMD 06-H22.56 Saugeen Ojibway Nations, represented by Chief R. Kahgee and Chief Nadjiwan

CMD 06-H22.57

Date post:	12-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

December 21, 2006The Hon. Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P. - 2 - ccm 2006-000467 In establishing the process...

Documents