Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO 01-04 CittJ ()~ REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CAO 01-04 Date: January 15, 2004 From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Screening Report File: 0-5260-002 Recommendations 1. That Report CAO 01-04, regarding the Draft Screening Report, Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Construction and Operation of the Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II be received. 2. That the submission prepared by IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc., attached as Attachment No.1 to Report CAO 01-04 be received and endorsed as the City's comments on the Draft Screening Report. 3. That the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) take particular note of the concern raised in the IERIScimus submission about cumulative effects, and the need to acknowledge and address in the Screening Report the potential social and economic impacts on the City related to the likely possibility that the expansion of the Waste Management Facility will lead to the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste in Pickering. 4. That Report CAO 01-04, including the IERIScimus submission be forwarded to the CNSC for consideration at the upcoming Hearing in Ottawa, and that if necessary, the Mayor and CAO be authorized to attend the Hearing to present the City's position. 5. That a copy of Report CAO 01-04, including the IERIScimus submission be forwarded for information to the Ontario Power Generation, the Provincial Minister of Energy, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Town of Ajax. Report CAD 01-04 Date: January 15, 2004 Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Screening Report Page 2 Executive Summary: A draft final EA document entitled "Screening Report Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Construction and Operation of the Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II" was forwarded to the City by the CNSC in late December 2003. The City was invited to comment on the document as input to the CNSC Hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for April 2004. Attached to this Report are the comments from the City's peer review consultants (IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc.) on the Draft Screening Report. Our consultants have concluded that to a large extent, the Draft Screening Report is consistent with the EA Terms of Reference and the expectations of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Nonetheless, the consultants have raised a few concerns with the Draft Screening Report, particularly with respect to cumulative effects, and the need to address the social and economic impacts associated with the likely possibility of long-term nuclear waste storage at PNGS. Staff have reviewed the IERIScimus submission and recommend that Council endorse and forward it to the CNSC as the City's comments on the EA for the proposed expansion of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility. Financial Implications: None. OPG has agreed to cover all of the City's peer review expenses, which to date have been approximately $68,000. Background: The expansion of the Pickering Waste Management Facility will allow for a more than doubling of the quantity of high-level nuclear waste in the form of used fuel bundles that can be stored in Pickering. Currently the Pickering Facility houses over 30% of all of the high-level nuclear waste in the country. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed expansion of the Pickering Facility was initiated in January 2002, and is now nearing completion. During the EA process, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) was required to conduct technical studies and submit documentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). At the outset of the process, the City retained IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc. to review the studies and documentation, and provide technical advice and assistance. In November 2002, the City with the assistance of the consulting firm Acres and Associated provided comments to CNSC on the draft terms of reference for the study. Many of these comments were taken into consideration by CNSC in finalizing the terms of reference. In July 2003, the City commented to CNSC Report CAD 01-04 Date:. January 15, 2004 Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Screening Report Page 3 on the Draft EA Study Report. These comments were also taken into consideration by CNSC. In December 2003, OPG published its Final EA Study Report. This was followed with the issuance by CNSC staff of a "Draft Screening Report" for public review and comment. Only a thirty-day consultation period was allowed by CNSC, and a submission deadline date of January 26, 2004, was established. Comments on the Draft Screening Report will be considered (along with the CNSC Final EA Study Report) at a Commission Hearing in Ottawa, tentatively scheduled for April 28, 2004. After this Hearing, the Commission expects to hold a subsequent two- day hearing toward the end of the year (tentatively scheduled for September and December 2004) to consider a license amendment as the construction approval. A copy of CNSC's Draft Screening Report and Final EA Study Document are available for viewing through the CAO's Office. It provides an overview of the EA process and actions conducted by OPG. CNSC staff concluded that the proposal to construct and operate Phase II of the Pickering Waste Management Facility, and to transport Dry Storage Containers loaded with used fuel from Phase I to Phase II, is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. Despite the short time allotment for comments, IERIScimus was able to thoroughly review the Draft Screening Report and provide written comments to the City (see Attachment 1). These comments are summarized below: . The Cumulative Effects section of the Report should include consideration for the "reasonably foreseeable" possibility of long-term onsite storage of nuclear waste in Pickering. . The Stakeholder Consultation section should address the concern that was expressed during public consultations regarding security and the threat of terrorism. The section should also include comments expressed by some individuals regarding permanent onsite storage of nuclear waste. . The Follow-up Program section should ensure the City of Pickering can playa substantial role in the program. In addition, public attitude research studies should also be conducted one year after the construction of Building 4. . The Determining Likely Residual Adverse Effects section should be clarified with respect to the need for a "mitigative measure" (a previous table indicated that no mitigative action was required). . The Conceptual Decommissioning section requires clarification with respect to the 50 year lifespan of the dry storage containers and the decommissioning schedule. Report CAO 01-04 Date: January 15, 2004 Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Screening Report Page 4 Staff have reviewed the IERIScimus submission and agree with the main findings and conclusions, particularly the concern raised with respect to the potential that the site will be used for long-term storage of nuclear waste, and the need to address this in the Draft Screening Report as a potential cumulative effect of the Pickering Waste Management Facility expansion. It is recommended that Council endorse the IERIScimus submission as the City's comments on the Screening Report and forward these comments to the CNSC for consideration by the Commission at its upcoming Hearing. It is also recommended that the Mayor and CAO be authorized to attend if necessary the upcoming CNSC Hearing to convey the City's concerns directly to the Commission. As well, it is recommended that copies of this Report and the IERIScimus submission be forwarded for information to the Ontario Power Generation, the Provincial Minister of Energy, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Town of Ajax. Attachments: 1. IERIScimus comments dated on CNSC's Draft Screening Report Prepared By: \ ~ 1\ /1/V--- ! A.L. (Joe) Hunwicks I Community Emergency Management Coordinator Approved I Endorsed By: /' I Thomas E. Mely uk Division Head, orporate Projects T JQ:alh Attachment Report CAO 01-04 Date: January 15, 2004 Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Screening Report Page 5 Copy: Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,/ Planning, Research and Management Services 7501 Keele Street, Suite 300, Concord, Ontario, Canada L4K 1Y2 Telephone: (905) 660-1060 Fax: (905) 660-7812 E-mail: ier@dpra.com MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Hunwicks - City of Pickering FROM: Peter Homenuck DATE: January 14,2004 RE: Draft Screening Report/or the Pickering Waste Management Facility, Phase II IER and Scimus have reviewed the draft screening report and have concluded that generally the Draft Screening Report fairly reflects the GPO Final Environmental Assessment Study Report. We also note that OPO has dealt with many of the issues that we identified in our earlier comments. However, there are some areas of concerns that we believe require further attention. These areas are: . Cumulative Effects . Stakeholder Consultation . The Follow-Up Program . Conceptual Decommissioning . Determining Likely Residual Adverse Effects. Each will be dealt with in turn. Cumulative Effects Paragraph 16( 1)( a) of the CEA Act, states: "Every screening or comprehensive study of a project and every mediation or assessment by a review panel shall include a consideration of the environmental effects of the project, including.. . 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". .. ./2 - 2 - In EA practice, cumulative environmental effects have been defined more narrowly in the Practitioners Guide than contemplated under the Act. The Guide focuses exclusively on cumulative biophysical effects but assessments of cumulative effects under the Act can extend beyond changes to the biophysical environment to include, health and socia-economic conditions, physical and cultural heritage... In conducting project assessments, RAs should consider whether these factors as well as biophysical effects should be examined in the CEA. The Responsible Authority (RA) is charged with deciding what to include in the cumulative effects analysis, and the Practitioners Guide notes that RAs should be guided by a clear rationale in selecting future projects to include in the CEA. RA staff will need to exercise judgment in distinguishing projects that are certain, reasonably foreseeable and hypothetical. Given the definitions in Annex I intended to assist RAs, one could easily argue that permanent storage on site is reasonably foreseeable and not hypothetical. As such, it should be examined under the Cumulative Effects section. The cumulative effects assessment carried out is consistent with the expectations of CEAA to the extent that the focus is on radioactivity. However, when one examines the stakeholder consultation list of concerns (as identified in Section 11.2) the issue of long-term management of used fuel is listed as a public concern. As you know, there is currently a very public process exploring long-term disposal being carried out by the National Waste Management Organization (NWMO) of which OPG is a member. Given this concern, it would be reasonable and appropriate for the issue of cumulative effects with respect to the potential of permanent, long-term storage following the second temporary storage facility to be addressed. Although long-term storage is not the subject of this EA, this is an example of where the consideration of cumulative effects is not as complete as one would expect. There is a need to recognize that there is the NWMO process underway to examine permanent disposal and one of the three options is permanent disposal on site. If the preferred option is permanent on site disposal, there clearly will be substantial cumulative effects. It is our view that the cumulative effects section is deficient and not in conformity with the expectations of the CEA Act, in that this extremely important issue is not acknowledged or discussed. Section 11 - Stakeholder Consultation The table of consultation activities is quite helpful and it demonstrates the extent to which opportunities were provided for the general public and various interests to be involved in the EA process. .. ./3 - 3 - The comments in Section 11.2 - Issues Raised are noteworthy and some require more discussion. Of the 10 issues noted, seven relate most directly to the actual proposal for the waste management facility and its impacts. However, there are 3 other issues raised that focus on the overall operation of the Pickering Facility. Of the three, two are very significant. One is the issue of security and the threat of terrorism. While OPG can ensure a high degree of security in the facility in terms of its operations and in terms of access to the facility, there is still the concern for terrorism and particularly as related to air traffic. Given that the Pickering Facility is within 30 or so miles of Toronto International Airport and closer to the Oshawa Airport and the potential new Pickering Airport, the concern around terrorism in terms of causing possible radiation exposure is significant and should be addressed. For example, there have been security breaches at nuclear installations in the United States and so one needs to have some level of assurance that similar breaches have not been experienced and could not be experienced in Pickering. The second concern is that of the long-term management of used fuel. The long-term or permanent disposal of the used fuel is in the minds of many residents in Pickering because of the NWMO process to find a permanent disposal solution. Given that this is the second temporary facility at the Pickering site and that on-site disposal is one of three options being considered for the permanent solution, this clearly needs to be recognized and acknowledged in more than just a bullet listing under stakeholder concerns. As mentioned earlier, to be consistent with the CEA Act, and to address public concerns, it is appropriate to acknowledge and address it under cumulative effects. Section 12 - The Follow-up Program The follow-up program to be carried out will be developed by OPG and discussed with the CNSC, and other relevant regulatory agencies. The details of proposed programs will also be discussed with the City of Pickering and other interest groups and stakeholders. We acknowledge that OPG has recognized the City of Pickering and will discuss proposed activities with the City. However, given the location of the facility within Pickering and the levels of concern raised by the community, it seems to us that the City of Pickering should playa more substantial role and be directly involved with OPG in the planning, design and implementation of the follow-up programs and the monitoring programs. With respect to socio-economic conditions, the proposal is to carry out public attitude research prior to the commissioning of storage building 3, and 1 year after storage building 3 is in service. We proposed previously, and reiterate again, that similar public attitude research studies need to be carried out one year after storage building 4 is in service. .. ./4 -4 Section 8.6 - Determining Likely Residual Adverse Effects There is a discrepancy between Table 3 which suggests there is no measurable effect and this section which describes a "mitigative measure" to bring a measurable effect to an acceptable level. Probably it should be stated that these measures, as part of the original design, are such that there will be no measurable effects. If such is the case, the last sentence of paragraph two on page 35 could be modified as follows: "The PWMF Phase II incorporates mitigation measures in the basic project plans and design, which are assumed to be part of the proposal being assessed and eliminate measurable effects in many of the environmental compartments". Section 5.6 - Conceptual Decommissioning The decommissioning is scheduled to take place from 2064 to 2066. However, these dates are beyond the 50-year lifetime of the DSc. Does that mean removal ofDSCs may be over a time window of almost 20 years (since 1996) with the criterion being that their maximum age is 50 years? This needs to be clarified. Summary The project screening report review of the OPG EA work has indicated the support for the proposal and it is our view that the OPG EA is, to a large extent, consistent with the terms of reference and the expectations of CEAA. However, the above issues noted we believe are significant and need to be acknowledged in this document, particularly around cumulative effects and the potential implications for the community of other parallel activities.