Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2004 (Special Meeting)C1arinton Leading the Way SPECIAL GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2004 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: KENDAL COMMUNITY CENTRE 1. ROLL CALL 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. PRESENTATIONS ROB OGILIVE — Independent Facilitator — Overview of Workshop Selection of the Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project o David Hardy, Peer Review Consultant o SECRA Question and Answer Period 4. Report PSD- 116 -04 — Port Granby Project — Selection of Qualified Concept 5. ADJOURNMENT CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 623 -3379 C1arin1on Leading the Way SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 TIME: 4:30 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRAYERS ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST REPORTS 1. Confidential Verbal Report of the Solicitor — Legal Matters BY -LAWS BY -LAW TO APPROVE ALL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 623 -3379 Due Diligence "... a process of discovery into the risks and value of the proposed venture "... C larin� ton Special llleetingofthe General Purp 5 Rdministration Committee Consultation with community members regarding the selection of a Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project Facilitator's Ground Rules 1. You have the right to ask any question and you deserve a straight forward answer... doesn't mean you will like the answer, but you deserve an answer 2. When enough is enough - I would like your permission to re- strict people to raising an issue twice and then I will move on 3. When a question is asked, give the other person time to answer the question...please don't interrupt 4. Even when you are tempted, please avoid using profani- ties... substitute "that's goofy or dumb or stupid" 5. Don't "hide in the bushes "... Everyone needs to know what you think even if it runs counter to what they would like to hear 6. Please do NOT attack or ambush individuals. It is fair to attack the ideas, but not the people who may hold those views. Kendal Community Centre September 21, 2004 9AM - 12Noon Agenda 9:OOAM - 9:05AM Mayor's Opening Remarks 9:05AM - 9:10AM Roll Call of Councillors and Introduction of Participants 9:10AM - 9:15AM Chair of the Committee - Jim Schell 9:15AM - 9:30AM Facilitator's Intro to the "consultation part" of the Committee Meeting 9:30AM - 9:50AM Session 1- Summary of the Staff Report and Peer Review Re- port • Brief Presentation by Janice Swarz /Dave Hardy 9:50AM - 10:10AM Session 2- Round Table Questions of Staff and Peer Review Team 10:10AM- 10:30AM Session 3- Pr entation by SECRA • Briet�Presentation by Sarwan Sahota and John Ste- phenson 10:30AM- 10:50AM Session 4 - Questions of SECRA by Council • Purpose is to give Council an opportunity to ask questions of and get input from SECRA /community 10:50AM- 11:OOAM Session 5 - Presentations by other community members (if any) 11:OOAM- 11:20AM Session 6 - Questions of Council by SECRA /community • Purpose is to give SECRA /communit , "equal time" in nd sking their questions of Council regarding the Start Report 11:20AM- 11:45AM Session 7 - Continuation of the Due Diligence discussion 11:45AM- 12:OOPM Return to the formal Committee Review of the Staff Report Wrap -up and Next Steps - Jim Schell 12:00Noon Adjourn Session 1 - The Staff Report (Including Peer Reuiew Team's Report) Brief Presentation by Janice Swarz /Dave Hardy 9:3011111 -9:5011111 Session 2 - Round Table Questions of Staff and Peer Reuiew Team 9:5011 01 - 10:1ORM Session 3 - SECRO /Community Uiews about the Staff Report • Brief Presentation by Sarwan Sahota and John Stephenson 10:1MM- 10:30M Session 4 - Due Diligence Questions from Council to SECRH 10:30RM- 10:50RM Session 5 - Presentation by Other Community members ( if any) 10:5MM- 11:00flm E) ,[(Jr a i1 f :1 it I 1 V ti Session 6 - Due Diligence Questions from SECRfllcommunity to f� ncil i1:ooam -ii:zo � Session 7 - Continuation of the Due Diligence Discussion 11:2011111 - 11:4511111 End of the Facilitated Session - Return to Special Meeting Jim Schell - formal Committee Review of the Staff Report Jim Schell - Wrap -up and next Steps Adjourn Port Granby Project A brief submitted to The Council, Municipality of Clarington By The South East Clarington Ratepayers Association September 21,2004 Port Granby Project 1. History Eldorado Nuclear Limited, a Government of Canada Corporation, started dumping radioactive waste from its refinery at Port Hope during 1950's. On July 7, 1976, Atomic Energy Control Board issued an order requiring Eldorado Nuclear Limited to discontinue the further disposal of radioactive waste at the existing Port Granby Residue Area effective 31 January, 1977 and to manage the area thereafter in perpetuity in accordance with requirements of the Board. Also, submit to the Board by 1 December, 1976,detailed plans and schedules for decommissioning of the residue area. In 1977, Eldorado submitted a proposal for removing the radioactive waste from the Port Granby site and move it to the north side of Lakeshore Road into a new storage facility. In 1978, an Assessment Review Panel established by Federal Assessment Review Office (FARO) rejected the proposal to store the nuclear waste on the north side of the Lakeshore Road, the Panel ruled that the area to the north of Port Granby Residue Area is not suitable for storage of radioactive waste. During the 1980's, the Port Granby Community and the Municipal Council demanded that the radioactive waste must be moved out of the municipality. In response to this demand, in the fall of 1987, the Natural Resources Canada proceeded to set up a Sitting Task Force in order to find a Host Community willing to receive the radioactive waste from Port Granby and Port Hope. In 1995, after many years of work and millions of dollars of expenditure, the Sitting Task Force failed to find a community which was willing to receive the waste. In 1998, Natural Resources Canada initiated a plan for finding a Local Solution for suitable storage of the radioactive waste. The Municipality of Clarington established the Port Granby Low -Level Radioactive Waste Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to find a Local Solution for long -term safe storage of the waste at Port Granby. The CAC began its work in January, 1999 and submitted its report to the Clarington Council in June, 1999. The Community Advisory Committee unanimously recommended that the radioactive waste at Port Granby should be stored at the current site; requiring minimum disturbance of the existing wastes and minimum movement of the materials off site (Clarington Local Solution). The Committee rejected the proposal to excavate the waste and move it into an Engineered Mound on the north side of Lakeshore Road. 2. Port Granby Project The Municipality of Clarington accepted the recommendation of its Community Advisory Port Granby Project Committee for On -Site storage of the radioactive waste. In the fall of 1999, Natural Resources Canada and the Municipality of Clarington concluded a legal agreement under which new Port Granby Waste Management Facility is defined as the activities and structures contemplated by the conceptual design approach referred to as Conceptual Design B, Option 2 in the Port Granby LLRW Advisory Committee Report titled "Report on Conceptualization of On -Site Low -Level Radioactive Storage Facility Designs for the Port Granby WMF dated June 28, 1999" (Report PD- 95 -99) as received and approved by the Council of Clarington for referral to Canada (Resolution dated August 30, 1999). 2 Under the legal agreement, the parties agreed to an environmental assessment of the proposed design before proceeding to the engineering design stage of the project. Natural Resources Canada appointed the Low -Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO), Port Hope, as proponent and required them to conduct an environmental assessment for the project as specified under the Federal Environmental Assessment Act. The Low -Level Radioactive Waste Management Office began its work during the spring of 2001 and issued a Project Description for Port Granby Project in November of 2001. According to the project description, a fundamental objective of the project design is to minimize disturbance of the existing waste and minimize movement of the materials off site as a result of construction. The main project components include: • An engineered bluff stabilization structure; • A groundwater diversion system; • An impermeable cover system for the central plateau. The people of south east Clarington strongly support the On -Site solution for storage of the radioactive waste at Port Granby. It is a made in Clarington solution and is the best solution for the social, economic and environmental health of the community. 3. Environmental Assessment Process The environmental assessment process calls for developing alternate means of carrying out the project without changing or undermining "fundamentals" agreed upon in the conceptual design of the project. It was expected that LLRWMO was to study possible alternate means for On -Site solutions for storage of the waste. LLRWMO has made little or no effort to develop an On -Site solution. In 1999, the Port Granby LLRW Community Advisory Committee appointed Golder Associates as consultants and Mr. Case, on behalf of Golder Associates, became the chief advisor to the Committee. Mr. Case proposed the "Port Hope Solution" to the Committee, i.e. the waste at Port Granby should be excavated, moved to the north of Lakeshore Road and placed in an above - ground mound. The Committee rejected the "Port Hope Solution" and asked Mr. Case to develop an On -Site solution. Mr. Case and Golder Associates, under the guidance of the committee, proceeded to develop the Port Granby Project conceptual design for Port Granby which is the basis for the legal agreement between Clarington and Canada. Natural Resources Canada appointed the LLRWMO to carry out the environmental assessment for the Port Granby Project and the Port Hope Project. Meanwhile, Atomic Energy Canada hired Mr. Case to direct the environmental assessment for both projects. 3 Since taking office Mr. Case and his team have shown a clear and open bias against the On -Site solution for Port Granby project. Studies relating to the project has been less than adequate, in order to undermine the design for the On -site solution. It was not a surprise to us that Mr. Case and his team chose the option to excavate the radioactive waste, move it to a mound on the north side of Lakeshore Road as a preferred option. We re- iterate that this option was proposed by Mr. Case in 1999 and was rejected by the Community Advisory Committee and the Clarington Council. Mr. Case and his team have completely ignored the views of the local residents and have deliberately undermined the environmental assessment regulations. Under the EA rules, the "alternate means" of carrying out the project should be functionally similar to the proposed design. Excavating the waste , moving it a distance of one kilometer and placing it in a mound, is not functionally similar to a design requiring in -situ stabilization of the waste. Therefore, it is an "alternative to" the project design. In our opinion, the proposal to excavate the waste; move it out of the current facility, and place it in a mound, is a clear violation of environmental assessment regulations. We need financial help from the Municipality in order to obtain an independent legal opinion on this point. Furthermore, the July 2002, "Scope of the Environmental Assessment for the Port Granby Long Term Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage Project "Xparagraph 3.1), states that if the waste is moved from the currently licensed facility, and if the radioactivity of the waste exceeds 100 TBq(which we understand is the case), then a comprehensive study by the Responsible Authorities is required. We would like the Responsible Authorities to undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment review of the Port Granby Project We expect LLRWMO to disagree with our position. In that event, this matter would require a technical and legal opinion in order to find an answer. 4. LLRWMO Preferred Option LLRWMO is determined to impose the "Port Hope Solution" on the people of south east Clarington with its preferred option to excavate the radioactive waste at Port Granby, move it kilometer to the north side of the Lakeshore Road and place it in an above - ground mound. Port Granby Project Our community has many serious concerns with this proposal: A. Above - Ground Mound The proposed method of storing the waste in above - ground mound is technically not suitable for long -term storage of radioactive waste. There are instances where such systems have failed as the lining is prone to rupture; also, the lining system will most likely fail in less than 300 years This method of storing waste is cheap and is mainly used for storing municipal waste. 4 A much superior method of above - ground storing of radioactive waste is Above -Grade Concrete Vault System which employs a series of reinforced concrete vaults or silos to contain the waste. The vaults are constructed on a base liner system to collect and control leachates during operations . On completion of waste placement operations , a gently sloping earth cover is constructed over the vaults and an engineered cover system similar to that for the Above -Grade Mound is installed (see attached diagram). Above - Grade Vaults are currently being used in France. The Concrete Vault System is more costly than the above -grade mound system proposed by LLRWMO. B. Excavating and Transporting Waste The proposed method of excavating and transporting the radioactive waste is unacceptable to our community. There is a clear danger to the public in excavating the radioactive waste using an open -pit method and the use of trucks to transport it. Any human error, negligence or equipment failure could result in dispersal of the radioactive material over a wide area causing serious environmental problems. Therefore, a totally enclosed excavation, transportation, and placement system is needed. Furthermore, dumping of radioactive waste in a mound without a well designed temporary cover system, is a totally irresponsible plan. The concrete vault system should also be totally enclosed when placing the waste in it. Transportation of new materials to the facility should be carried out by using CN Rail instead of transporting the materials by road which will have a serious negative impact on local residents and the general public. C. Mound Site The site chosen by LLRWMO for constructing the toxic mound poses a very serious threat to the health and safety of the local residents. Leachate collection ponds will be located close to Port Granby Creek. Any accidental spill will flow into farmland and Port Granby Creek. We have been informed by the LLRWMO that the treated leachates will be pumped into Lake Ontario at a distance of one kilometer. Any system failure will be harmful to the farmers and residents living along the Creek. If the Above - Ground Mound System fails (which is probable), it will cause a major environmental disaster. Port Granby Project Furthermore, the Cameco lands on the north side of Lakeshore Road are very sandy in nature. A site with several feet of top sandy soil is not suitable for locating a radioactive mound. 5 A suitable location for a properly constructed concrete vault system, is the field across the Lakeshore Road just to the north of the current facility. At this location, any system failure will be far less harmful to local farmers and residents as the contaminants will flow directly towards Lake Ontario. The proposed preferred option is altogether a new project as it has no resemblance to the Port Granby Project as described in the legal agreement. This new project will permanently contaminate a tract of very good farmland. 5. Permanent Harm to Property values Natural Resources Canada's failure to remove the radioactive waste at Port Granby out of the Municipality of Clarington and the decision of the Municipality to accept the waste (reversing its earlier decision to ask Canada to remove the waste from Clarington), has permanently devalued the nearby residential and farming properties. Under the legal agreement, the Municipality negotiated a Property Value Protection Program. This program only covers the negative impact on property values during the planning and construction phase of the project, and is very limited in scope( i.e. under this program, a property owner must sell his\ her property and then apply for compensation; a disagreement between parties could result in many years of legal dispute.) This program does not address the issue of permanent devaluation of properties around the Radioactive Waste Management Facility at Port Granby. It should be noted that the impact of the On -Site Solution on property values is minimal compared to a plan requiring the excavation of the waste, transporting the waste and placing it in a mound. The current facility poses very little danger to the health and safety of local residents. Excavation of waste, movement of the waste and its storage in a mound, creates a permanent threat to the safety of area residents. This untested method of storing the radioactive waste has a good probability of failure. When this storage system fails or the collection ponds overflow, toxic radioactive chemicals will migrate into farming lands and through Port Granby Creek into Lake Ontario, causing a major environmental disaster. This permanent threat will have a serious negative impact on the area property values. For many years, The Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) has recognized that the presence of radioactive waste at Port Granby has negative impact on property values of surrounding area. OPAC has allowed a reduction of twenty percent on the market value assessment of properties to property owners who apply for reconsideration Port Granby Project 6 of their property assessment value, thereby lowering the municipal tax by twenty percent on these properties. It should be noted that the total market assessment value within the Project Area (farm and residential properties surrounding Port Granby Facility) is approximately 200 million dollars. This figure does not include the properties situated on east side of East Townline Road which are part of Port Hope. Under the legal agreement, LLRWMO requires a written consent from the Municipality of Clarington for any alteration to the agreed upon project design (On -Site Solution). Before considering its consent to an alteration to the agreed design, We, the people of South East Clarington respectfully ask the Municipality to alter into negotiation with Natural Resources Canada in order to address the issue of compensation to the property owners with regard to permanent harm to property values due to the permanent storage of radioactive waste at Port Granby. 6. Questions and Issues The people of South East Clarington are looking for unbiased answers to a number of question relating to the Port Granby Project. To obtain answers to some of these question, we need financial support from the Municipality. (a) In 1978, Environmental Assessment Panel ruled that the area to the north the Port Granby Radioactive Waste Management Facility is unsuitable for storage of radioactive waste. Is Natural Resources Canada in breach of the law by proposing to locate the radioactive waste on the north side of Lakeshore Road? We need an independent legal opinion regarding this matter. (b) The Port Granby Project design requirement is to minimize disturbance of the existing wastes and to minimize movement of materials off site as a result of construction. The Project Site has the same property boundary as the existing 18- hactare (approximately 44 acres) Port Granby Waste Management Facility.( Port Granby Project Description 2001 November, pages 4 and 6). Is the proposal to move the waste one kilometer away "an alternate means" of carrying out the project or it is "an alternative" to the original proposal? Is Natural Resources Canada in Violation of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by proposing to move the waste? We need a legal opinion by an experienced environmental lawyer in order to determine the legality of the proposal to move the waste out of the Port Granby Waste Management Facility. (c) From the beginning of the environmental assessment process LLRWMO has worked Port Granby Project closely with the Municipal consultants -Hardy Stevenson and the Planning Services Department. It is our view that all of them have made very little effort to advance the On- Site solution as agreed in the legal agreement. Our Municipal consultants are consultants to the Municipality of Port Hope, and they are also working with Golder Associates and other consultants on the Environmental Assessment of the Darlington Used Fuel Dry Storage Project. The Port Hope Project is entirely different from the Port Granby Project. Are the consultants in a conflict of interest? Why are they promoting the Port Hope Solution for Port Granby? Why did Hardy Stevenson rabberstamp the arguments put forward by the LLRWMO for justifying their choice for the preferred option? Why did the Planning Services Department completely concur with the Hardy Stevenson report in such a haste? Is our Planning Services Department receiving a bad advice from its consultants? 7 There may be a case for an independent investigation to find answers to these questions. (d) The residents are concerned about the presence of high levels of Thorium -230 in the waste. Also, airborne Thorium -230 radiotoxicity is 50 times higher than that of Radium - 226. Is it possible to effectively protect the residents and their lands from airborne radioactive materials during the excavation of the waste? It should be noted that the Hardy Stevenson does not have a single person on their staff who is experienced in the process of excavating and transporting the type of radioactive waste present at Port Granby. It is known to LLRWMO that the radium process wastes in the East Gorge are very radioactive and has a consistency of tooth paste. It would be very difficult to excavate this waste and maintain air and surface contamination control during transportation. It is not known what kind of radioactive chemical soup will result in excavating various types of radioactive wastes and mixing them in a mound. (e) In the spring of 2004, during our discussions with LLRWMO on the merits of its preferred option, it was suggested to Mr. Case that LLRWMO should carry out a comprehensive environmental assessment study for both options; the in -situ option and the option to move the waste across the road. Mr. Case agreed to this suggestion provided the Municipality of Clarington request this course of action. Why did the Municipal Staff not follow this course of action which has full support of the community? Mr. Case and his team have stated that the in -situ option provides a good solution to store the waste but the option to move the waste is better. In order to determine which option is better, an independent and unbiased opinion is needed. We suggest that LLRWMO undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment study of both options and findings of this study be submitted to an Environmental Assessment review Panel set up under the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, for a decision. Port Granby Project (f) In the fall of 2002, the Council established the Port Granby Community Advisory Committee as provided for under the legal agreement. The CAC met once a month to receive reports relating to Port Granby Project from LLRWIMO and the Municipal Consultants, and discuss issues relating to the project. The CAC produced an annual report in October,2004, with a series of recommendations to the Council. What happened to the report and the recommendations contained in it? The CAC was very useful to the community for providing a regular contact with the Municipality and LLRWMO for information and discussions on matters relating to the Port Granby Project. Since early June, we have had no contact with LLRWMO. Their promised new communication plan was designed to mislead the Council and the community. It is of vital importance to our community that the views of the community are taken into consideration in the design and construction of the new radioactive waste management facility. In designing the new facility , a great deal of care is needed for proper lining, sensing and monitoring systems. 8 We feel that the most effective method for ensuring that the community is actively involved in the design and construction phases of the project, is for the Council to re- establish the Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee. If the past is any guide, we cannot depend on the goodwill of LLRWMO for facilitating active participation of the our community in the design and construction phase of the project. LLRWMO has failed to establish a satisfactory system of communication with our community. Our community has been ignored and shutout from the decision making process. Decisions have been made behind closed door without paying any attention to the concerns of our people. (g) Our community is deeply concerned about the future use of Cameco lands. Now, the title to some of the Cameco lands has been transferred to 164112 Canada Inc., what is the plan for future use of the Canada and Cameco lands? What steps the Municipality is taking to ensure that no new radioactive waste is brought on to this site at a future date? What are the plans to involve the community for the end use of these lands? 7. Community Needs Our community needs help from our Municipal Council(our government of the people, for the people). The Natural Resources Canada has a clear agenda, to move the radioactive waste out of the current facility. The preferred option in its present form developed by LLRWMO is totally unacceptable to the people of south east Clarington. Following is a list of our community needs for which we require help from the Council: I. We ask the Council not to give consent to either of the two options( in -situ option or option to move). Instead, we ask that the Council request the Natural Resources Port Granby Project 9 Canada to undertake a comprehensive environmental assessment study of both options and appoint an Environmental Assessment Review Panel for a final decision. The Council should order LLRWMO to rework, in consultAion with the community, its conceptual design with respect to above - ground method for storing the waste, the method of transporting the waste and the location for storage facility. The proposed design concept is seriously flawed and will be highly detrimental to the health and safety of our community. II. We request that the council authorize the South East Clarington Ratepayers Association to obtain legal and technical assistance in order to find answers to a number of question in this submission; and the Council provide a reasonable a amount of funds for this purpose. III. We request that the Council re- appoint the Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee so that our community has regular and effective representation for the on- going development of the Port Granby Project. IV. We request that the Council order the development of a plan which guaranties that no new radioactive waste will be deposited on the Federal and Cameco lands at any future date. Such a plan must be legally binding on all concerned parties, and the plan should include a consultation process with the community regarding the future use of these lands. V. We request that the Council examine the issue of permanent devaluation of properties due to the failure of the Natural Resources Canada to remove the radioactive waste from Port Granby and further serious harm to property values which will result if the waste is moved to the north side of the Lakeshore Road; and placed in a poorly designed storage facility .We ask the Council to direct the Municipal Administration to enter into negotiations with the Natural Resources Canada(in consultation with the community representatives) in order to resolve the matter of property devaluations around Port Granby. VI. We request that the Council should not accept the staff recommendation "that the Municipality of Clarington concur with the recommendation of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office that Concept II (relocation of the Port Granby waste to an engineered storage mound north of Lakeshore Road) should proceed through the Environmental Assessment process as the Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project"(PSD-1 1 6-04).We ask the Council to order an independent review of the Low Level Waste Management Office Feasible Concepts Report and Qualified Concept Report, and base its subsequent action on the out come of that review. We, the people of South East Clarington beseech you, our Council for your help. PORT GRANBY PROJECT ENGINEERED COVER REINFORCED CONCRETE VAULT STRUCTURE BASE LINER SYSTEM GROUNDWATER TABLE ABOVE -GRADE CONCRETE VAULT Port Granby Project Selection of a Qualified Concept September 21, 2004 Feasible Concepts and Qualified Concept Report Overview of Presentation • The Peer Review Team • Today's Milestone • Peer Review Methodology • Peer Review Process • Synopsis of LLRWMO Analysis • Significant Areas of Agreement with LLRWMO • Issues for LLRWMO to Address in Next Stage • Peer Review Response to Resident Comments • Recommendations Peer Review Team • Dave Hardy, RPP • Marc Rose, MES • Dr. Mohan Rao • Dr. Murray Finkelstein • Tyrone Gan, P.Eng • Paul Bowen, P.Eng. • Milo Sturm, P.Eng. • Phil Niblett, M.Sc • Dr. Tony van der Vooren • Dr. Charlotte Young • Other staff and associates Peer Review Process • Reports were received and reviewed • Comments were submitted to LLRWMO via disposition forms • Meetings occurred between specialists to explain, review nature of disagreement and /or exchange additional information • LLRWMO consultants and staff reviewed comments and stated whether they agreed or not • Presentations to residents and SECRA • Peer Review Team listened to public comments and suggestions Synopsis of LLRWMO • Three Feasible Concepts considered • Review of two options for shoreline remediation • Range of transportation routes analysed • Several options considered for remediation of contaminated soils Feasible Concept `1A' • Long -term stabilization of most of the wastes at the existing Port Granby WMF • On -site management of wastes — excavation of East Gorge wastes • East Gorge wastes relocated above ground to a new storage facility at the existing Port Granby WMF Significant Areas of Agreement with LLRWMO • Excavation, transportation, and re- storing of the waste at the new site will meet or exceed Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and other environmental requirements. • Qualified Concept is consistent with international approaches for managing simiiar tow -level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils. 13 J: 14 Issues for LLRWMO to Address During the Net Effects Analysis • Further consider enclosed excavation options to reduce the radiological risks for the public and the workers handling LLRW. • Examine the extent of contaminated groundwater, and develop a strategy to remediate groundwater at the existing Pori Granby site • Establish and evaluate appropriate ways to minimize, mitigate and monitor potential airbome contamination impacts. 15 ;` Issues for LLRWMO to Address During the Net Effects Analysis Assess geological and hydrogeological conditions underlying the location chosen for the WMF. Examine how institutional control of the facility will be managed over the life of the project. Evaluate a double base liner for containing wastes. Comment and Response Whether the 1978 FEARO Panel decision opposing the Eldorado Refinery and waste management site precludes the establishment of a waste management site on the north side of Lakeshore Rd. - The projects are different_ NRCan and the Peer Review Team agree that the 1978 decision does not preclude the LLRWMO from including a site across Lakeshore Rd. in the current EA process. 1' 20 Comment and Response The Qualified Concept is not an 'alternative means" of carrying out the Project, but is an 'alternative to the Project. - We don't agree. The Qualified Concept meets the definition and criteria for an 'alternative means', as it is located locally, is technically and economically feasible, and manages the wastes over the long term. An'altemative to would involve options such as long term disposal, cavems or treating the wastes. 21 Comment and Response The comprehensiveness of a screening level EA. The studies conducted to date for this EA meet the requirements of a "comprehensive' study and consequently exceed the requirements for a screening level of study. Comment and Response Potential effects of the construction and operation of the waste management facility on properly values, enjoyment of property, and agncultural production. • Property Values Protection program has been established to address some of these impacts. • The Peer Review Team will be reviewing the assessment of socao- economic impacts donna the detailed effects assessment to determine if the impacts can be mitigated during the construction phase and long term operation of the new waste faolky 25 Comment and Response There is little experience with systems storing radioactive and chemical wastes, and there are considerable uncertainties associated with storing the waste in an above - ground mound. • The LLRWMO has cited a number of precedents, built and under construction, for this type of engineered mound, including Fort McMurray in Alberta and Weldon Springs in Missouri. 27 Comment and Response A deep groundwater cut-off wall is not a practical proposition, and should be replaced by a deep open trench concept. • The trench would generate an enormous volume of excess fit and create a visual intrusion into the community- There is little evidence to support the view that a deep open trench will perform as designed. Presentation to Council September 21, 2004 Mayor Mutton and Councillors, As this Council is aware of wide gulf between the people of Port Granby and the Proponent on how to manage the wastes at Port Granby, one side wanting a on -site solution and the other side proposing a off- site solution. 1 am here to-day to recommend to this Council that you ask the Proponent of the Port Granby Project to carry_ two concepts forward to the detailed effects assessment that is Concept 11 and Concept 1B. When the detailed effects assessment is completed on both concepts , they should be refereed to r\� r c n rrr j 0-Vrnediator or a review panel to determine which is the best concept, This method would prove once and for all, which of the two concepts is the best solution for the Port Granby wastes. This is the only fair way to approach this problem for the people of Port Granby, Another the reason for this request is that Concept 11 received 325 points and Concept 1B received 232 points in the scoring system used in the Qualified Concept Report, there are only 43 points between the two concepts. There is only about 14% difference between the two concepts and this leaves a very narrow margin for error_ Al the work shops that 1 attended we were ask to assign values to different factors that affect the area near Port Granby, 1 found that these values were very subjective and by changing the numbers assigned to each factor the out come could be some what differenut. Another reason is that Concept IB an on -site solution is a doable project and it is what the people of Port Granby want and that alone should carry some weight with this council, also by carrying the two concept forward it will demonstrate to the people most affected, that this Council has their interest at heart., after all our governments should be for the people by the people The proponents of this project are asking this Council to accept Concept 11 and carry it forward to the next phase of the process without providing any information on the movement of groundwater, the make-up of land, (Le. is the ground clay, sand, silt). No information on how the wastes are to be moved across the road safely, moving the wastes by dump truck to a site across the road is not sae. The Proponent is asking this council to pass a resolution to carry Concept I 1 to the next phase on blind faith. Thank You PROPOSITIONS ADOPTED BY THE 1999 C.A.C. COMMITTEE at the first and second meetings of that committee 1) DO NOT EXCAVATE ONE SHOVELFUL OF WASTE. 2) THE WASTE WILL NOT MOVE FROM ITS PRESENT LOCATION IF IT IS KEPT DRY. These propositions were the foundations of the designs submitted to council in the 1999 Report. Ojvvrational Policy Statement Addressing "Need for ", "Purpose '*1 Five Year Review Federal Environmental Assessment Index Eneironrriental Assessments Training and Research Legislation and Guidance Publications Site Map 1 of 7 wysiwyg: // 11 /http: / /www.ceaa- acee.gc.ca/001 1 /0002 /addressing_e.ht Canadian Environmental Agence canadlenne Assessment Agency d'evaluation environnementale Francais Contact Us About the Agency October 1998 Help News Releases Search 4Nhat's New Canada Canada Site Other Sites Operational Policy Statement OPS -EPO /2 - 1998 Addressing "Need for ", "Purpose of" "Alternatives to" and "Alternative Means" under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1. PURPOSE This operational policy statement has been issued by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) to provide clarification and guidance to responsible authorities (RAs) conducting environmental assessments under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (the Act). This operational policy statement is related to consideration of: • the "need for the project (Paragraph 16(1)(e)); • the "purpose of" the project (Paragraph 16(2)(a)); • "alternatives to" the project (Paragraph 16(1)(e)); and • "alternative means" of carrying out the project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means (Paragraph 16(2)(b)). The policy statement provides definitions and general guidance on when and how these factors should be considered in an environmental assessment conducted under the Act. The need for guidance from the Agency arises from concerns about the inconsistent application of the above - mentioned provisions by different RAs, and from opportunities to strengthen the application of EA under the Act to promote planning practices that support sustainable development. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS A PLANNING TOOL This guidance on "alternatives to" and "alternative means" addresses EA (under the Act) as a decision - making planning tool, rather than as a project impact assessment tool. The approach links considerations of "need for" the project, "purpose of the project, "alternatives to" the project and "alternative means" of carrying out the project, in the early stages of project planning, and before irrevocable decisions on the project are made. In this way, the RA and /or proponent will be in a better position to define potential solutions to a problem, and to establish the viability of alternatives. Importantly, their consideration will also help to establish the conditions under which certain effects may or may not be justified under the circumstances, should such a determination be subsequently required. 3. PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE 4/15/2002 1:14 PM 'ALTERNATIVE MEANS' defined as: "THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT ARE TECHNICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, THAT THE PROJECT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AND CARRIED OUT" 'ALTERNATIVES TO' defined as: "FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT WAYS TO MEET THE PROJECT NEED AND ACHIEVE THE PROJECT PURPOSE" The wording in the Peer review Report: "Alternative means must be technically and economically feasible, are local, are for the management of wastes over the long term, and are functionally similar to the project as proposed in the Project Description Appendix 2 Evaluation of Feasible Concepts A comparative analysis of the three feasible concepts is, without doubt, a complex matter. The procedure adopted by the Proponent was as follows: 1) Indicator categories were identified and listed in the form of general headings. 2) Each indicator category was expanded into a number of sub - categories, in the form of questions. 3) Each question was further broken into two or more subjects which were then subject to comparative analysis. Numerical ratings were assigned to each subject using 1 as the indicator of a severe adverse effect, and 5 as no effect. Indicator categories included: Technical, Community, Human Health and Safety, Environmental, and Economic. An Example is set out below: The Technical Indicator was sub - divided into 4 questions; the first of which was: "What level of confidence is there that the concept will be compatible with Site Features "? (This question then appears to have been adjusted, in so far as it became "what are the constraints imposed by the site upon the design of the concept " ?) The Site factors imposing constraints were listed as: Shoreline Bluffs Ground water Surface Water Waste Properties. The impact of each filter was then rated with a score of 1 to 5; 1 meaning maximum adverse impact, 5 meaning no impact. It is my opinion that the factors affecting the scoring, were in most cases biased infavor of excavating the wastes by claiming that the process' used to construct (for example) a toe berm, were specialized and /or needed special engineering techniques, thus awarding a lower rating. Similarly the process of excavating the East Gorge wastes were equated with excavating the whole site (100,000 cubic meters versus 500,000 cubic meters), which I have rated by considering excavating the Plateau Area and the West Gorge, in addition to the East Gorge. The scoring of this sub - category by the Proponent and by myself is shown below : Proponent's score My Score Concept 1A 1B 2 1A 1B 2 Shoreline 1 1 5 3 3 5 Bluffs 3 3 5 3 3 5 Ground Water 1 1 4 2 2 3 Surface Water 1 1 3 2 2 2 Waste Excavation East Gorge 2 4 2 1 5 1 Plateau 5 5 3 West Gorge 5 5 3 Total 8 10 19 21 25 22 Average Score 1.6 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.6 3.1 The above average scores were then added to the average scores for the other indicator questions in this category, to obtain a total score for this indicator group. This total score was then multiplied by a weighting factor derived at the March 29'h '03 Workshop, (which I don't believe is necessarily correct, but which I do not want to challenge at this point in time) to arrive at a weighted average score for the indicator group. The average score of each group of the indicator questions were multiplied by their assigned weighting factors and then added together. The new figures in each indicator category were then multiplied by a second weighting factor — again derived from the March 29th Workshop, then the results were added together to arrive at the total score of each feasible concept to determine the qualified concept. Again I do not accept that these weighting factors are necesarily correct (examples being 'what proportion of the total sum available for the task should be spent building the facility' ?; 'what proportion of the total sum available for the task should be retained for maintenance in the future' ?), but I do not want to challenge these numbers at this time. In conclusion I want to say that I have tried hard to arrive at a fair assessment of this one indicator question. I have arrived at an answer which is quite different from that reached by the proponent. This is the reason why I think we have to challenge the conclusion reached by the proponent, that excavating and moving the waste to a new site is the optimum solution.