HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-077-06
.,
CLarilJgton
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, June 19, 2006
Report #:
PSD-077 -06
File #: PLN 33.4
Subject:
PORT GRANBY PROJECT - MUNICIPAL CONSENT TO THE SUBMISSION OF A
PREFERRED OPTION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-077-06 be received;
2. THAT the following resolution be approved:
WHEREAS on September 27, 2004, Council resolved to 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;
AND WHEREAS the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Port Granby Project
prepared by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office dated March 2006
("EASR"), has concluded that the Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project will not create
any significant adverse effects on the natural, socio-economic and human health environments,
and that it should be submitted to the federal decision makers as the Preferred Option for the
Port Granby Project;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality's Peer Review Team has advised Council that the EASR
provides a sufficiently comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of the Qualified
Concept for the Port Granby Project, that the measures proposed to mitigate the adverse effects
of the Project on area residents are appropriate, that the Team generally agrees with the
EASR's conclusions, and that the EASR is $uitable for submission to the relevant authorities for
further review;
AND WHEREAS Council is confident that the relevant authorities, in their review of the EASR
and associated documentation, including the design of the Long Term Waste Management
Facility, will ensure that the health and safety of area residents and the natural environment will
be protected through all phases of the Port Granby Project;
AND WHEREAS Council continues to b.posed to the acceptance or storage of any waste,
other than the waste associated with thelxisting Port Granby Waste Management Facility, at
the new Long Term Waste Management Facility or on any of the lands to be acquired by the
Government of Canada as part of the Port Granby Project; and
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 2
AND WHEREAS the Legal Agreement between the Municipality of Clarington, the Municipality
of Port Hope and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada represented by the Minister of
Natural Resources dated March 29,2001, as amended, states that a preferred option will not be
submitted to decision makers without the written consent of the Municipalities to that option;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON resolves to give its consent to the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management
Office to submit to Federal decision makers, the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project as
described in Staff Report PSD-077 -2006;
3. THAT the Government of Canada and the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office be
requested to continue to consult with the Municipality and area residents on the Environmental
Assessment of the Project;
4. THAT a copy of Council's decision and Staff Report PSD-077-06 be forwarded in its entirety to
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, Natural Resources Canada, and the
Regional Municipality of Durham; and
5. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to all interested parties indicated in this report.
. Crome, M.C.I.P.,R.P.P.
r, Planning Services
Reviewed bt.J. ~-.:;~
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS*FL *DJC*df
5 June 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905) 623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 3
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The Legal Agreement that forms the basis of the Port Hope Area Initiative defines the
various obligations of the Municipalities of Clarington and Port Hope and the
Government of Canada. In particular, the Agreement defines a number of key decision
points for the municipalities in relation to the Project.
1.2 The selection of a Qualified Concept for the Project was the first key decision made by
Council. On September 27,2004, Council agreed with the recommendation of the Low
Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) that a concept involving the
relocation of the Port Granby waste to an engineered storage mound north of
Lakeshore Road should proceed through the Environmental Assessment (EA) process
as the Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project.
1.3 Council is currently at a second key municipal decision point, that being providing
municipal consent to the submission of a Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project to
federal decision makers. In order to provide this consent, Council must be satisfied with
the results of the detailed effects assessment undertaken with respect to the Qualified
Concept. The results of this assessment, as well as all of the other studies undertaken
to date through the Port Granby Project, are summarized in the Environmental
Assessment Study Report (EA Study Report).
1.4 The first purpose of this report is to advise Committee and Council on the results of the
Municipal Peer Review Team's and staffs review of the EA Study Report for the Port
Granby Project. The second purpose is to recommend to Council that the Municipality
provide its consent to the LLRWMO to submit to federal decision makers, the Project as
described in this Staff Report as the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 In February 2005, the LLRWMO submitted the first draft EA Study Report to the
Municipality. Staff and the Peer Review Team advised Council that the EA Study
Report provided a sufficiently comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects
of the Port Granby Project. Nevertheless, both staff and the Peer Review Team
recommended that the design of the Long Term Waste Management Facility should be
revised to include a double base liner. Accordingly, on April 6, 2005, Council adopted a
resolution to request the LLRWMO to investigate the effects of installing a double
composite base liner at the new Long Term Waste Management Facility, to revise the
EA Study Report accordingly, and to submit the revised EA Study Report to Council for
review when completed.
2.2 On January 23, 2006, the LLRWMO advised Committee that its investigation into
installing a double base liner at the Long Term Waste Management Facility had
revealed no appreciable improvement in the mound's performance. Instead, the
LLRWMO recommended that the mound cover be enhanced through the incorporation
of a capillary barrier system to further minimize the potential for precipitation to contact
the waste and generate leachate. The Peer Review Team and staff, through Report
PSD-007 -06, indicated their support for the LLRWMO's recommendation. In particular,
it was noted that the capillary barrier system represented a more significant
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 4
improvement to the mound's performance than a double base liner and that, in contrast
to the double base liner option, no additional construction materials would need to be
trucked to the site. The revised EA Study Report reflecting the enhanced mound cover
was submitted to Council for review on April 3, 2006.
2.3 On April 24, 2006, GPA considered Staff Report PSD-047-06 which provided further
discussion on the revised facility design. At that meeting, Committee directed Staff to
address the following issues in the staff report dealing with Council's consent to the
submission of the Preferred Option:
· How the review of the double liner will be handled through the environmental
assessment and through the licensing process by the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission;
· The details of the socio-economic strategies recommended to alleviate some of the
adverse effects of the project, and that these strategies be presented to SECRA
prior to the report being considered by Committee in June 2006.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION IN THE EA STUDY REPORT
3.1 The EA Study Report is a summary of all the various studies related to the Port Granby
Project that have been undertaken by the LLRWMO for the EA process. The Project
itself is a very complex undertaking, consisting of many specific elements, including the
design and construction of the Long Term Waste Management Facility and the socio-
economic impact mitigation strategy. The precise details of the various elements of the
Project will be further refined over the next year as the result of the review by the
relevant authorities, on-going engineering work by the LLRWMOj and discussions with
the Peer Review Team and area residents.
3.2 A summary of the key elements of the Port Granby Project is provided below, with a
more complete description being provided in Attachment 2.
3.3 Construction-Related Elements
3.3.1 The Port Granby Project involves the relocation by truck of approximately 432,000 m3 of
low level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils located at the existing
waste management facility to a new Long Term Waste Management Facility located
approximately 430 m north of Lakeshore Road in Lot 4, B.F.C, former Township of
Clarke. The new facility would consist of an engineered storage mound with a low
permeability cover and liner system, would occupy approximately 10 ha when
completed, and would be approximately 8 m in height. Material for the construction of
the new facility would be trucked in on Newtonville Road, Concession Road 1, and
Elliott Road to the entrance of the Long Term Waste Management Facility. The low
level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils will be moved by covered
trucks from the existing waste management facility to the new facility via an underpass
that will be constructed under Lakeshore Road.
3.3.2 The base liner system for the Long Term Waste Management Facility will consist of a
compacted clay layer, a single high density polyethylene geomembrane, and a sand
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 5
layer for leachate collection and drainage. The geomembrane was selected to be
compatible with the leachate generated by the waste, and its primary function is to
restrict leachate movement into the surrounding soil during the period of waste
placement until the final cover is completed. The compacted clay liner would serve as a
backup in case the geomembrane is defective.
3.3.3 The low permeability composite cover system will consist of layers of natural and
synthetic materials designed to minimize infiltration of precipitation to the waste. The
mound cover will include a high density polyethylene geomembrane, a geosynthetic
clay liner, and a capillary barrier system. Sensors will be installed in the mound cover
to monitor its performance.
3.4 Socio-Economic Impact MitiQation StrateQv
3.4.1 The EA Study Report identifies a number of residual adverse effects on the local
community resulting from the Port Granby Project. These include disruption to farm
operations, a 2% to 8% reduction in residential property values during the construction
period, disruption to some road users, changes in the use and enjoyment of property;
and increased stress and decreased feelings of personal security and well-being.
3.4.2 The EA Study Report proposes a mitigation strategy to address the socio-economic
effects of the Project. A set of principles has been developed to provide the foundation
of the proposed mitigation strategy and to guide the use of the various measures that
could be used to mitigate the adverse socio-economic effects of the Project. Some of
the principles listed include the following:
· Those potentially affected have a legitimate role to play in decision making; those
directly affected will have the opportunity to contribute to designing and delivering
socio-economic mitigation measures and on-going problem solving;
· Safety of the environment and human health are paramount in all decision making;
· Mitigation measures within pre-defined areas would be developed to offset effects
on the use or enjoyment of property and/or quality of life; and
· The proponent shall take reasonable actions to ensure that those impacted by the
Project are not economically disadvantaged by the Project.
3.4.3 The EA Study Report also provides an overview of potential measures to mitigate the
adverse effects of the Project on area residents. These include:
· Minimizing the visibility of on-site activities at the facility by landscaping on site;
· Schedule off-site trucking activities to avoid school group pick-up/drop-off times and
to minimize disruptions to the community;
· Implement initiatives to avoid, reduce, or redress real and perceived adverse socio-
economic effects;
'F'-'j"J\ ""i J}::'~?"i';~i;'>""""""
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 6
· For those properties closest to the Facility, develop management plans for noise,
dust, odour and traffic;
· Inform residents about the results of monitoring for noise and dust.
Property Value Protection Program
3.4.4 The Property Value Protection (PVP) Program is a key component of the socio-
economic mitigation strategy for the Port Granby Project. This program was
established through the Legal Agreement and is intended to compensate property
owners within the defined Program area for financial loss experienced on the sale of
their property, loss of rental income, or mortgage renewal difficulties as the result of the
Port Granby Project. Compensation is provided on the basis of unaffected fair market
value for a property as determined by an independent appraiser, generally at the time of
sale. Property owners can appeal a compensation award before an independent
appeals officer, whose decisions are binding on the LLRWMO. Residents can also
receive assistance from the Program in determining the market value of their property
prior to listing it for sale.
3.4.5 The intent of the PVP Program is to provide property owners with the means to receive
fair compensation for financial loss in a quick and non-adversarial manner at no cost to
the owner. Most claims will be handled within two to three weeks of being received.
However, the Program does not provide compensation for any financial losses related
to the existing Port Granby waste management facility, nor does it provide financial
compensation to area residents for impacts to their quality of life that may result from
the Project. These latter impacts are intended to be addressed through other aspects
of the socio-economic impact mitigation strategy.
Two Tier Complaints Resolution Process
3.4.6 The LLRWMO feels that off-site impacts related to the Project can be avoided and will
consider implementing specific mitigation measures should there be complaints from
the community. The existing complaints resolution process established through the
Legal Agreement will be modified to establish a two-tier complaints resolution
procedure. Through the "tier one" process, the LLRWMO will work with community
organizations to resolve complaints received from community members and to
determine the need for and the nature of additional socio-economic mitigation
measures. This first tier is intended to be accessible, user-friendly and as non-
bureaucratic as possible.
3.4.7 The second tier would come into effect when a person unable to get a satisfactory
resolution to an issue or concern through the first tier submits a formal complaint to the
LLRWMO. The "tier two" process would be a more formal attempt to resolve complaints
or disputes. The LLRWMO will investigate and respond to all complaints within 30 days.
In situations where the complaint is still not resolved, it will be referred to a panel
composed of one to five members nominated by the signatories to the Legal
Agreement.
3.4.8 Some of the proposed mitigation measures will require the participation of and/or
approval by community stakeholders including the Municipality. Examples of such
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 7
measures include off-site tree planting program and limiting speed limits on Lakeshore
Road.
4.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS OF PEER REVIEW OF EA STUDY REPORT
4.1 Overall Conclusion
4.1.1 The revised EA Study Report is substantially the same as the document that was
reviewed by the Peer Review Team in the spring of 2005. The only major revisions
relate to the effects expected from the inclusion of the capillary barrier system into the
cover of the Long Term Waste Management Facility, and the construction of the grade
separation under Lakeshore Road. As well, some revisions have been made to reflect
comments from the federal review of the EA Study Report for the Port Hope Project,
which was submitted in April 2005.
4.1.2 The Peer Review Team has prepared an addendum to their original March 2005 report
on the EA Study Report for the Project (see Attachment 3). This report concludes that
the revised EA Study Report addresses the Peer Review Team's concerns with the
original EA Study Report. In particular, the enhanced facility design utilizing an
enhanced cap in lieu of a double base liner and the proposed Lakeshore Road
underpass meet the team's expectations. The revised EA Study Report also provides
additional detail regarding socio-economic mitigation measures.
4.1.3 As well, the Peer Review Team continues to believe that the Preferred Option can be
constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that results in minimal adverse
effects on the environment and area residents, and that mitigation measures can be
developed to effectively minimize these effects. The team has also indicated that they
will continue discussions with the LLRWMO over the next year as many of the details of
the Project are finalized through the detailed design stage and the federal review.
4.1.4 The Peer Review Team has concluded that the revised EA Study Report provides a
sufficiently comprehensive assessment of the environmental effects of the Port Granby
Project. The team is recommending that Council provide its consent to submit the EA
Study Report to the regulatory authorities for the federal/provincial regulatory review,
and that the Municipality continue to have an oversight role to ensure that the additional
work requested by the Peer Review Team is undertaken. Key extracts from the Peer
Review Team's review are presented below.
4.2 Enhanced Facility Oesion
4.2.1 As noted earlier, the Peer Review Team recommended to Council in March 2005 that
the Long Term Waste Management Facility should include a double base liner to
improve the safety performance of the mound and to increase public confidence in the
facility. The LLRWMO has instead recommended that the design of the Long Term
Waste Management Facility should be enhanced through the incorporation of a capillary
barrier system into the mound cover.
4.2.2 The Peer Review Team presented its conclusions on the revised facility design at the
January 23, 2006 and April 24, 2006 Committee meetings. The Peer Review Team
REPORT NO.: PSD-077 -06
PAGE 8
indicated that the enhanced facility design meets their expectations with regard to
environmental performance. By effectively reducing the amount of moisture contacting
the waste to negligible levels, even in the case of the degradation of the geomembrane
component of the cover system, there will be less reliance on the liner system to
manage the leachate and protect against soil and groundwater contamination.
4.2.3 The Peer Review Team has also indicated that they are satisfied that the enhanced
cover design improves the overall performance of the Long Term Waste Management
Facility and provides Clarington residents and Council with a state-of-the-art facility and
an increased level of confidence. In particular, the enhanced design meets the key
objectives the Peer Review Team originally sought by recommending a double liner in
the original facility design - i.e. protecting the underlying till, preventing potential
leachate contamination of groundwater, and providing redundancy in the facility design.
As such, it is the opinion of the MPRT that, with the inclusion of the capillary barrier
system in the mound cover, a double base liner system is no longer necessary.
4.3 Mitioation of Socio-Economic Effects
4.3.1 The Peer Review Team has concluded that, with the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures in the revised EA Study Report, the quality of life of Port Granby
residents will be maintained during both the construction phase and the operational
phase. The Peer Review Team has also made specific recommendations to further
enhance the mitigation strategy. These include a minor modification to the PVP
Program to better reflect the unique nature of real estate in rural areas as opposed to
urban areas (i.e. Port Hope).
4.4 Outstandino Peer Review Team Issues
4.4.1 The Peer Review Team and the LLRWMO are working towards resolving a number of
outstanding issues. Although not yet completely resolved, it is the Peer Review Team's
opinion that these concerns are not critical to the submission of the EA Study Report
since they represent refinements to the level of understanding already reported in the
EA Study Report and can be addressed during the detailed design stage.
Residual Contamination at the Existing Waste Management Facility
4.4.2 The Peer Review Team has concerns about the residual contamination in groundwater
that will exit the waste management facility via the bluffs and the West Gorge. This
groundwater will not be collected by the leachate collection system, which will only
collect groundwater exiting at the East Gorge. The Peer Review Team is seeking
specific information regarding the actual groundwater quality near the bluff face and as
it exits the bluff face in the seepage zone, and has suggested that this work be done
before the licensing phase.
4.4.3 There may be some exposure of contaminants left in place after the clean-up due to the
erosion of the bluffs. The Peer Review Team has noted that, although there would be
minimal opportunity for exposure to these soils, an analysis should be undertaken to
confirm that there would be no health risk to individuals walking along the bluffs. This
analysis could occur before the remedial work is undertaken since the results of such an
analysis could influence measures for the long term monitoring of the bluffs.
i_.',,,>',,-- --,
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 9
Mass Loading of Treated Effluent into Lake Ontario
4.4.4 Treated leachate will discharge into Lake Ontario from the leachate collection systems
at the new Long Term Waste Management Facility and the East Gorge during the five
year construction period and the early maintenance and monitoring periods. The EA
Study Report shows that the concentrations of arsenic and other contaminants within
the effluent will not result in a measurable change in human health risks. Nonetheless,
the Peer Review Team has suggested that the LLRWMO review state-of-the-art
treatment technologies and optimize leachate treatment to reduce the contaminant
mass loadings discharged to the lake.
Impacts to Port Granby Creek from the New Long Term Waste Management Facility
4.4.5 The Peer Review Team agrees that the construction of the Long Term Waste
Management Facility will not have a negative impact on Port Granby Creek or on
coldwater fisheries. However, they have requested the LLRWMO to conduct more
detailed monitoring of the current and future condition of the creek in order to
substantiate the conclusions of the EA Study Report.
Institutional Control
4.4.6 The Peer Review Team has suggested that information regarding the institutional
controls required for each stage of the Project should be prepared during the licensing
of the Long Term Waste Management Facility.
5.0 STAFF COMMENTS
5.1 Staff has been involved with the Peer Review Team in many of the discussions with the
LLRWMO regarding the EA Study Report and the many studies that have been
undertaken through the environmental assessment of the Port Granby Project. As a
result, Staff agree with the Peer Review Team's conclusion that the EA Study Report
generally provides a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the effects of the Port
Granby Project as currently proposed by the LLRWMO.
5.2 Staff has also reviewed the strategy that the LLRWMO has proposed for mitigating the
socio-economic effects of the Port Granby Project on area residents. Many of the
specific details related to the proposed mitigation measures have yet to be defined;
however, the strategy establishes a solid framework for addressing and mitigating
residents' concerns regarding the impact of the Project.
5.3 As directed by Council, the proposed socio-economic mitigation strategy has been
presented to area residents. The LLRWMO has mailed out extracts from the EA Study
Report to all area residents, and specific elements of the strategy have been discussed
with area residents at the Port Granby Discussion Group meetings and with the SECRA
executive.
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-o6
PAGE 10
6.0 RESPONSE TO ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY RESIDENTS
6.1 Area residents have identified a great number of concerns with the potential impact of
the Port Granby Project. Many of these concerns relate to the potential impact on
property values and their quality of life. Given the complexity and duration of the
Project, it is not possible to address all of these issues in detail at this time. However, it
is important to recognize that the framework proposed by the LLRWMO will allow the
socio-economic impact mitigation strategy to evolve as the Project proceeds. Specific
issues identified by area residents are discussed below.
6.2 Provision of Direct Financial Compensation for Quality of Life Impacts and Reduced
Property Values
6.2.1 A number of Port Granby area residents have indicated that they should receive direct
financial compensation both during the construction phase and the post-construction
phase of the Port Granby Project. Specifically, it is their position that they should receive
a portion of the Host Community Fee since they will be experiencing the most significant
impacts related to the Project. They have also requested relief from Municipal taxes
during the construction period.
6.2.2 Staff have advised residents that it is not normal practice for the Municipality to award
financial compensation to residents affected by construction projects, be it residential
subdivisions, municipal construction projects or people living on haul routes from gravel
pits. Staff have also indicated that the Host Community Fee would be more
appropriately used to provide a community benefit.
6.2.3 Nevertheless, the LLRWMO has identified financial compensation as a potential
mitigation measure to address specific Project-related effects .- for example, house
cleaning to deal with dust from truck traffic. The details of specific mitigation measures
will be developed in consultation with area residents and will be responsive to individual
circumstances and impacts. It is also important to emphasize that the cost of identified
measures to mitigate Project-related effects are the responsibility of the LLRWMO and
are not to be funded out of the Host Community Fee or other Municipal funds.
6.3 Permanent Impact on Property Values and Quality of Life
6.3.1 A number of residents have argued that the existing waste management facility has no
impact on area residents, and neither would the in-situ stabilization option originally
endorsed by Council in 1999. They have stated that there is no guarantee that the new
Long Term Waste Management Facility being proposed as the Preferred Option will not
fail in the future. As such, it will pose a permanent threat to area residents and have a
lasting effect on property values and quality of life in the community.
6.3.2 The existing waste management facility has been and will continue to be well-managed
by Cameco Corporation over the short term. However, the storage of the low level radio
active waste at this site is untenable over the longer term and a more permanent
solution is required. As well, there would have still been significant impacts related to
the original in-situ stabilization option, given the amount of construction activity and
truck traffic on area roads that it would have generated.
REPORT NO.: PSO-o77-o6
PAGE 11
6.3.3 Both the LLRWMO and the Peer Review Team are confident that the design of the Long
Term Waste Management Facility, as currently proposed, will be a state-of-the-art
facility that will operate safely and protect the environment and residents for several
hundred years. Although the risk of failure, however minimal, is always present with
any waste management facility, the consequences of any such failure would be less
severe and more easily managed at the new Long Term Waste Management Facility
than it would if the low level radio active waste were to remain at the existing site. As
well, the Long Term Waste Management Facility will be a low profile mound that, with
proper landscaping and site design, should blend into the rural setting of the Port
Granby area.
6.4 Proposed Modifications to PropertY Value Protection Prooram
6.4.1 Residents have suggested that the PVP Program should be revised to provide residents
with an independent appraisal to determine the unaffected market value of their
property value prior to listing it, with all costs to be borne by the Program. If a listed
property does not sell within a reasonable period of time, the Program should purchase
the property for its previously-determined appraised value.
6.4.2 There are a number of difficulties with the suggested approach that can result in the
appraised value quickly becoming out-dated. For example, the actual market value of a
property can be affected by a number of external influences not related to the Port
Granby Project. As well, the process of retaining an independent appraiser and
undertaking the actual appraisal can take upwards of three months to complete.
6.4.3 PVP Program staff have acknowledged the importance of determining the unaffected
fair market value of a property, and note that the listing of a property for too high a price
can result in the listing becoming "stale" if it sits on the market for an extended period of
time. This creates delays in the sale of the property and complicates the process of
determining the appropriate level of compensation due to the property owner. The PVP
Program staff have indicated that they will assist residents in determining their
unaffected market value. This approach is much quicker and less complicated than
acquiring an independent appraisal. The Legal Agreement also provides for the PVP
Program to acquire a property at its undiminished fair market value in exceptional
circumstances.
6.5 Independent Arbitration Process
6.5.1 Residents have argued that the appeals process set up under the PVP Program and the
Complaints Program is not independent because the appeal officers are appointed by
and paid for by the LLRWMO. Residents have suggested that appeals under the PVP
Program should be settled by an Independent Arbitrator acceptable to both parties, with
the legal costs incurred by the owner being paid by the LLRWMO. In addition, an
independent three member arbitration board should be established to hear complaints
related to the long term harm on property values caused by the Long Term Waste
Management Facility, again with the residents' legal costs being covered by the
LLRWMO.
6.5.2 The appeals process set up under both the PVP Program and the Complaints Process
is intended to be independent, fair to resident, and structured so that residents'
REPORT NO.: PSO-077-06
PAGE 12
complaints will be settled as quickly as possible in a non-adversarial fashion. It thereby
avoids the need for residents to retain outside legal assistance. PVP Program staff
have noted that they have no control over the appeals process and that one of the two
decisions rendered to date by an appeals officer ordered the PVP Program to increase
the compensation paid to the appellant. As well, an appeals officer could order the
LLRWMO to cover any reasonable legal costs incurred by an appellant. Although no
formal complaints have yet been submitted under the Complaints Process, it is
expected that it will operate in a similarly fair manner.
7.0 NEXT STEPS
7.1 Once Council endorses a Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project, the LLRWMO
will submit the EA Study Report and all other relevant documentation to the federal
government for review. The following federal and provincial agencies will be reviewing
and providing comments on the EA Study Report:
. Natural Resources Canada
. Department of Fisheries and Oceans
. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
· Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
. Transport Canada
. Environment Canada
. Health Canada
. Ontario Ministry of the Environment
. Ontario Ministry of Transportation
. Ontario Ministry of Culture
. Ontario Provincial Police
7.2 Based on the experience with the Port Hope EA Study Report, this review is expected
to be quite rigorous and detailed. The numerous technical reports prepared as part of
the EA will be scrutinized by the review agencies to ensure that the study
methodologies used by the LLRWMO and its consultants are appropriate and
sufficiently comprehensive, and that the conclusions of these studies are accurate.
7.3 As noted earlier, Council has directed Staff to include an explanation of how the review
of the double liner will be handled through the environmental assessment and through
the licensing process by the CNSC. All of the documentation related to the LLRWMO's
review of the double base liner and the capillary barrier system will be submitted to
federal decision makers as part of the EA Study Report documentation submitted by the
LLRWMO. The information will therefore be available to the review agencies.
However, these agencies will not undertake a further review of whether either or both
the double base liner and the capillary barrier system should be incorporated into the
design of the Long Term Waste Management Facility. Rather, these agencies will
review the design of the Long Term Waste Management Facility as submitted to ensure
that the storage mound will effectively isolate the waste and protect residents and the
environment for several hundred years.
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-o6
PAGE 13
7.4 Once the review of the Port Granby Project EA Study Report is completed, a draft
Screening Report will be issued by the federal authorities for review and comment.
This report, which will summarize the results of the federal/provincial review, is currently
expected to be released in early 2007. Based on the comments received, the screening
report will be finalized and the federal government will issue its decision on whether to
proceed with the Port Granby Project.
7.5 The Legal Agreement requires the LLRWMO to provide the Municipalities with written
notice of the decision of the relevant authorities with regard to the EA. In the event that
what the authorities decide upon is not the same as the Preferred Option previously
consented to by the Parties, the Parties shall have 60 days to consult and a further 30
days to decide if they do not wish to proceed with the Project or an Element of the
Project.
7.6 Licensing by the CNSC will follow the decision by the Municipality and the federal
government to proceed with the Port Granby Project. Currently, it is anticipated that
the construction work related to the Port Granby Project will commence in 2008.
7.7 It should also be noted that the Legal Agreement requires each municipality to provide
its consent to the preferred option being submitted for the other municipality's project.
Council provided its consent to the Preferred Option for the Port Hope Project in March
2005. Port Hope Council's consent to the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project
is expected to be given at their meeting of June 20,2006.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Council is required to make a decision as to whether the concept for the long term
management of the Port Granby wastes as generally described in the revised EA Study
Report should be submitted as the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project. This
concept involves the relocation of the wastes to a new Long Term Waste Management
Facility north of Lakeshore Road. The design of the Long Term Waste Management
Facility includes a single base liner system and an enhanced mound cover incorporating
a capillary barrier system to prevent precipitation from contacting the waste even in the
event of the failure of the geomembrane in the cover.
8.2 Both staff and the Peer Review Team are satisfied that the design of the Long Term
Waste Management Facility as proposed will provide Council and residents with a
secure storage facility for the Port Granby wastes that will function effectively and safely
for several hundred years. Specifically, the Peer Review Team is confident that the
incorporation of the capillary barrier system into the mound cover represents a
significant improvement to the facility design, and that the double base liner, with its
associated impacts on area residents from increased truck traffic, is no longer
necessary. As well, the measures developed by the LLRWMO to address the impact of
the Project on area residents will, if properly implemented, effectively alleviate the
adverse effects of the Project.
8.3 In recognition of the importance of minimizing the adverse effects of the Project on area
residents, the socio-economic impact mitigation strategy as proposed by the LLRWMO
has been included in the Description of the Preferred Option provided in Attachment 2
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 14
to this report. However, given that the specific details of the mitigation strategy still
need to be developed in consultation with area residents and the Peer Review Team, it
is possible that the actual strategy as implemented may vary from that described.
Nevertheless, what is important is that the intent of the mitigation strategy to alleviate
the adverse effects of the Project on area residents is achieved.
8.4 It is also important to recognize that the LLRWMO, as the proponents for the Port
Granby Project, is responsible for the implementation of the socio-economic effects
mitigation strategy. The Municipality's role will be to ensure that the negative effects of
the Project on area residents are mitigated to the extent possible, and to work together
with the LLRWMO and residents to implement specific mitigation measures as required.
8.5 Council's consent to the submission of a Preferred Option for review by federal decision
makers marks a key milestone in the Port Granby Project. However, it does not signify
the end of the Municipality's involvement with the Project. Staff and the Peer Review
Team will continue to be involved in discussions with the LLRWMO regarding the
detailed design of the construction elements of the Project, as well as the design and
implementation of the socio-economics impacts mitigation strategy. Constructive
dialogue with area residents is also expected to continue during the period that the
federal review is underway.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3
Glossary of Terms
Description of the Preferred Option - EA Study Report March 2006
Peer Review Team Report on the EA Study Report for the
Port Granby Project
REPORT NO.: PSD-077-06
PAGE 15
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Sharon Baillie-Malo
Glenn Case
Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of
Durham
Michael Ayer & Julie Jones
Vito Binetti
Wayne Boucher
Ray Coakwell and Frances Brooks
Walter Burman
Rosemary Cooper
Marion and Stuart DeCoste
Frederic DeSourdy
Robert Edgar
Mel Edwards
Wilma Entwisle
Gord and Penny Ewington
Betty and Stephanie Formosa
Paulette Gerber
Lori Graham
Frank Hart
Luanne Hill and Mike Mamonko
A. Karacsonyi
Susan Kinmond
Maria Kordas - Fraser
Jane Lawrence
Brian Layng
Eric Leeuwner
Jerry Mahoney and Bonnie McFarlane
Andrew McCreath
Joanne McNamara
Rupert McNeill
Lorri and Stuart Munro
Tim and Laurel Nichols
Dora Nichols
Carole Owens
Garfield Payne
James B. Robertson
Linda and Paul Ryerse
Sarwan Sahota
Ken Shrives
Barb Spencer
John Stephenson
Brian and Penny Stripp
Rob & Kim Studt
Midori Tanabe
Harvey Thompson
Rosemary Tisnovsky
Stan Tisnovsky
Julie Tutla
Richard Walker
Mary and Harry Worrall
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-077-06
CNSC
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
EA
Environmental Assessment
LLRWMO
Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
NRCAN
Natural Resources Canada
PVP
Property Value Protection
SECRA
South East Clarington Ratepayers Association
Attachment 2
To Report PSO-077-06
PORT GRANBY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION
CONSENTED TO BYTHE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON - JUNE 26, 2006
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE (APPROXIMATELY 2008 -
2013)
New Long Term Waste Management Facility
The low level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils located at and
associated with the existing Port Granby Waste Management Facility will be
excavated and relocated to a new Long Term Waste Management Facility
located in the north-central portion of the Cameco property north of Lakeshore
Road. The Long Term Waste Management Facility will consist of an above-
ground engineered storage mound with a low permeability composite base liner
system and a low permeability composite cover system.
The base liner system will be approximately 1.25 m thick and will consist of a
compacted clay liner, a high density polyethylene geomembrane, and a leachate
collection system embedded in a sand layer. The bottom of the mound will be
located about 5 m to 8 m below existing grade.
The low permeability composite cover system will be installed over the wastes
once all of the contaminated material waste has been deposited in the cells.
The cover system will be approximately 3.5 m thick and will consist of layers of
natural and synthetic materials designed to minimize infiltration of precipitation to
the waste. The mound cover will include a high density polyethylene
geomembrane, a geosynthetic clay liner, and a capillary barrier system. The
latter will be comprised of a 0.3 m capillary layer and a 0.3 m capillary break
layer. Sensors will be installed in the mound cover to monitor its performance.
The surface of the finished mound will rise approximately 8 m above existing
grade.
Clean-Up Criteria
The Legal Agreement requires Canada to "clean up properties contaminated with
Historic Low-Level Radioactive Waste so that all such properties will be able to
be used for all current and foreseeable unrestricted uses."
Estimates of the volume of material that must be excavated from the existing
waste management facility are based on site specific clean-up criteria developed
by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO). These
criteria assume the site will be used for passive recreational uses and are based
primarily on Ontario Ministry of Environment soil quality guidelines for parkland
uses. Where no appropriate provincial guidelines exist, criteria have been
developed to reflect accepted national or international standards.
The low level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils contain both
radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants. The radioactive Contaminants of
Potential Concern (COPC) have been identified as radium-226, thorium-230, and
thorium-232. The non-radioactive COPCs of greatest concern include antimony,
arsenic, cobalt, copper, fluoride, nickel, lead, and uranium. (Uranium is more
chemically toxic than it is radiologically toxic, and is therefore considered a non-
radioactive contaminant.)
Waste Volumes
Approximately 432,000 m3 of low level radioactive waste and marginally
contaminated soils will be excavated and moved from the existing waste
management facility to the new Long Term Waste Management Facility, broken
down as follows:
· Topsoil/fill cover currently overlying wastes
· Low level radioactive waste
· Marginally contaminated soils
· Contingency (-15%)
70,200 m3
204,400 m3
101,000 m3
56,400 m3
This volume figure includes approximately 4,000 m3 of marginally contaminated
soils located under the roadbed and in the ditches of Lakeshore Road between
Townline Road and the entrance to the existing waste management facility.
Area and Location of Long Term Waste Management Facility
The mound itself will be located approximately 430 m north of Lakeshore Road in
Lot 4, Broken Front Concession, former Township of Clarke, on low permeability
native till. Its footprint will occupy approximately 10 ha (420 m north-south by
240 m east-west).
During construction, an overall area of approximately 41 ha will be required to
accommodate site facilities, such as soil stockpiles and contractor's yard for the
Long Term Waste Management Facility. Prior to any work, the entire site area
will be fenced and access controlled. Screening berms will be constructed and
trees planted to block views of the Long Term Waste Management Facility during
construction. A map indicating the location of the existing and proposed waste
management facilities is attached.
Transportation of Construction Materials and Equipment
The construction materials and equipment required for the excavation of the
existing waste management facility and the construction of the new Long Term
Waste Management Facility will be transported by truck along the primary access
route. This route will consist of Newtonville Road from Highway 401, Concession
Road 1 to Elliott Road, and Elliott Road to the entrance of the new management
facility. The LLRWMO will upgrade the roads along this route to the appropriate
municipal standards to accommodate the truck traffic related to the Project.
Approximately 12,500 truckloads will be needed to transport the required
material.
Any shipment too large to utilize the primary access route will be directed south
on Newtonville Road and east on Lakeshore Road to the site via temporary at-
grade entrances from Lakeshore Road. Use of this route is expected to be
minimal. The LLRWMO will not up-grade the roads along this route prior to the
start of construction, but will repair any damage to the roads that may result from
Project-related activities.
Clean material excavated for the construction of the Long Term Waste
Management Facility will be stock-piled on-site and used as daily cover for the
waste after placement in the mound. As well, on-site soils will be used for the
construction of the final cover system in the mound cover. No low level
radioactive waste or marginally contaminated soils will be transported along
public roads. A map indicating the proposed transportation routes is attached.
Waste Excavation and Transportation
The low level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils at the existing
waste management facility will be progressively removed using open excavation
techniques and standard excavation equipment over five construction seasons.
Trucks will transport the waste and place it in the Long Term Waste Management
Facility, with all waste loads to be covered with tarpaulins to prevent spillage and
mitigate dust generation. All trucks will be decontaminated prior to leaving each
site and dust suppression measures will be used at both sites and along the
Inter-Site Route.
The Inter-Site Route will be used by trucks to transport the low level radioactive
waste and marginally contaminated soils from the existing waste management
facility to the Long Term Waste Management Facility An additional 113,000 m3
of uncontaminated soil and earth excavated from the site of the new Long Term
Waste Management Facility will be transported by truck via the Inter-Site Route
to the existing waste management facility for the regrading and restoration of the
site after all contaminated materials have been removed. A grade separation
under Lakeshore Road will be constructed as part of the Inter-Site Route.
Non-radioactive wastes (eg. conventional garbage and sewage) generated
during construction will be transported off-site for disposal or recycling.
Radioactive wastes (eg. contaminated construction materials, used coveralls and
gloves) will be managed on-site as low level radioactive waste and placed in the
Long Term Waste Management Facility.
Water Treatment
The water treatment facility on the existing waste management site will be used
during the period of waste excavation and placement to treat contaminated
liquids collected at both the existing waste management facility and the Long
Term Waste Management Facility. Contaminated liquids include stormwater that
has contacted the waste, fluids used to decontaminate trucks and other
equipment, and groundwater from dewatering. The treated effluent will continue
to be discharged to Lake Ontario under existing discharge standards, although
the LLRWMO has committed to investigating approaches for improving the
quality of the discharge.
The existing water treatment facility will be decommissioned at the end of the
waste excavation period and a new water treatment facility will be constructed
and operational at the Long Term Waste Management Facility. The new facility
will treat groundwater collected from the new East Gorge Groundwater
Interceptor Trench at the existing waste management facility and leachate from
the new mound, as well as the contaminated water obtained through dewatering
of the sludge in the existing treatment ponds. The treated effluent will be
discharged via buried pipe to Lake Ontario near the East Gorge. Project specific
discharge criteria are being developed.
Restoration of Existing Waste Management Facility
A specific end use plan for the existing waste management facility once the low
level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils have been removed
has not yet been developed, although passive recreational uses have been
assumed. The excavated areas will be graded to remove peaks and troughs
and to flatten slopes to a stable configuration, uncontaminated fill and topsoil will
be placed, and the site will be seeded and landscaped.
Even after the waste has been removed, residual affected groundwater will
continue to slowly discharge to Lake Ontario, primarily through the East Gorge.
A groundwater collection system will be constructed across the low end of the
Gorge and the intercepted groundwater will be pumped to the new water
treatment facility at the Long Term Waste Management Facility. Once the
groundwater quality improves to a condition where direct discharge can be made
to Lake Ontario, the pumping system will be decommissioned and groundwater
will be allowed to flow through the interceptor trench without collection. The
timing of the decommissioning will be determined through monitoring.
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PHASE (2013 - 2500)
The overall dimensions of the final Long Term Waste Management Facility will
not change from those at the end of the construction and development phase.
The mound will be vegetated to protect it from erosion. It will generally not be
visible from Lakeshore Road and will appear as a smooth feature from
Newtonville Road. No specific end use has been proposed.
The low permeability cover on the mound is expected to act as an effective
hydraulic barrier for several hundred years. The geo-synthetic clay liner
component of the final cover together with the capillary barrier will serve to
minimize infiltration due to any defects or deterioration associated with the
geomembrane in the cover. Sensors installed in the cover system will monitor
its performance. If the cover system fails to perform as expected, it can be
accessed and repaired or replaced without disturbing the wastes within the
mound.
The composite base liner installed under the wastes is expected to provide an
effective hydraulic/diffusion barrier throughout the maintenance and monitoring
phase. In the event that the geomembrane in the base liner fails, the compacted
clay layer as well as the low permeability cover would continue to control the rate
of contaminant release from the waste into the soils underneath the mound,
which is estimated to be less than 0.01 mm/year. No leachate would be collected
for treatment under this condition.
The leachate collection system in the base liner will continue to function for the
lifetime of the Long Term Waste Management Facility. Waste settlement is
expected to expel much of the remaining drainable contaminated fluids in the
waste, so that minimal volumes of leachate are expected to be generated from
the mound after 2025. After this, flow to the water treatment plant will be almost
entirely from the East Gorge Groundwater Collector. Treatment requirements will
be reduced once the groundwater collector is taken off-line.
Except for the fenced area around the pumping chamber for the East Gorge
Groundwater Collector, the original waste management facility would be
available for passive recreational uses. The collection system will remain in
operation for some time, although an operational period of approximately 10
years is expected to be sufficient to intercept residual mass loadings for
contaminants such as arsenic and uranium.
As owner of the new and remediated Port Granby waste management facilities,
the Government of Canada will be responsible for routine site monitoring and
maintenance. An inspection and maintenance schedule for both facilities will be
developed. At the Long Term Waste Management Facility, this includes regular
inspection of the mound cover, the leachate collection system, and the water
treatment system. As well, groundwater, surface water and air quality, terrestrial
and aquatic biota, and leachate and gas generation will continue to be monitored.
The East Gorge leachate collection system on the remediated waste
management facility will also be inspected on a regular basis.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGY
A framework for effectively mitigating the adverse effects of the Port Granby
Project is a key element of the Project. The strategy is expected to evolve over
time in response to specific events and comments from the Municipality and area
residents. As such, the specific measures proposed may vary. However, it is
expected that the overall intent of the socio-economic impact mitigation strategy
as detailed below will remain unchanged.
Principles to Guide Mitigation Measures
1. Those potentially affected have a legitimate role to play in decision
making; those directly affected will have the opportunity to contribute to
designing and delivering socio-economic mitigation measures and
ongoing problem solving.
2. Safety of the environment and human health are paramount in all
decision making.
3. Effects management measures should focus on those which avoid or
reduce the severity of adverse socio-economic effects.
4. Mitigation measures within pre-defined areas would be developed to
offset effects on the use or enjoyment of property and/or quality of life.
5. Measurers to enhance local benefits will be undertaken to the greatest
practical extent.
6. Project related communications will be open, accurate and timely; and be
designed to suit the special needs of stakeholders.
7. All mechanisms for delivering socio-economic mitigation shall be as
accessible, user-friendly and non-bureaucratic as possible.
8. The proponent shall take reasonable actions to ensure that those
impacted by the Project are not economically disadvantaged by the
Project.
9. Follow-up monitoring will be carried out to inform the design and
development of any additional socio-economic measures, including
processes to investigate and resolve complaints.
Overview of Mitigation Measures
Residents and Communities
· Implement initiatives to avoid, reduce, or redress real and perceived adverse
socio-economic effects and enhance beneficial effects of the Port Granby
Project.
· Set up a two-tier complaints system which will be used to establish the need
for and nature of additional mitigation measures that require the participation
and/or approval of community stakeholders.
· Implement a Project Monitoring Advisory Committee, to include
representatives from local residents, South East Clarington Rate Payers
Association, the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, and the
Municipality of Clarington.
· Implement measures to address the residual loss of use and enjoyment of
properties nearest to the waste management facilities, such as developing
management plans for noise, dust, odour and traffic; and establishing
thresholds for when contingencies are implemented (e.g., temporarily
stopping work, curtailing offsite transportation activities, and imposing fines
and penalties to contractors who do not comply with requirements).
· Conduct enhanced communications with local residents to address the loss of
use and enjoyment of property, including targeted communications with
newcomers aimed at keeping them informed of air quality and noise levels,
environmental monitoring results, schedule of the project works and activities,
and where to call for answers to any questions they may have.
· Keep new comers informed about the Project.
· Implement an information program for the affected community, including
requirements for disclosure of monitoring information to designated
neighbourhood representatives, real-time monitoring of noise and dust levels,
and site inspection privileges.
· Provide an end-use for the new Long Term Waste Management Facility and
the remediated waste management facility that maximizes the potential for
passive recreational uses of the property and that promotes greater user
access and recreational use of the waterfront.
· Develop an appropriate "name" for the facility that would not associate it with
the Municipality or any community.
· Request that the CNSC license explicitly assure that the Long Term Waste
Management Facility and the existing waste management facility can be used
only for the purpose of managing a specific volume of historic low level
radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils from the Municipality of
Clarington over the long term.
· If determined to be required by the Municipality of Clarington, design and
deliver a follow-up program and restoration plan for road segments where
excessive road wear has been detected to ensure traffic safety and good
riding quality.
· Consult with the Municipality and area residents regarding the need to reduce
the speed limit on Lakeshore Road to 50km/ hour east and west of the
underpass.
· If requested by Clarington Council, completely remove and rehabilitate the
upgraded portions of Elliot Road to pre-Project conditions (to the extent
possible).
· If requested by Clarington Council, remove the underpass at Lakeshore Road
and rehabilitate the areas along Lakeshore Road affected by the underpass
to pre-Project conditions (to the extent possible).
· Work with the Municipality of Clarington to define and implement site plan
controls that would limit the aerial extent and height of buildings and
structures on the existing waste management facility or Long Term Waste
Management Facility.
Community Infrastructure
· Implement the Property Value Protection program during pre-construction and
construction and for two years into the maintenance and monitoring phase.
· Monitor the Property Value Protection Program with a view to extending it
beyond two years after the completion of the proposed facility if the market
demonstrates that project effects will last longer.
· Explore transferring the ownership of excess lands surrounding the Long
Term Waste Management Facility mound to a party such as a conservation
authority or land trust for the purposes of maintaining the lands in agricultural
production and/or for environmental conservation.
Community Services
· Communicate frequently and openly with recreational user groups of the
Waterfront Trail and Elliot Road, and cycling, motoring or naturalist groups
aimed at keeping them aware of project works and activities, environmental
monitoring results, peak traffic periods, and potential road closures and
access restrictions.
· Consider alternative day-time play locations for local children along access
roads.
Traffic and Transportation
· Avoid trucking during school group pick-up/drop off times along
recommended routes. Consult with relevant stakeholders (e.g., school
boards, parent organizations) to optimize school bus routes, drop-off and
pick-up points along recommended transportation routes.
· Design access roads so that farm vehicles can move through the area during
construction (e.g., consider road and shoulder width)
· Install signals, signs, pavement marks, and traffic controls at the Elliot Road
underpass.
· Implement traffic control measures to ensure the safety of the underpass for
the Intersite Road, during both the construction and decommissioning of the
road and underpass (e.g., provide temporary detour around the immediate
construction site, have stops or traffic lights at the underpass construction
site).
· Provide signage for the underpass detour and any required stop controls.
· Ensure the at-grade rail crossing (Le., CN Rail) design incorporates wide
lanes and shoulders, maintains sight lines, gate and signal rail crossing
control devices.
· Incorporate contract clauses requiring all trucking contractors to demonstrate
that vehicles are regularly maintained and drivers are licensed and trained.
· Implement contract clauses to ensure trucks adhere to recommended
transportation routes. Impose financial penalties for non-compliance.
· Provide a driver training program for truck drivers that will focus on safety
issues along the transportation routes (e.g., school bus stops, recreation trails
and crossings, existing hazards such as steep slopes, curves, rail crossings
and the proposed Lakeshore Road underpass).
· Schedule off-site truck driving to minimize disruption (e.g., deliver during
designated times, use of convoys, stockpiling of materials).
· Design and deliver a contingency plan for traffic on Lakeshore Road in case
of an accident involving low level radioactive waste to ensure that emergency
services can respond appropriately.
· Notify all local residents in advance about trucking activities, particularly for
oversized loads to allow residents to plan their activities and minimize
potential for accidents.
· Operate a procedure so that complaints regarding truck traffic can be
reported and resolved.
Population and Economic base
· Communicate frequently and openly with local farmers to keep them aware of
Project activities. Measures could include regular newsletters and mailings,
special event notices and door-to-door notifications when required, direct
communications with the site manager, and a 1-800 toll free telephone line.
· Design and deliver a business activity enhancement program aimed at
maximizing local business opportunities and benefits of the Port Granby
Project.
Land use and Visual Setting
· Minimize the visibility of on-site activities at the facility. This could include the
design and delivery of an on-site landscaping and lighting plan aimed at
minimizing the visibility of on-site activities at the Long Term Waste
Management Facility.
· Consult with stakeholders regarding the design and delivery of an off-site tree
planting program aimed at minimizing visibility of the Long Term Waste
Management Facility.
Municipal finance and Administration
· Implement Part B of the Legal Agreement to ensure that the LLRWMO pays
for Project-related road improvements; capital costs related to the facility;
and on-going communications and related Project expenses.
· Implement Part 8 of the Legal agreement to ensure that the LLRWMO pays
for administrative costs. This shall include payment for increased operating
costs and losses in revenues.
\ \ At\ONAL RAILWAY
CANAO\AN N 'r
0 0
<( Proposed <(
0 0
a:: Waste a::
.... Management en
...J
.... Facility 0
0 :c
::J ()
...J
W Z
Fencing
During
Construction
U(JJ
Existing
Waste
Management
Facility
Lake Ontario
J
Existing and Proposed Waste Management Facilities
I
- HIGHWAY 401
NEWTONVILLE RD.
EXIT 448
CONCESSION ROAD 1
I 0 0
<( <( 0
0 0 <(
~ ~ 0
~
0
<(
0
~
(f)
....J
~ L TWMF 0
~ :J:
W W 0 MOUND (,)
....J .... ....J Z
....J (f) ....J .
> <( W .
.
(,) .
Z .
0 Z .
<( .
~ .
....J .
W
z
\..~KE.SHORE. ROAD
LAKE ONTARIO J
Transportation Access Routes
Primary Access Route
- - - Contingency Haul Route
.......... Inter-Site Route
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-077-06
A. Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby
Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
The Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) reviewed the Final Draft Environmental
Assessment Study Report (EASR) for the Port Granby Project (LLRWMO-03710-ENA-
13004 Revision Od3) in January 2005. The MPRT's report (peer Review of the Port Granby
Project Environmental Assessment Report, March 2005) summarized the MPRT's review
and described additional work requested by the MPRT, including adding a second geo-
membrane base liner and constructing a culvert or grade separation for the movement of the
wastes between sites. In its conclusion, the MPRT recommended that Clarington Council
provide its consent to submit the EASR to the Responsible Authorities for the regulatory
review and that the Municipality continue to have an oversight role to ensure that the
additional work requested by the MPRT is undertaken.
This addendum summarizes the additional work and revisions prepared by the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) to the Port Granby Project EASR
following submission of the peer review report. It also describes the fmdings of the team's
review. Our conclusions are as follows:
1. The LLRWMO has addressed most of the MPRT's concerns associated with the Port
Granby Project, most significant of which were the need to improve the performance of
the mound and to minimize effects associated with construction traffic between the two
sites. With the level of work included in the EASR, the MPRT is confident that the
facility will have no negative effects on human health or the environment.
2. The socio-economic mitigation measures described in the EASR will maintain the quality
of life of Port Granby residents during the Construction and Development, and
Maintenance and Monitoring phases of the Long Term Waste Management Facility
(LTWMF).
3. There remain a number of outstanding issues associated with the project where the
MPRT and the LLRWMO continue to seek resolution. These are discussed in detail in
Section A.3. The MPRT does not believe these issues are critical to the submission of
the EASR for regulatory review and is confident that these issues can be resolved during
the detailed design stage.
A.1 Background
In February 2005, the MPRT provided the LLRWMO with 153 detailed comments about
Revision Od3 of the Port Granby Project EASR. In subsequent discussions, the MPRT and
the LLRWMO came to an agreement on 113 of those comments. Those comments, and the
LLRWMO's resolution of the comments, were listed in Appendix C of the EASR.
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
In March 2006, the LLRWMO released Revision OdS of the Port Granby Project
Environmental Assessment Study Report. This revision, prepared over one year after the
Final Draft EASR was released, provided the LLRWMO's response to the 40 outstanding
issues raised by the MPR T in its peer review report.
The two key issues were the need for a double liner at the new facility to improve the mound
performance and a truck underpass between the existing and new facilities to reduce traffic
impacts and potential dusting along Lakeshore Road.
Regarding the former, the LLRWMO evaluated several double liner systems and concluded
that none improved the performance of the LTWMF significanrly. Instead, the LLRWMO
developed an enhanced facility design for the Port Granby Project that incorporates a
capillary barrier system between the geomembrane and the waste. This design is intended to
further reduce the possibility of water infiltration to the waste, particularly in the event of
failure of the geomembrane in the cover system. It is the LLRWMO's position that a
second liner system is not required as a result of performance improvements provided by the
enhanced facility design. The MPR T reviewed the enhanced facility design and provided its
recommendations to the Council in its report "Peer Review of the LLRWMO's Enhanced
Facility Design for the Port Granby Project, March 2006"
In response to municipal concerns regarding the effects of construction traffic along
Lakeshore Road, the LLRWMO designed a dedicated truck underpass between the existing
WMF and the new LTWMF. It will ensure that trucks hauling low-level radioactive waste
will avoid travelling on publicly accessible roads. The LLRWMO also identified upgrades to
municipal roadways being used to carry construction materials to the site. The LLRWMO
updated the environmental effects assessment studies (i.e., atmospheric, geology and
groundwater, etc.) to reflect the enhanced facility design, the Lakeshore Road underpass, and
the road upgrades.
The LLRWMO has also responded to the MPRT's concern that the Municipality and / or
local residents would have litrle influence on mitigation and monitoring once the
Environmental Assessment was completed and approved. It has developed a complaint
resolution process that will be used to determine the need for additional socio-economic
mitigation measures associated with the Project. The process allows for resolution of
complaints in a two-tiered fashion: to start, the LLRWMO will work with the community to
resolve complaints received from community members and to determine the need for, and
nature of, additional socio-economic mitigation measures. If a resident is unable to get a
satisfactory resolution to an issue or concern at this informal stage and wishes to pursue the
matter further, the resident may formally issue a complaint. If the LLRWMO does not
resolve the issue to the resident's satisfaction, a panel of individuals nominated by the
signatories to the Legal Agreement makes a decision regarding the complaint.
The other notable addition to the EASR is the provision of additional information regarding
ground water flow and transport in the vicinity of the existing Port Granby waste
management facility, as requested by the MPRT. This information establishes the
requirements for continued ground water treatment following removal of the solid waste
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
materials from the waste management facility by assessing the rate of dissipation or
"flushing" of various contaminants in the ground water system.
A.2 Resolution of Issues
The LLRWMO has addressed many of the MPRT's outstanding issues, including the
significant concerns regarding the double liner and the underpass, through its revision of the
EASR. These issues are described below.
A.2.1 Need for a double liner
The MPRT concurs with the LLRWMO that the enhanced facility design addresses the
concerns of the MPRT expressed in the Peer Review Report of the EASR, making a double
liner system technically unnecessary. The underlying review is reported in detail in the
MPRT Report (peer Review of the LLRWMO's Enhanced Facility Design for the Port
Granby Project, March 2006). We are confident that the enhanced facility design can be
designed and constructed to meet the expectations of the MPRT, including:
.
Protecting the underlying till;
Preventing leachate from contaminating the groundwater;
Providing redundancy in the design of the facility; and,
Providing Clarington residents and Council with a state-of-the-art facility and an
increased level of confidence.
.
.
.
In the MPRT's report on the enhanced facility design, we identified several considerations
for the llRWMO to enhance the design further, as well as additional analysis required
during detailed design. The MPRT expects that the llRWMO will address these
recommendations in the detailed design stage.
A.2.2 Effects of truck traffic
The combination of the underpass between the two sites and the upgrades to municipal
roads prior to construction now included in the EASR has addressed the MPRT's concerns
regarding truck traffic impacts. Of note are the mitigation measures proposed to deal with
any effects of truck traffic on the community. These are described in section A.2.5 below.
A.2.3 Process for resolving complaints
The MPRT is pleased to see that the LLRWMO has developed a formal process for
resolving complaints with the local community and other stakeholders. This process is also
described in section A.2.5.
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
A.2.4 Cleanup criteria
The LLRWMO has finalized the cleanup criteria for the Port Hope Area Initiative, including
the existing WMF. These criteria are proposed for guiding remediation work with respect to
radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants of potential concern in soil, ground water and
air at the contaminated sites. The MPRT is satisfied that the criteria proposed are protective
of human and environmental health and are compatible with an end use that permits active
and passive recreation. There will be a significant period of groundwater flushing at the
existing WMF site, during which time some uses of the site will be restricted. The site will
continue to be under the control of the Government of Canada even after the cleanup has
occurred.
A.2.5 Socio-economic mitigation measures
The MPRT concludes that the quality of life of Port Granby residents will be maintained
should the LLRWMO implement the proposed mitigation measures described in the revised
EASR. The original EASR proposed a comprehensive list of mitigation measures to address
residual socio-economic effects. In response to comments from the MPRT seeking
additional detail about these measures, the LLRWMO reviewed the mitigation measures and
identified areas where further details could be provided. The MPRT is pleased to note that
details have been added to the revised EASR for several mitigation measures, as identified in
Table 1.
Some measures are now addressed as part of the complaint resolution process. The
LLRWMO feels that off-site impacts can be avoided and would consider implementing
specific mitigation measures should there be complaints from the community. These
measures are listed in Table 1. The LLRWMO has also proposed a set of 'Guiding
Principles' that could serve as a basis for resolving complaints and identifying or determining
the need for, and nature of other socio-economic mitigation measures as part of the 'tier
one' process. These include:
Those potentially affected have a legitimate role to play in decision-making regarding
mitigation. Therefore, the host municipality, community representative (including
members of directly affected neighbourhoods) and others directly affected by the Port
Granby Project will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the design and delivery
of the socioeconomic mitigation measure and ongoing problem solving;
Follow-up and monitoring shall be undertaken to assist in the design and delivery of
additional socio-economic mitigation measures, including the investigation and
resolution of complaints;
The proponent and all other parties involved in the Port Granby Project will ensure that
that the safety of the environment and protection of human health are paramount in all
decisionmaking;
Effects management measures that avoid or reduce the severity of adverse socio-
economic effects are preferred to measures which attempt to address such effects
through other means;
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
The proponent shall take reasonable actions to ensure that the Municipality, its residents
or business operators are not economically disadvantaged by actions or events direcrly
related to the Port Granby Project and within the control of the proponent;
Mitigation measures within pre-defined areas surrounding the LTWMF, the existing
WMF and along transportation routes will be developed to address effects on the use
and enjoyment of property and/ or quality of life;
Measures to enhance local benefits will be undertaken to the greatest practical extent;
Ongoing communications are valuable and important activities. Port Granby Project-
related communications will be open, accurate and timely. Communications are to be
designed to suit the special needs of stakeholders; and
All mechanisms designed for the delivery of socio-economic mitigation shall be as
accessible, user-friendly and non-bureaucratic as possible.
Table 1: Socio-economic Miti ation Measures /Related Princi les in Revised EASR
Mitigation measures where additional detail has been added
1. Enhanced liaison with local farmers through regular newsletters and mailings, special
event notices and door-to-door notifications when required, direct communications with
the site mana er, and a 1-800 toll free tele hone line;
2. A driver training program that will focus on safety issues along the transportation routes
(e.g., school bus stops, recreation trails and crossings, existing hazards such as steep
slo es, curves, rail crossin s and the ro osed Lakeshore Road unde ass; and,
3. A two-tier complaint resolution process, which will be used to establish the need and
nature of additional mitigation measures that require the participation and/or approval
of communi stakeholders.
Mitigation measures addressed as part of a complaint resolution process
4. Design and deliver an off-site tree planting program aimed at minimizing visibility of the
LTMWF;
5. Develop an end use that promotes greater user access and recreational use of the
waterfront;
6. Consider alternative da -time la locations for local children alon access roads;
7. Work with relevant stakeholders (e.g., school boards, parent organizations) to optimize
school bus routes, drop-off and pick-up points along recommended transportation
routes;
8. Work with the Municipality to reduce the speed limit on Lakeshore Road to 50 km/
hour east and west of the unde ass;
9. Design and deliver a follow-up program and restoration plan for road segments where
excessive road wear has been detected to ensure traffic safety and good riding quality;
and
10. Transfer ownership of excess lands surrounding the LTWMF mound to a party such as a
conservation authority or land trust for the purposes of maintaining the lands in
a ricultural roduction and / or for environmental conservation.
Other mitigation measures carried over from original EASR
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
Table 1: Socia-economic Miti ation Measures IRelated Princi les in Revised EASR
11. Design and deliver a business activity enhancement program aimed at maximizing local
business 0 ortunities and benefits of the Port Granb Pro' ect;
12. Design and deliver an on-site landscaping and lighting plan aimed at minimizing the
visibili of on-site activities at the LTMWF;
13. Enhance liaison with recreational user groups of the Waterfront Trail and Elliot Road
cycling, motoring or naturalist groups aimed at keeping them aware of project works and
activities, environmental monitoring results, peak traffic periods, and potential road
closures and access restrictions;
14. Avoid truckin durin school ick-u I dro off times alon recommended routes;
15. Incorporate farm access and farm vehicle movement consideration into detailed design
e. ., road and shoulder width and / or farmer communications ro rams;
16. Incorporate signalization, signage, pavement markings, and traffic controls at the Elliot
Road unde ass;
17. Implement traffic control measures to ensure safety during the construction and
decommissioning of the underpass for the Intersite Road (e.g., provision of temporary
detour around the immediate construction site, stop control at the underpass
construction site or traffic li hts ;
18. Provide si a e for the un de ass detour and an re uired sto controls;
19. Ensure the at-grade rail crossing (i.e., eN Rail) design incorporates wide lanes and
shoulders, maintains site lines, ate and si al rail crossin control devices;
20. Incorporate contract clauses requiring all trucking contractors to demonstrate that
vehicles are re ularl maintained and drivers are licensed and trained;
21. Implement contract clauses to ensure trucks adhere to recommended transportation
routes. 1m ose fmancial enalties for non-com liance;
22. Optimize off-site trucking activities through development of delivery timing windows,
use of convo s and material stock ilin ;
23. Design and deliver a contingency plan for traffic movement on Lakeshore Road in the
event of an accident involvin LLRW to ensure a ro riate emer enc res onse;
24. Provide advance notice to all local residents of trucking activities, particularly for
oversized loads to allow residents to plan their activities and minimize potential for
accidents;
25. Implement provisions of Part B of the Legal Agreement, whereby the LLRWMO will
pay all reasonable capital costs related to: road improvements, providing or improving
other services to the site, including sewage, water and lighting; development of the new
Facility in the manner reflected in the conceptual design, establishing an on-going
communications program to fully inform residents about the PG project; reasonable
future administrative, Ie al and external communications ex enses incurred;
26. Implement provisions of Part B of the Legal Agreement, whereby a process shall be
established whereby administrative expenses will be identified, quantified and paid. This
shall include a ment for increased 0 eratin costs and losses in revenues;
27. Implement a socio-economic effects management program during construction and
development that would serve to avoid, reduce, or redress real and perceived adverse
socio-economic effects and enhance beneficial effects of the PG ro' ect;
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
Table 1: Socio-economic Miti ation Measures /Related.Princi les in Revised EASR
28. Implement mitigation measures to address the residual loss of use and enjoyment of
property within the neighbourhoods nearest to the Facility. This would include
development of site-specific nuisance effects management plans for noise, dust, odour
and traffic management; establishing thresholds for the implementation of contingency
measures (e.g., temporary cessation of works and activities, curtailment of offsite
transportation activities, and imposition of fines and penalties to contractors for non-
com liance;
29. Conduct enhanced communications with local residents to address the loss of use and
enjoyment of property, including targeted communications with newcomers aimed at
keeping them informed of air quality and noise levels, environmental monitoring results,
schedule of the project works and activities, and where to call for answers to any
uestions the ma have;
30. Implement an information program for the affected community, including requirements
for disclosure of monitoring information to designated neighbourhood representatives,
real-time monitorin of noise and dust levels and site ins ection rivile es;
31. Provide an end use for the L 1WMF and existing WMF site along Lake Ontario
waterfront that maximizes the otential for assive recreational uses of the ro er
32. Develop a "name" for the facility that would not associate it with the Municipality or any
commuru ';
33. Request that the CNSC license condition provide explicit assurances that the L1WMF
and the existing WMF cannot be used for any purpose other than for the long term
management of a specified volume of historic LLRW from the Municipality of
Clarin ton;
34. Completely remove and rehabilitate the upgraded portions of Elliot Road to pre-project
conditions to the extent ossible;
35. Completely remove the underpass at Lakeshore Road and rehabilitate the areas along
Lakeshore Road affected by the underpass to pre-project conditions (to the extent
ossible ;
36. Work with the Municipality of Clarington to define and implement site plan controls that
would limit the aerial extent and height of buildings and structures on the existing WMF
or LTWMF.
Overall, the MPRT is satisfied with the full list of mitigation measures, including those that
may be addressed as part of the complaint resolution process. We recommend that the
LLRWMO commit to working with stakeholders to optimize school bus routes as a required
mitigation measure, as traffic safety is a concern of the community.
One mitigation measure that requires further discussion is the Property Value Protection
(pVP) program. This program has been designed for properties in urban areas (i.e., Port
Hope) and should be adjusted to reflect the unique nature of real estate in rural areas.
Specifically, the MPRT recommends that the LLRWMO share information with residents
about the typical range of values and trends in sales of rural property within the vicinity and
in comparable areas. This information would serve as an informal benchmark for residents
against which to compare their properties and would provide residents with greater certainty
about land values, with the objective of encouraging them to stay in the community. It
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
should be noted that the LLRWMO has clearly defmed the duration of the PVP program,
which will end two years into the maintenance and monitoring phase.
Once the aforementioned changes have been made, the MPRT believes that the remaining
mitigation measures can be designed to adequately address the residual effects associated
with the project.
A.3 Outstanding Concerns of the MPRT
This Section discusses the remaining outstanding concerns. Work toward full resolution of
these concerns has been ongoing but is not yet complete. It is the MPRT's opinion that
these concerns are not critical to the submission of the EASR since they represent
refmements of the level of understanding already reported in the EASR. It is the MPRT's
recommendation that the EASR can be submitted to the federal government at this time,
and that any of the outstanding concerns can be addressed during the detailed design stage.
The following is a description of those concerns.
A.3.1 Residual contamination at the existing WMF
The cleanup of the existing WMF involves the excavation and relocation of approximately
430,000 m3 of waste. It will take several decades for contamination to dissipate or flush
from the groundwater at the existing WMF following the removal of this waste. While the
leachate collection system will remain in operation to collect groundwater exiting at the East
Gorge, the MPRT has concerns about the residual contaminants in groundwater that will
exit the WMF via the bluffs and the West Gorge area. Thus, the MPRT is seeking specific
information regarding the actual groundwater quality near the bluff face and as it exits the
bluff face in the seepage zone. This information will allow the LLRWMO to determine the
extent of residual contaminated groundwater and confirm the modeling conducted in
support of the EASR. The MPRT suggests that this work will be undertaken before the
licensing phase.
Because the LLRWMO is excavating and relocating the majority of the waste at the existing
WMF to the L1WMF, it does not intend to stabilize the shoreline at the existing site.
Depending on the rate of regression of the bluffs, there may be exposure to contaminants in
soils that are left in place after the cleanup is done. While there will continue to be limited
access to the bluffs, and minimal opportunities for exposure to these soils, the MPRT
expects to see analysis to confirm that there is no health risk to individuals who are walking
along the bluffs. As suggested above, this analysis should occur before the remedial work is
undertaken since the outcome of such analysis could influence measures for the long term
monitoring of the bluffs.
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
A.3.2 Mass loading of treated effluent into Lake Ontario
The leachate collection and treatment system at the new L TWMF will discharge
approximately 27,350 m3/year of treated effluent to Lake Ontario during the construction
phase. The existing WMF site leachate collection system for the East Gorge will discharge
approximately 37,900 m3/year of treated effluent during construction and about 10,000
m3/year in the early phase of maintenance and monitoring (until about 2025).
In total, approximately 531,500 m3 of treated effluent will be discharged to Lake Ontario
from the leachate collection system at the new L TWMF and the East Gorge during the five-
year construction period and the early maintenance and monitoring periods. The EASR
shows that the concentrations of arsenic and other contaminants within the effluent will not
result in a measurable change in human health risk based on the discharge quality criteria
assumed in the study. Nonetheless, the MPRT suggests that the LLRWMO should review
state-of-the-art leachate treatment technologies and optimize leachate treatment to reduce
the contaminant mass loadings that are discharged to Lake Ontario.
A.3.3 Impacts to Port Granby Creek from the new facility
The LLRWMO has concluded that the projected changes to flow in the creek resulting from
construction of the new L TWMF will have no negative impacts on Port Granby creek or on
coldwater fishes. While the MPRT does not necessarily disagree with these conclusions, it
has requested that the LLRWMO conduct more detailed monitoring of the current and
future condition of the creek. A flexible monitoring program would be appropriate, with
more frequent monitoring during the construction phase and less frequent monitoring
during the maintenance phases. These field data would substantiate the conclusions of the
EASR.
A.3.4 Institutional Control
There is still insufficient detail regarding institutional components. We agree that a set of
guidelines or policies are required for institutional controls, and expect that guidelines will be
prepared to address each Phase and stage of the Project. The LLRWMO needs to articulate
those guidelines along with a process and time frame for establishing the controls. This
information should be prepared during the licensing of the LTWMF.
A.4 Conclusion and Recommendation
The revised EASR addresses the MPRT's concerns with the original report, most significant
of which were the need for a double liner and the construction traffic between the existing
WMF and new sites. The proposed enhanced facility design in lieu of the double liner and
the proposed Lakeshore Road underpass in the revised EASR were reviewed by the MPRT
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
and found to meet its expectations. The revised EASR also provides additional detail
regarding socio-economic mitigation measures.
There are a number of outstanding concerns which have not been fully resolved. In
particular, during the detailed design stage and / or during construction, the LLRWMO
should provide more information regarding: residual contamination at the existing site; ways
of reducing mass loading of treated effluent into Lake Ontario; the effects from the project
on Port Granby Creek; and guidelines for institutional control. Sufficient progress has been
made on these issues and reported in the revised EASR. None of these issues are considered
critical to the submission of the revised EASR to the regulatory authorities.
Thus, the MPRT recommends that Council provide its consent to the LLRWMO to submit
the revised EASR to the Responsible Authorities for the regulatory review. Council should
ensure that the Municipality continue to have an oversight role so that the additional work
requested by the MPRT is addressed.
Addendum to the Peer Review Report of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report