HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-95-99 F DN: PD-95-99
THE CORPORA'T'ION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File# �d 7
Date: Monday,August 30, 1999 Res. #�'P�— `99
Report#: PD-95-99 FILE M PLN 33.4.3 By-law#
Subject: LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE FACILITY—
PORT GRANBY WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
FILE: PLN 33.4.3
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee approve:
1. THAT Report PD-95-99 be received;
2. THAT the members of the Port Granby Low Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee be
thanked for their hard work and dedication in reviewing storage options for the waste located at
Port Granby;
3. THAT the Honourable Ralph Goodale,Minister of Natural Resources Canada,be advised of the
following recommendations:
a) THAT Concept B (in-situ stabilization of waste)is acceptable to Council as the preferred
alternative for the long term management of the waste at Port Granby;
b) THAT Design Option B2 be endorsed as the Municipality's preferred option for the
management of the wastes at Port Granby; subject to the results of detailed comprehensive
environmental assessment;
c) THAT no additional waste from other sites be received and stored at the Port Granby site;
d) THAT in addition to the standard environment assessment issues,further studies address
the following issues:
the concentration of Thorium-230 in the wastes located in the East Gorge;
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 2
additional data in regards to the groundwater flow through the East Gorge and contact
with the wastes deposited in the middle till and lower sands area;
potential impacts of shoreline erosion control measures on other shoreline properties in
the area; and
a contingency plan for the relocation of additional wastes in the event of system failure
e) THAT appropriate portions of Port Granby site be designed for natural heritage and
passive recreational purposes possibly including the waterfront trail once the construction
phase is complete and the waste management facility is in operation;
f) THAT the Municipality requests that the ownership of the Port Granby site be transferred
from Cameco Corporation to the Federal Government;
g) THAT the Municipality's consideration of right of access to and use of the site will be
determined once the waste management facility is in operation;
h) THAT the Federal Government establish a public liaison committee with representation
from area residents,the Municipality of Clarington,NRCan and Cameco,to co-ordinate
public involvement in all stages of planning,approval and operation of the waste
management facility;
i) THAT the Federal Government report results of the monitoring program to Council on a
regular basis once the waste management facility is operational;
j) THAT the Federal Government provide assurances that Council will be informed on a
timely basis of any unusual occurrences at the Port Granby site that may affect,or be
perceived to affect,public health and safety; and
k) THAT the Federal Government, in consultation with Council,investigate alternatives to
mitigate the impact on area residents resulting from track traffic during the construction of
the waste management facility at Port Granby.
4. THAT staff be authorized to initiate an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan to provide for
the permanent storage of low level nuclear waste at the Port Granby site and that a Public Meeting
be held at such time as the environmental assessment documents are prepared and the detailed
design is complete.
5. THAT all delegations and the interested parties listed in this report be provided a copy of Staff
Report PD-95-99 and Council's decision,FORTHWITH.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 From the 1930's to 1988, waste from the processing of Radium and Uranium at the former
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 3
Eldorado Nuclear Limited plant in Port Hope was deposited at a number of sites in the Port Hope
area, including a site just east of the small community of Port Granby in Clarington (see
Attachment No. 1). Over the past several years,there have been a number of unsuccessful efforts
to find a practical and environmentally safe solution for the long term management of the low level
radioactive wastes (LLRW) stored at the Port Granby site, as well as at the Welcome site in Hope
Township and several sites in Port Hope. The Port Granby site is now owned by Cameco
Corporation. Cameco and the Federal Government through Natural Resources Canada(NRCan)
share financial responsibility for the capital and extraordinary operating costs associated with the
management of LLRW at the Port Granby site.
1.2 In 1998, Council initiated discussions with NRCan regarding the possibility of locating a
permanent storage site for the LLRW and other wastes currently deposited at the Port Granby site.
In January 1999, Council created the Port Granby Low Level Radioactive Waste Advisory
Committee to investigate storage options for the waste at the Port Granby site and to report to
Council. The Advisory Committee was assisted in its work by three consulting firms, as well as
representatives from NRCan, the federal Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office and
Cameco.
1.3 The Advisory Committee has submittal the following documents for Council's consideration:
• Report on Conceptualization of On-Site Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility Designs
for the Port Granby Waste Management Facility (WMF) - Golder Associates and SENES
Consulting.
• Strategic Environmental Assessment of Conceptual Storage Facility Design(s) for the Port
Granby Waste Management Facility-Marshall Macklin Monaghan.
❑ Port Granby Low Level Radioactive Waste Advisory Committee Report.
These reports were presented to the July 5, 1999 meeting of the General Purpose and
Administration Committee. The Advisory Committee's report and the supporting technical
documents have been referred to Staff for review and the preparation of a report.
1.4 NRCan is seeking Council's recommendation regarding the long term management of the LLRW
627
,
` R&PORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 4
and other waste materials stored at the Port Granby site. This staff report is intended to assist
Council in developing its recommendation to the Federal Government.
2. APPROVAL PROCESS
2.1 There are five stages in the process to establish a long term waste management facility at the Port
Granby site, as discussed below.
2.2 Stage 1 —Development of Conceptual Design
2.2.1 This stage started in January 1998 when Council resolved (Resolution #C-81-98) to advise
NRCan that Clarington would participate in Without Prejudice discussions to investigate the
possibility of locating a permanent storage site for the LLRW presently stored at Port Granby.
Stage 1 will be completed with Council's decision regarding a preferred option for the long term
management of the waste at Port Granby.
2.2.2 Both Hope Township Council and Port Hope Council have also participated in similar processes
with NRCan to provide for the long tern management of the LLRW in their communities.
These Councils have already advised the federal government of their preferred options, which
involve only storing the waste from their respective communities.
2.3 Stage 2—Discussions Between NRCan and Host Communities
2.3.1 Stage 2 will commence following the submission of the conceptual design report for the Port
Granby site and Council's recommendation. The three host communities will enter into
discussions with NRCan to determine the most appropriate course of action for the development
of a solution for each community. It is anticipated that several months will be required to
complete this stage.
2.3.2 During Stage 2, NRCan, as the proponent, may request the Canadian Nuclear Safety Board
(CNSB) to undertake a preliminary assessment of the concepts involved in the waste facility
design. The CNSB will ultimately issue any licenses for the storage facilities and such an early
assessment will ensure that the Commission is satisfied that the proposals will meet its
requirements for the subsequent stages in the licensing process.
628
RLPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 5
2.4 Stage 3—Events Leading to Legal Agreement
2.4.1 Stage 3 will begin with the receipt of a positive indication from the CNSB regarding the design
concept for the development of a long term storage facility at Port Granby. This stage will end
with the signing of a formal agreement between the Federal Government and the Municipality of
Clarington.
2.5 Stage 4—Environmental Assessment and Licensing
2.5.1 Prior to the submission of an application for licensing by the CNSB, it will be necessary to
conduct an environmental impact assessment of the proposed project. This assessment must be
conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). This Act
will apply to the Port Granby project since the Federal Government would be the proponent
(NRCan), the funding agency(NRCan), and the regulator(CNSB).
2.5.2 Once the environmental assessment is accepted, NRCan will apply to the CNSB for site and
construction approval. A Site Evaluation Report(which will characterize the proposed site) and
a Preliminary Safety Report (which will contain the engineering design plans, radiation
protection procedures, and operating policies and procedures which would influence the design
of the facility) must accompany this application. The application for the Port Granby facility
will be for a long term storage facility. As such, the proponent will be required to carry but a
public information program that meets the requirements set out by the CNSC.
2.5.3 The start of Stage 4 is considered as Year Zero. Stage 4 will culminate with site and construction
approval from the CNSB and is anticipated to take 5 years to complete.
2.6 Stage 5—Construction and Operation
2.6.1 Following site and construction approval, Stage 5 will commence. This stage will involve the
construction work at the facility. No time estimate for the completion of this stage has been
provided. Once construction is complete, NRCan will apply to the CNSB for a Waste
Prescribed Substance License. The documents submitted in support of the application for this
license will define the operating policies and principles for the site, as well as measures to be
taken by the proponent to verify the continued protection of the environment and the health and
629
{ REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 6
safety of the general public. The Waste Prescribed Substance License is usually issued for a 24
month period. Performance assessments will be conducted on the storage facility to determine if
licence conditions are being properly implemented.
3. OVERVIEW OF PORT GRANBY SITE
3.1 The Port Granby site is located south of Lakeshore Road in Part Lots 3 and 4, B.F.C., former
Township of Clarke. The site has an area of 18 ha and directly abuts Lake Ontario where bluffs rise
approximately 30 in from the shoreline. Two gorges cut through the bluffs near the east and west
boundaries of the site. The site is underlain at a depth of approximately 20 in by a relatively
impermeable layer of till
3.2 Waste has been deposited on 11.3 ha of the site, most of it in trenches located in the central plateau
of the site. These trenches are generally located above the till layer. However, some waste was
also placed in the gorges. The volume of LLRW and other waste identified as Marginally
Contaminated Soils(MCS)has been estimated to range from 380,000 to 500,000 cubic metres.
3.3 A number of priority contaminants have been identified in the waste at the Port Granby site on the
basis of the potential effects on human health, phyto-toxicity (effect on plant life), eco-toxicity
(effect on ecosystems), mobility, concentrations and location. These contaminants include
Selenium, Arsenic, and Magnesium, heavy metals (Antimony, Cadmium, and Molybedium), and
radioactive materials (Radium-226, Uranium). Thorium -230, which is also radioactive, was
added to the list of priority contaminants by the Advisory Committee. The consultants noted that
gamma radiation from Radium-226 and its decay product Raden gas is considered the most
significant in terms of potential radiation exposure.
4. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT OF WASTE
4.1 Two preliminary design concepts were presented to the Advisory Committee for consideration.
Both concepts involved storing the waste on the existing Port Granby site and capping the waste
with a low permeability multi-layer cover with a depth of at least 1 metre. This cover will serve to
shield the waste and reduce exposure to gamma radiation at the surface to background levels.
630
RiPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 7
4.2 Concept A
4.2.1 Concept A would involve excavating all of the waste and encapsulating it in a low-profile long
term engineered storage mound on the site. Lakeshore Road would be relocated to the north to
allow sufficient area for the construction of the storage mound. The mound would be set back
about 250 to 300 in from the bluffs to ensure that long term erosion posed no threat to the stored
wastes. (As will be discussed later in this report, the Advisory Committee directed the consultants
not to undertake further work related to Concept A. As such, a visual rendering of Concept A is not
available for inclusion in this report.)
4.3 Concept B
4.3.1 Concept B would involve leaving the waste in-place and stabilizing the site. To minimize the
volume of leachate created, a groundwater interceptor trench and a steel sheet pile wall would be
constructed along the northern perimeter to divert groundwater around the waste, and the waste area
would be capped with a multi-layer low permeability cover to minimize the infiltration of
precipitation into the waste. The erosion of the bluffs would be minimized through the construction
of an engineered toe berm and bluff stabilization structure. With this concept, some groundwater
would still come into contact with waste in the East Gorge which is deposited below the till layer.
To deal with the resulting leachate, a leachate collection and treatment system would need to be
constructed. This would consist of a leachate interceptor trench with a pumping manhole to allow
the transfer of the collected leachate to a new treatment pond system. Groundwater monitoring
points would be established in the areas of the two gorges to monitor leachate migration and water
levels along the lake front of the site.
4.3.2 At the direction of the Advisory Committee, three conceptual design options based on Option B
were developed.
Design Options BI and B 2
4.3.3 Design Options Bland B2 would be essentially the same, with one key difference. Option B1
would involve leaving the waste in the East Gorge (see Attachment No. 2). As such, the leachate
collection and treatment system would be required for an indefinite period (likely longer than 100
years). The initial estimate of the capital and construction costs of this option is $19.1 million. The
631
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 8
cost estimates for Option Bl as well as for Options B2 and B3 (below), do not include additional
costs such as engineering designs and studies, licensing and approvals, ongoing monitoring, and
compliance and verification testing.
4.3.4 Design Option B2 would involve the excavation of 52,000 cubic metres of waste (Calcium
Fluoride) along the northern side of the East Gorge and 50,000 cubic metres of waste (neutralized
raffinate) in the lower portion of the East Gorge, for a total of 102,000 cubic metres. (Please note
that the Advisory Committee's report incorrectly referenced 60,000 cubic metres of waste to be
removed under Option B2). This waste would be placed in a low profile engineered storage mound
on-site (see Attachment No. 3). The removal of the source waste material from the gorge likely
means that the leachate collection and treatment system would be required for less time than Option
B 1 (25-40 years). The estimated cost of Option B2 is$22.3 million.
Design Option B3
4.3.5 Design Option B3 would involve leaving all of the waste at the Port Granby site in place and
excavating an open channel along the northern perimeter of the existing waste placement area(see
Attachment No. 4). The channel would collect groundwater and prevent it from draining into the
wastes in the lower portion of the East Gorge. This option was proposed late in the process and
therefore did not receive the same level of detailed review as Options B1 and B2. However, the
initial design concept for Option B3 indicated that the channel would be approximately 150 m wide
and 25 m deep. Approximately 2 million cubic metres of clean fill would need to be excavated. As
well, that stretch of Lakeshore Road adjacent to the site would need to be relocated to the north to
allow sufficient room for the channel. As with Options Bl and B2, the waste area would be
capped with a low permeability cover,the bluffs would be stabilized, and a collection and treatment
system for leachate from the East Gorge would be constructed. The initial cost estimate for Option
B3 is $41.7 million.
5. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL STORAGE
FACILITY DESIGNS
5.1 An independent consultant was retained at the request of the Advisory Committee to undertake a
Strategic Environmental Assessment for the long term waste management options proposed. The
632
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 9
Environmental Assessment (EA) identified in general terns, the possible environmental impacts
associated with the proposed undertaking, possible measures to mitigate these impacts, and the
expected degree of success of these mitigation measures. However, the EA did not attempt to
quantify the severity of the environmental impacts either before or after mitigation, and no "net
effects analysis" was undertaken to determine the residual effects after mitigation. The EA
selected Design Option B 1 (in-situ stabilization of wastes)as the base case since it was not practical
to consider all of the design options proposed.
5.2 The EA concluded that the stabilization strategy could be conducted and operated so that the
associated environmental impacts are acceptable and/or can be mitigated with proper planning
design and implementation. The EA did identify a number of potentially significant impacts
that are believed to be manageable; however, the EA cautioned that this position couldn't be
confirmed on the basis of currently available data. These impacts are discussed below.
5.3 Traffic Impacts
5.3.1 Traffic generated during the construction phase represents one of the most significant potential
impacts of the project. Truck traffic during peak construction periods could potentially exceed 200
movements per day. The preparation of a detailed report would allow potential routes, travel
times, and receptors to be identified and properly evaluated. The EA indicated that traffic-related
impacts could be mitigated to a large degree. Possible mitigation measures include the construction
of a dedicated access road, the transportation of some materials (eg. for the bluff stabilization)by
barge, and extending the project schedule.
5.4 Contaminated Groundwater/Leachate
5.4.1 The long-term environmental acceptability of the project is dependent upon the effective long-term
collection and treatment of groundwater coming into contact with the waste, the implementation of
a groundwater monitoring program, and the development of contingency plans to recognize the
possibility that system design and/or operations do not meet performance objectives.
5.5 Contamination Control During Construction
5.5.1 The potential on-site and off-site impacts associated with the spread of radioactive and toxic
633
4
f REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 10
f
contaminants can be mitigated through available technology and proven techniques. However, to
guard against the potential failure of control measures, a comprehensive contamination control
procedure and environmental monitoring program will need to be implemented and maintained
throughout the work period.
5.6 Long Term Bluff Erosion
5.6.1 The stabilized bluffs can be managed so that they do not erode back into the wastes. However,this
will require active long term care of the slopes, including repairs and periodic extensions of the
stabilized surface.
5.7 Excavation of 102,000 cubic metres of LLRW(Option B2)
5.7.1 The handling of the waste increases the potential for people and the environment to be exposed to
the contaminants. This exposure could occur through atmospheric dispersion (dust), tracking of
contaminants by construction equipment, direct exposure of workers to contamination, and
contaminant transport by surface water runoff. The EA notes that, based on past experience with
LLRW cleanup programs in Canada and the U.S., it is reasonable to expect that potential impacts
associated with the handling of these materials can be mitigated to acceptable levels with proper
planning, design and execution.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PORT GRANBY LLRW ADVISORY COM[WTTEE
6.1 The Advisory Committee made a total of 13 recommendations to Council related to the
management of the wastes at Port Granby and the long term use and maintenance of the site. These
recommendations were included in the Committee's report submitted to Council.
6.2 Recommended Conceptual Design for Storage of Wastes
6.2.1 The Advisory Committee developed a number of site performance objectives that were used in the
development and evaluation of the conceptual designs for the potential waste storage options.
These performance objectives included:
❑ a design period of 500 years
❑ if feasible,no excavation of the waste
❑ minimization of surface and groundwater contact with the waste
634
+Y
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 11
❑ entire facility should be located within 18 ha site
• minimal on-going maintenance
• minimal impact during the construction phase
❑ zero leachate
• prevention of bluff erosion
• surface gamma radiation levels on the surface of the facility must be at background levels for
the local area.
6.2.2 The Advisory Committee applied these site performance objectives to the two initial concepts
prepared by the consultants. Concept A (excavation of the waste and storage in an engineered
mound on-site)was rejected by the Committee on the basis that it involved complete excavation of
the waste, and the design required the use of lands outside of the original Port Granby Waste
Management Facility. As a result, the consultants did not undertake any further conceptual work
for Concept A.
6.2.3 The Advisory Committee accepted Concept B (in-situ stabilization of the waste) on the basis that it
did not involve substantial excavation of the waste, the bluffs were stabilized, and no additional
lands beyond the existing waste management facility were required. At the Committee's direction,
further conceptual design options were developed based on Concept B. These design options
(Options Bl,B2 and 133)are described in Section 4.3 of this Report.
Committee Recommendation No. 1: That Concept B (in-situ stabilization of the waste) be endorsed
as the preferred alternative for the long term management of the waste at Port Granby.
Committee Recommendation No 2: That the Municipality of Clarington not accept additional
wastes from any other source.
6.2.4 The Advisory Committee did not recommend any of the three design options to Council as the
preferred design for the waste storage facility. They noted that Option B1 has the advantage of no
disruption to the wastes, but has the disadvantage of an extensive and long term maintenance
program for the East Gorge leachate collection and treatment facility. Option B2 has the advantage
635
F
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 12
of a shorter maintenance program for the leachate collection and treatment facility but has the
disadvantage of moving some of the wastes. Option B3 would require less maintenance over the
lifetime of the storage facility. The Committee noted that this option needs further study to
optimize the concept, perhaps reducing the cost and improving the long-term reliability of the
facility.
6.2.5 The Committee's primary concern with the movement of waste in Option B2 was the amount of
Thorium-230 in the wastes and the potential health effects involved in inhaling this contaminant.
The consultants addressed this issue specifically in their report. They noted that the measurement
method used is very insensitive to Thorium-230 levels and, as a result, may have greatly over-
estimated the actual concentrations of this contaminant. The consultants confirmed that Thorium-
230 can pose a health problem if inhaled and emphasized the need to minimize airborne particulates
if the waste is handled. However, it is their opinion that the Radium-226 in the waste (which has
been identified as a priority contaminant) poses more of a health hazard than Thorium-230.
Nevertheless, both the consultants and the Committee members recommended that the
concentration of Thorium-230 in the wastes in the East Gorge should be measured and confirmed
as part of future site investigations.
6.2.6 One member of the Committee submitted a dissenting opinion regarding the concentrations and the
health effects of Thorium-230. He noted that new guidelines have recently been issued which
address the health effects of inhaling and ingesting radioactive materials, and allowable radiation
exposure limits for workers. He recommended that an independent Health Physicist having expert
knowledge and understanding of these latest guidelines be asked to provide an analysis of the
significance of Thorium-230 in the waste,both from the aspect of ingestion and inhalation,relative
to Radium-226, and finther that this expert also provide guidelines for the control of exposures to
both workers and the public. He also recommended that this information be used in the Site
Monitoring Program and be in place prior to the start of the construction phase.
Committee Recommendation No. 3: That the concentration of Thorium-230 in the wastes be
measured and confirmed before construction is started.
636
AfREPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 13
Committee Recommendation No. 4: That, before any decision is made on whether to choose Design
Option BI or Design Option B2, more detailed data be obtained in regards to the ground water
flow through the East Gorge area, with a focus on the wastes at the middle till and lower sands
area.
Committee Recommendation No. 5: That Design Option B3 be studied further to optimize the
concept.
6.3 Future Ownership and Use of Site
6.3.1 The Advisory Committee used a number of general criteria to examine the issue of future site use
for the waste management facility. These criteria included compatibility with surrounding
properties, maintaining the integrity of the waste management facility, and minimal burden to the
Municipality for ongoing maintenance and/or upkeep. Based on these criteria, the Committee
recommended that the site be used for passive recreational/tourism uses.
Committee Recommendation No. 6: That the site be used for passive parkland (day use, bicycle
trails, etc.).
Committee Recommendation No. 7: That the proposed use does not burden the Municipality with
excessive maintenance and upkeep.
6.3.2 The Committee further recommended that, following completion of the storage facility, the
ownership of the site should be transferred from Cameco to the Federal Government, and that the
Municipality be granted the right to access and use the site for a nominal fee.
Committee Recommendation No. 8: That the ownership of the property be transferred from
Cameco to the Federal Government.
Committee Recommendation No. 9: That right of access be transferred to the Municipality of
Clarington.
637
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 14
6.4 Site Monitoring and Public Involvement
6.4.1 The Committee recommended that the public be kept informed at every step of the process to
establish the waste management facility, and in particular that local residents should be involved in
the monitoring during the construction phase. The Federal Government should also advise Council
on an annual basis of the results of the monitoring program once the waste management facility is
operational. The establishment of a local tribunal to deal with compensation for area residents was
also recommended.
Committee Recommendation No. 10: That area residents are kept informed in every step of the
Process.
Committee Recommendation No. 11: That there should be an active environmental monitoring
system (with local residents involved) over the construction period of this facility.
Committee Recommendation No. 12: That the Federal Government should maintain and monitor
the site and report to Council once yearly.
Committee Recommendation No. 13: That a local tribunal be created to deal with compensation
to area residents in case of damages or accidents.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
7.1 Staffs comments will address the following matters:
• the various design concepts for the long term management of the wastes
• the other recommendations of the Advisory Committee
• measures to mitigate the impacts related to construction at the site
• Clarington Official Plan policy.
7.2 Design Concepts for Management of the Waste
7.2.1 The Advisory Committee developed a number of performance objectives to evaluate the various
design concepts for the long term management of the waste. These performance objectives are
summarized in Section 6.2 of this report. To further assist Council, Staff propose to also use the
638
'b J
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 15
following criteria to evaluate the design concepts:
• Minimize Short Term Social Impact
► Truck traffic
Noise and dust
► Potential exposure to contaminants
• Minimize Long Term Social Impact
► Potential for leachate to contaminate groundwater
► Potential for bluffs to erode back into waste
• Minimize Long Term Maintenance Requirements
• Short and Long Term Impact on Natural Environment
• Long Term Land Use Compatibility
► With adjacent properties.
These criteria, as well as relevant comments, are presented in a table attached to this report as
Attachment No. 5. It is important to note that the criteria are not weighted or ranked. Rather,
they are provided to help focus discussion related to each of the design concepts.
Design Concept A vs. Design Concept B
7.2.2 As noted earlier, two basic design concepts were presented to the Advisory Committee for
consideration- Concept A (excavation of the waste and storage in an engineered mound on-site)
and Concept B (in-situ stabilization of the waste). The Committee rejected Concept A and
recommended to Council that Concept B be endorsed as the preferred alternative for the long
term management of the waste at Port Granby(Recommendation No. 1).
7.2.3 Staff note that the main advantage of Concept A over Concept B is the storage of the waste in a
secure low maintenance storage mound set well back from the eroding lakeshore bluffs, thereby
providing a permanent solution. The main disadvantage of Concept A relates to the noise and
dust impacts and the potential for exposure to contaminants from the excavation of 500,000 cu.
m. of LLRW and MCS. While both Concept A and B involve some degree of short term impact,
the degree of impact and the potential for exposure to contaminants is significantly greater with
Concept A. Although staff is not qualified to comment on the technical feasibility or the design
639
� � I
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 16
requirements of the alternate concepts, it would appear that the in-situ stabilization of the waste
as provided for in Concept B is an environmentally safe and viable alternative subject to
appropriate monitoring and on-going maintenance requirements associated with this solution.
Staff recommend that Council accept Recommendation No. 1 of the Advisory Committee that
Concept B be endorsed as the preferred alternative for the long term management of the waste at
Port Granby.
7.2.4 Staff also recommend that Council endorse the Committee's second recommendation that the
Municipality not accept additional waste from other sources. The transportation of additional
waste to the Port Granby site and any construction work required to store these wastes would
only magnify the impacts associated with the construction phase of the project. As well, this
position would be consistent with the recommendations of Hope Township Council and Port
Hope Council that their preferred options involve only storing the waste from their respective
communities.
Conceptual Design Options Bl,B2 and B3
7.2.5 Concept B would involve leaving the waste in-place and stabilizing the site. As noted in Section
6.2, a key point of concern with Concept B is the waste in the East Gorge,which would still come
into contact with groundwater and produce leachate. Option B1 would leave all of the waste in the
East Gorge, Option B2 would involve excavating the waste in the East Gorge and storing it in an
engineered mound on-site, and Option B3 would involve digging an open channel along the
northern perimeter to intercept groundwater. Because of concern regarding the presence of
Thorium-230 in the waste,the Committee was unable to reach a consensus on which of the Design
Options to recommend to Council.
7.2.6 The most significant shortcoming of Design Option Bl is the need for an extensive and long-term
maintenance program for the East Gorge leachate collection system and treatment facility. In this
regard, Option Bl does not appear to meet a number of the performance objectives developed by
the Committee, specifically a design period of 500 years,minimization of surface and groundwater
contact with the waste, minimal on-going maintenance, and zero leachate. The application of the
evaluation criteria developed by Staff also highlights the shortcomings of Option B 1. In particular,
640
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 17
by leaving the waste in the East Gorge, the potential for the control and treatment systems to fail
and cause significant social and environmental impact will be a matter of on-going concern. By
removing the waste from the East Gorge, as proposed in Option B2, the need for long tern
maintenance of the leachate collection and treatment system would be avoided and the threat of
system failure reduced.
7.2.7 However, it is important to address the concern of the Advisory Committee regarding the health
hazards involved in excavating the waste, in particular the potential exposure of workers and
residents to Thorium-230. As noted earlier, the consultants addressed this matter in their reports.
Because of limitations in the sensitivity of the testing equipment, it was their opinion that the
amount of Thorium-230 in the waste was greatly over-estimated. The consultants confirmed that
Thorium-230 poses a greater health risk than Radium-226 if inhaled, but that the appropriate use of
dust suppression measures while the waste is handled should effectively address this concern.
7.2.8 The consultant's report indicated that Thorium-230 is only present in appreciable amounts in the
neutralized raffmate. As noted earlier, 50,000 cubic metres of the raf fate are deposited in the
lower portion of the East Gorge. The raffinate was described in the consultant's report as being a
"very sticky sludge"with an average water content of 46%. Staff confirmed in discussions with the
consultants that the potential for the Thorium-230 to become air-borne and thus an inhalation
hazard is limited.
7.2.9 Staff also note that the waste deposited in the East Gorge possesses other characteristics which
could pose a hazard to workers and area residents. For example,both the neutralized raffinate and
the calcium fluoride are extremely caustic and could pose a hazard if they are inhaled or come into
contact with exposed skin. As such, the matter of excavating the waste in the East Gorge cannot
be taken lightly. Staff concur with the Advisory's Committee recommendations (No. 3 and 4)that
more detailed information be obtained on the groundwater flow and the waste in the East Gorge,
including the amount of Thorium-230 in the waste.
7.2.10 The remaining option to be evaluated is Option B3. This option has the advantage of no excavation
of the waste and potentially low long term maintenance requirements. However, there are
641
a
i REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 18
significant disadvantages associated with this option, including the significant impact associated
with hauling 2 million cubic metres of clean fill off the site. As well, the construction of a 150
metre wide 25 metre deep trench along the northern perimeter of the site would negate any potential
use of the site for passive recreational purposes. As such, Staff do not concur with the Advisory
Committee recommendation (No. 5) that Design Option B3 be studied further to optimize the
concept.
7.2.11 Based on the above discussion, it is Staffs position that Design Option B2 should be endorsed as
the Municipality's preferred alternative for the management of the waste at the Port Granby site.
The full environmental assessment process and further studies would confirm the technical
feasibility of this design solution providing for contingency plans for failure of the in-situ solution.
I
7.3 Future Ownership and Use of Site
7.3.1 Staff concur with the Committee's recommendation (No. 6) that, once the construction phase is
complete and the waste management facility is in operation,the Port Granby site should be used for
passive uses. The site is designated'Waterfront Greenway'in the Clarington Official Plan. As such,
passive recreational uses on a portion of the site would be consistent with this designation and
compatible with the adjacent rural/agricultural land uses, and may provide a point of interest and a
rest stop along the future Waterfront Trail. As well, such uses would not interfere with the integrity
and maintenance of the waste management facility. The use of the site for passive parkland would
also be consistent with the Committee's recommendation (No. 7) that the proposed use should not
burden the Municipality with excessive maintenance and upkeep costs. However, Council may
wish to determine whether to seek right of access to and use of the site at a later date when the
actual details related to facility design have been determined and it is constructed. The
Municipality should move slowly and cautiously to ensure that it does not assume any unnecessary
liability.
7.3.2 The Port Granby site is currently owned by Cameco Corporation. In order to ensure the appropriate
maintenance of the waste management facility over the long term, Staff concur with the
Committees recommendations(No. 8 and 9)that the ownership of the site be transferred to the
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 19
Federal Government once construction is complete and the operating license is issued, and further
that the Municipality be granted right of access for a nominal fee.
7.4 Site Monitoring and Public Involvement
7.4.1 Because of the impact that the construction and operation of the waste management facility at the
Port Granby site will have on the local community, Staff concur with the Committee's
recommendation (No. 10) that area residents be kept informed at all stages of approval,
construction and operation of the facility. Public involvement in the process will improve the
public's perception that the site is being constructed and operated in a safe manner. As such, Staff
recommend that a liaison committee, with representation from involved parties including area
residents, NRCan, Cameco, and Council, be established to facilitate communication and the
provision of information. Public involvement in the process, as well as the settling of any issues
related to compensation for area residents, could be co-ordinated through this Committee, in
particular during the construction phase when the impact on local residents will be the most severe.
7.4.2 The appropriate forum for public involvement after the construction phase when the facility is
operational will also need to be deternined. The Federal Government should be requested to keep
Council informed of conditions during the operational phase, including regular reporting on the
results of the monitoring program. As well, Council should seek assurances from the Federal
Government that they will be kept informed on a timely basis of any unusual occurrences at the
Port Granby site that may affect,or be perceived to affect,public health and safety.
7.5 Measures to Mitigate Construction Impacts
7:5.1 The Strategic Environmental Assessment undertaken for Design Concept B identified a number
of potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the waste management facility.
Most of the potential impacts, such as contamination of the groundwater and contamination
during construction, will be addressed by the appropriate federal approval agencies. However,
the significant impact that the truck traffic during the construction phase of the project will have
on the local community is a matter clearly within the purview of Council. In this regard, Staff
recommend that the Federal Government be requested to consult closely with Council to
643
kREPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 20
investigate various measures to mitigate the impact on area residents resulting from the truck
traffic
7.6 Clarington Official Plan
7.6.1 The Clarington Official Plan identifies the Port Granby site as Special Policy Area A. The Official
Plan states that "It is the policy of Council to require the expeditious removal of all waste and
contaminated soil from the existing waste management facility......"
Given Council's resolution of January 1999 and the recommendations of this report, the Official
Plan should be amended to reflect a change in direction for an on-site solution. It is recommended
that staff be authorized to proceed with an appropriate official plan amendment. This would only
commence at such time as the full environmental assessment studies are completed.
8. CONCLUSIONS
8.1 There are many factors to be addressed in resolving the difficult issues related to the longterm
management of the waste at Port Granby. In this regard, Council appointed the Advisory
Committee to review the various design options and to provide recommendations to Council.
Given the time constraints and the complexity of the issues involved, Staff commend the
members of the Advisory Committee for the admirable job they have done on behalf of Council
The performance objectives developed and used by the Advisory Committee to direct the work
of the consultants and to evaluate the various waste management options are both appropriate
and comprehensive, and have been of great assistance to both Council and Staff.
8.2 Concept A (excavation of all the waste and encapsulation in an engineered storage mound)
would have provided a permanent solution to the management of the low level radioactive waste
at Port Granby. However, this concept was rejected by the Advisory Committee, primarily
because of the short term impacts related to the excavation of all the waste. The three design
options based on Concept B (in-situ stabilization of the waste) all involve some degree of long
term maintenance of the site. If Council can accept the principle that the design option chosen
for the Port Granby site may not provide a permanent long term solution,then Staff do not
644
REPORT NO.: PD-95-99 PAGE 21
disagree with pursuing either Design B2. The most critical portion of the on-site wastes would
be encapsulated in an engineered storage mound and long term maintenance requirements would—
be lower.
8.3 In reviewing the comments and recommendations provided by both Staff and the Advisory
Committee, it is important to note that both have relied on the expertise of the consultants a
regarding various scientific and engineering matters related to the various design concepts for the
long term management of the waste at Port Granby.
4drome,mitted, Reviewed by,
C.I.P.,R.P.P. Franklin Wu,M.C.I.P.,R.P.P.
ning&Development Chief Administrative Officer.
JAS*DC*df
19 August 1999
Attachment No. 1 - Key Map
Attachment No. 2- Design Option B l
Attachment No. 3 - Design Option B2
Attachment No.4- Design Option B3
Attachment No. 5 - Evaluation of Alternative Design Concepts(Table)
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
ATTACHMENT #1
® SUBJECT SITE
LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2 LOT 1
l CO ICESSIO'N ROAD 1 Z
O
w
°� o z w
Q
U
o 0
F- U
C NA IAN I
l'AC/F/C RAILWAY - Z
li p
NATIONAL RAI W
LWA �
ANApIAN I
J (n Z
W
I 0 Y
o v O
W J z m
F- W
Q - - �I ROAD II
I
�I
II I
! I
LAKE ONTARIO
CLARKE PORT GRANBY °
KEY MAP LLRW STORAGE FACILITY
b4 /
A _ z m I w I ICI II
ATTACHMENT 02
s � or
Ell �R g u fir° e
o u a d
°3�>0 d
'3p` pgQ xy� Y v s g g$ ° d' rn a p a i-'�'v 3
el R ca
0 3 �00 �O
R o� �,�z
jy I I V
� 3a€
gp 8
5
I o
i
N NZ
S S,yt1
F
Ld
�aa Q
O
hh 11I 9MG IZL9>Cl0
v d
ATTACHMENT #3
W �
wF z z o f o N
°a o
°`'' z°ate~ e
<y goo o� 3 Qe Z o Q o3�w>Q
w wt4i w jm �� arc h Lj O o>a Q7i' O
Z K X00 om
EN ii 1 (tt ry °J a�aO F �
ae
i
E'r
r �
YF Ffi Y.M1*1�� z
r v�
[ w
f >C[}C]Q
xOJJ� L. n
22
rl)
°�—
9M0'ZL99f 10
e49
ATTACHMENT #4
z o �z
� a w
_O a � K0
aow Zoazo o g
�wwww 4
G $ $jai Y S c R O O >Q�z m
a w zo3Q o '&
■ ® n aZf QoDO
$ 1 O
w a v r
N �I
Uf
uj
5
t
i
,d 4 r S� ,.w,.,. s-. °•� n 3' y '`R-.�' "F 'iC x � Z
m r.
Y
Mty
' y
sY + stit
{ y
a?r
>; 3
0M0 Y4770
S^
w
ow c w 0 3
PFn 3 0 .� 0 " •b � o � � 6b� � B
U v b v u p
O F a F (5
'A ro
[���+ � � N •� OD O ewC a� � � �w O O
u p w
a Y ss
zz w 5 en 3 .8 5o
eu °
W � a p •p .. �' � 5b
z 5
m spa
Q
O
V p
d o a v
o P• t�
v
m
651
_r r
i
s s
F: c � w � � � .y9 '�y>+ � °� � A q •x �c �qm a� N .Le�' !�� o �
�' wzv � � 6°hldzaxi o � al5 .�
JD W
z u w q >
a3 &5 = � 'n°�yy 3 « pg Qo 3
,ep�p 'pupaaP ° $ "
PC 0
w
0 0
3 >
gg p g
go
a s b � yp •� � "a
s
w
F ] �
a z �aowsu3
652