Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-097-09Clarin~~W~ /n Leading the WayV REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, October 19, 2009 ~~ Sti ~~ ~~ ~ G ~' f _~ loS- ~ 9 Report #: PSD-097-09 File #: PLN 33.4 By-law #: Subject: PORT GRANBY PROJECT MUNICIPAL CONSENT TO THE EA SCREENING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD-097-09 be received; THAT the following resolution be APPROVED: WHEREAS on June 26, 2006, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington agreed to give its consent to the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office to submit the Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project as described in the Environmental Assessment Study Report to Federal decision makers for review; AND WHEREAS the Screening Report for the Port Granby Project, which was released on August 19, 2009 and which sets out the decision of the Responsible Authorities with respect to the Environmental Assessment Study Report, concluded that the Port Granby Project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects; AND WHEREAS the Legal Agreement for the Port Hope Area Initiative provides the Municipality of Clarington with the opportunity to determine whether the Port Granby Project as described in the Screening Report is the same as that previously consented to by the Municipality and, if not, whether the Municipality wishes to proceed with the Project; AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington has reviewed the Screening Report for the Port Granby Project and is satisfied that the Project as described therein is substantially the same as the Preferred Option agreed to by the Municipality in June REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 2 2006, and further that the Project is not likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects provided that the mitigation measures outlined in the Environmental Assessment Study Report and the Screening Report are implemented; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON resolves to advise the Government of Canada that it agrees to proceed with the Port Granby Project in accordance with the decision of the Responsible Authorities as set out in the Screening Report. 3. THAT the Government of Canada and its agencies be advised that continued consultation with the Municipality of Clarington and its residents through the licensing phase and. the implementation phase of the Port Granby Project is critical to the success of the Project; 4. THAT a copy of this report and Council's decision be forwarded to Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office, and the South East Clarington Rate Payers Association; and 5. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to any delegations and all interested parties listed in this report. Submitted by: Da id rome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services JAS/FL/df 1 October 2009 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1:1 EA Screenino Resort 1.1.1 The Legal Agreement for the Port Hope Area Initiative, which came into effect in 2001, requires the Municipality's consent at a number of key decision points in order for the Port Granby Project to proceed. In September 2004, Council approved a Qualified Concept which involves the excavation and relocation of the Port Granby wastes to a new engineered storage mound north of Lakeshore Road. In June 2006, Council approved a Preferred Option for the Port Granby Project, and consented to the submission of the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) to federal decision makers for review. 1.1.2 The third key decision point involves Council's consent to the Port Granby Project as described in the EA Screening Report. The Screening Report summarizes the findings and conclusions of the federal review of the EASR. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the lead Responsible Authority for the Project, released the draft Screening Report for public comment and review on May 4, 2009. 1.1.3 Council provided its comments on the. draft Screening Report to NRCan through Staff Report PSD-058-09 (June 15, 2009 GPA meeting). Comments were also submitted on the draft Screening Report to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the other Responsible Authority for the Port Granby Project, through Staff Report PSD-074-09 (July 6, 2009 GPA). These comments were intended to build upon the Municipality's comments submitted to NRCan, and to advise the CNSC of the Municipality's expectations with respect to the implementation of commitments in the EASR and the Screening Report. The CNSC held a hearing on August 17, 2009 prior to finalizing its decision on the Screening Report. 1.1.4 On August 19, 2009, the Responsible Authorities announced that the EA for the Port Granby Project had been approved. The Screening Report, which was released at the same time, concluded that the Project is unlikely to result in significant adverse effects, provided that the mitigation measures identified in the report are implemented. 1.2 Legal Aoreement Obligations 1:2.1 The Legal Agreement (Section 4.1.5) for the Port Hope Area Initiative states the following: The Proponent will provide the other Parties with written notice of the decision of the relevant authorities with regard to the environmental assessment and, in the event that what has been decided upon the completion of the environmental review is not that which was previously consented to by the Parties, the Parties shall have 60 days to consult, following which each Party shall have a further 30 days to decide if it does not wish to proceed with the Project, or an element of the Project and to notify Canada. In the evenf that a Party does not notify Canada, it shall be deemed to have agreed to proceed in accordance with the decision of the relevant authority. REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 4 1.2.2 The final Screening Report represents the decision of the Responsible Authorities with respect to the EASR for the Port Granby Project. As such, it is critical that the Municipality be satisfied that the Project described in the final Screening Report is the same as the Preferred Option agreed to in June 2006. The 60 day consultation period provided for in the Legal Agreement ended on October 17, 2009, while November 16, 2009 marks the end of the additional 30 day period. 1.3 Purpose of Report 1.3.1 The purpose of this report is to advise Committee and Council of the results of Staff's and the Municipal Peer Review Team's review of the final Screening Report for the Port Granby Project; to recommend, based on this review, whether Council should advise the Government of Canada that it agrees with the conclusions of the Screening Report and that the Municipality wishes to proceed with the Port Granby Project; and to advise of the next steps in the approvals process should the Project proceed. 2.0 ANALYSIS OF FINAL SCREENING REPORT 2.1 As noted above, the Screening Report presents the conclusions of the Responsible Authorities with respect to the EASR for the Port Granby Project. The Responsible Authorities have concluded that the adverse residual effects related to the Port Granby Project will be minor, and that the Port Granby Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects taking into account the mitigation measures identified in the EASR. 2.2 The Screening Report also provides responses to all of the comments submitted on the draft Screening Report and identifies any resulting changes to the Report. A total of 188 comments were submitted by 10 interveners, including the Municipality, local residents, the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, and Health Canada. Comments on the draft Screening Report were received on the following topics: • the appropriateness of the proposed location for the LTWMF; • elaboration of technical details in the Screening Report, such as the requirements for a dust management plan, water treatment methods, the composition of the facility liner system and other follow-up documentation; • complaints resolution process, accommodating/compensation for dust and noise and the loss of peaceful enjoyment of property; • property value impacts; • community involvement in the monitoring process; REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 5 • Geology and Groundwater Environment section of the Draft Screening Report, such as soil quality criteria, groundwater discharges into water sources, ground water flow and flushing; and • Human health. 2.3 Staff and. the Peer Review Team undertook a detailed analysis of the final Screening Report to ensure its consistency with the Preferred Option and to review any revisions to the document as a result of the comments submitted. 2.4 StaffAnalvsis 2.4.1 Staff sought clarification from NRCan on a number of issues, and responses were provided in a letter dated September 21, 2009 (Attachment 2). Staff are satisfied with the responses from NRCan on the following issues: • That the .total volume of waste for which the Long Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF) was assessed in the Screening Report includes approximately 4,000 cu. m. of marginally contaminated soils (MCS) associated with a 360 m stretch of Lakeshore Road; • That any upgrades required to the existing transportation routes will adhere to current applicable regulatory requirements and engineering standards of the federal, provincial and municipal governments; • THAT the primary access route for the transportation of construction materials will be the following preferred route: Newtonville Road exit from the 401 south to Concession Road 1; Concession Road 1 east to Elliott Road; Elliott Road south to the LTWMF site access point. Construction traffic between the LTWMF site and the existing waste management facility will travel via the Lakeshore Road underpass on the dedicated Inter-Site Route; • THAT the implementation of activities not requiring a licence such as a tree planting program aimed at minimizing the visibility of the LTWMF, can now be considered given that the Responsible Authorities have accepted that no significant adverse effects will result from Project activities. Property Value Protection Program 2.4.2 Staff also requested NRCan to clarify their position with respect to the possible continuation of the PVP Program beyond the two year period provided for in the Legal Agreement if monitoring indicates a continued impact on property values. 2.4.3 The Preferred Option agreed to by Council indicated that the Program would be monitored with a view to extending it beyond two years after the completion of the LTWMF if the market demonstrates that project effects will last longer. The final ' REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 6 Screening Report notes that the Legal Agreement provides for Canada's commitment to operate the PVP Program for two years beyond the completion and closure of the LTWMF, and that, over this period, property value monitoring will continue to be carried out in order to corroborate the tendency of property values which are expected to increase in the long-term as a result of the Port Hope Area Initiative. 2.4.4 In their response letter, NRCan reiterated the commitment in the Legal Agreement and in the Screening Report to monitor property values. NRCan also indicated that any potential decision on an extension of the Program would be at the discretion of the Government based on considerations relevant at the end of the monitoring period. 2.4.5 Staff are satisfied with NRCan's response on the PVP issue and note that the Program has evolved and improved since its inception in 2001, often in response to comments made by the Municipality and residents. fn addition, NRCan has assured Port Granby residents that, if monitoring were to reveal project-related devaluation, consideration would be given to address these effects. PVP representatives have stressed to the Municipality that the Port Hope Area Initiative is a three-phase project that commits to continued environmental monitoring during Phase 3, and that it is not "a walk-away project": 2.5 Municipal Peer Review Team Analysis 2.5.1 The Peer Review Team's report on their analysis of the Screening Report focused on how their comments on the draft Screening Report had been addressed (see Attachment 3). Of the 54 comments submitted, 18 comments were accepted by the reviewers and resulted in changes to the Screening Report. The Peer Review Team also accepted the responses to a number of comments that did not result in any changes. 2.5.2 However, the Peer Review Team identified concerns with the responses to a number of their comments that they believe require further consideration, as noted below: • Follow-Up Program and Monitoring -Many of the details with respect to such matters as the Dust Management Plan, noise reduction methods during construction, groundwater monitoring, and socio-economic effects management may not be available until the detailed design stage, which will occur after the Licensing .hearing. As many of these details as possible should be made available prior to licensing. • Municipal Involvement During Construction -The Municipality should be able to review all of the detailed design documentation as it is released and be able to provide input accordingly in order to "sign ofF' on each document. ` REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 7 • Adaptive Management vs. Problem Avoidance -The monitoring program should be based on a problem avoidance approach rather than an adaptive management approach, which emphasizes correcting problems after they occur. • Water Treatment - An explanation is required as to why the water treatment technology to be used for the Port Granby Project (resin ion exchange) is different from the technology 4o be used for the Port Hope Project (reverse osmosis). • Socio-Economic Follow-Up Program -The Screening Report should have provided stronger recommendation with respect to the measures intended to mitigate the effects of the Project on area residents. • Project Monitoring -Both residents and the Municipality must be assured of an active monitoring role with some provision for oversight, including some ability to influence Project activities should there be off-site effects. • Greater Commitment to ALARA -The ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle needs to be strengthened as a critical component of design and operations in order to minimize the risk of exposure to hazards to the extent possible. • Air Quality Monitoring -Monitoring for dust and radioactive material should be inside the fence rather than at the fence-line since any failure of dust suppression could result in dust going into the public realm. Real-time air quality monitoring should also be implemented. 2.5.3 Overall, the Peer Review Team has concluded that, given the quantity and detail of their comments on the Screening Report, the Responsible Authorities continue to be thorough and the Screening Report presents a proper review of the Port Granby Project. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 3.1 Conclusions 3.1.1 Staff and the Municipal Peer Review Team are satisfied that the Screening Report presents a thorough review of the Port Granby Project and that the Project description is substantially the same as the Preferred Option previously agreed to by Council. Staff and the Peer Review Team also agree with the conclusion of the Screening Report that, with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring, the Project is not likely to cause significant widespread adverse environmental effects.. Based on the review of the Screening Report, Staff are recommending that Council advise the federal government of its decision to proceed with the Port Granby Project. REPORT NO:: PSD-097-09 PAGE 8 3.1.2 The Legal Agreement also provides the Municipality of Port Hope, as a Party to the Agreement, with the option of notifying the federal government of its. position on the decision of the Responsible Authorities with respect to the Port Granby Project. In the event that Port Hope does not notify the government within the 90 day period provided for in the Agreement, it shall be deemed to have agreed with the decision of the Responsible Authorities. Port Hope has indicated that they will not exercise their authority under this provision, in effect agreeing with the decision on the Port Granby Project. 3.2 Next Steps 3.2.1 The Screening Report is a summary document and therefore does not include the same level of detail as provided in the EASR. Most of the specific details related to the Port Granby Project, including the information requested by the Peer Review Team, will be provided in detailed design documents and Follow-Up Programs still to be developed.. Some of these documents will be prepared for the CNSC licensing hearing which has yet to be scheduled but which is currently expected to occur in the first half of 2010. 3.2.2 Most of the detailed documents that are being prepared for the Port Hope Project, which had its licensing hearing in August 2009 will, with some modification, also be used for the Port Granby Project. Staff and the Peer Review Team will review these documents and report to Committee and Council where appropriate. In this regard, the Municipality will benefit from the experience the Peer Review Team has gained from their review of Port Hope Project documents. 3.2.3 Staff Report PSD-098-09, also to be considered at the October 19, 2009 GPA meeting, is recommending Council's approval of Amendment 3 to the Legal Agreement. This amendment is intended to clarify that no waste from outside the Municipality's boundaries, will be stored in the LTWMF. The amendment also includes a similar provision for the Port Hope Poject. 3.2.4 Within the next few months, staff will be bringing forward reports to Committee and Council with respect to the end use for the existing and new waste management facilities, and a possible new name for the LTWMF that would remove any reference to Port Granby. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Glossary of Terms Attachment 2 - Letter from Natural Resources Canada dated September 21, 2009 Attachment 3 - Municipal Peer Review Team Report REPORT NO.: PSD-097-09 PAGE 9 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Dave McCauley Christine Fahey Vito Binetti Wayne Boucher Walter Burman Mr. T. Casha Ray Coakwell & Frances Brooks Rosemary Cooper Marion & Stuart DeCoste Frederic DeSourdy Robert Edgar Penny Ewington Janice Fenton Betty & Stephanie Formosa Lori Graham Luanne Hill & Mike Mamonko Gord Jackson Susan Kinmond Maria Kordas-Fraser Marc Landry Jane Lawrence Brian Layng Eric Leeuwner Michelle MacDuff Gerry Mahoney and Bonnie McFarlane Andrew McCreath Joanne McNamara Rupert & Kathy McNeill Tim and Laurel Nichols Dora Nichols Carole Owens Garfield Payne James B. Robertson Linda & Paul Ryerse Saran Sahota Ken Shrives Barb Spencer John Stephenson Brad & Penny Stripp Rob & Kim Studt Midori Tanabe Harvey Thompson Rosemary Tisnovsky Stan Tisnovsky Julie Tutla Richard Walker Mary & Harry Worrall Attachment1 To Report PSD-097-09 GLOSSARY OF TERMS CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission EASR Environmental Assessment Study Report LTWMF Long Term Waste Management Facility MCS Marginally Contaminated Soils NRCan Natural Resources Canada PVP Property Value Protection Attachment 2 To Report PSD-097-09 ,~, Natural Resources Ressources naturelles Ottawa,.Canada K1A OE4 Ms. Janice Auger Szwarz Senior Planner .Special Projects Branch The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 September 21, 2009 Dear Ms: Szwarz: I am writing in response to your September 3, 2009 correspondence requesting that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the Lead Responsible Authority for the Port Granby Project, provides clarification on five issues identified as a result of comparing the Environmental Assessment Screening Report for this project with the Description of the Preferred Option consented to by Clarington Council in June 2006. Please find enumerated below, NRCan's responses on each of the five issues: 1. Whether the waste volumes indicated in the Screening Report include the excavation of approximately 4,000 cubic meters of marginally contaminated soils along Lakeshore Road and its emplacement in the Long Term Waste Management Facility, NRCan's Response: The total volume of waste for which the facility was assessed in the Screening Report is 518,500 mj. This volume includes an allowance of approximately 4,000 m3 (including the contingency) of marginally contaminated soil (MCS) associated with a 360 m stretch of Lakeshore Road. Node that the volume of MCS along the roadway will be confirmed and fully delineated during the excavation operation. 2. Whether all roads along the primary access route, in particular Concession Road 1 and Newtonville Road, will be upgraded to the appropriate municipal standards prior to construction to accommodate the truck traffic related to the Project NRCan's Rcsponse: NRCan recognizes that upgrades will be required to the existing transportation routes that will be used to transport materials to the new site. Generally, municipal infrastructure upgrading and restoration, required for tJ:e performance of the Port Granby Projeet ar necessary due to the impacts of the Port Granby Project, will adhere to current applicable regulatory requirements and engineering standards of the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. 3. Whether the Property Value Protection Program will be extended beyond two years into the Monitoring and Maintenance Phase if monitoring indicates a continued impact on property values. Ganada Canada Canadea NRCan's Response: The Legal Agreement provides Canada's commiunent to operate the Property Value Protection Program for 2 years beyond the completion and closure of the Long-Term, Waste Management Facility (LTWMF). The expectation is that this ttmeframe wilt be sufficient for long-term effects of the PHAI to become clear. Over this period, property value monitoring wifl continue to be earried out in order to corroborate the tendency of property values, expected to tnerease in the long term as a result of the PHAI. Any potential decision on an extension of the Program would be at the discretion of the Government based on considerations relevant at the end of the monitoring period. 4. Whether the planting of vegetative screening along the primary access route could be implemented prior to the start of the Construction Phase. NRCan's Response: The provision of vegetative screening on the primary access route was not specifcally detailed in the Preferred Option approved by Clarington Council, nor is it mentioned in the Screening Report. However, the implementation of activities (not requiring a licence) such as the tree planting program aimed at minimizing the visibility of the LTIJ'MF, will now be considered given that the Responsible Authorities have accepted that no signifcant adverse effects will result from Project activities. I suggest that you provide any detailed input that you may have in this regards to the Management Office at your earliest convenience, so that it tray be tailored into the planning and budgetary process. 5. Whether you can restate the description of the preferred haul route. NRCan's Responses Delivery of construction materials will follow the following preferred route: Newtonvil[e Road exit front the 401 south to Concession Road l; Concession Road 1 east to Elliott Road; Ellion Road south ro the LTWMF site access point Construction traffic between the LTWMF site and the existing Waste Management Facility will travel via the Lakeshore Road underpass on the dedicated Inter-Site Route. I hope that the information provided above will assist you and the Clarington Staff in preparing your recommendations to Council on the Port Granby EA Screening Report. Should you have questions or require further clarification in regards to these issues, please do not hesitate to contact Liliana Benitez at (613) 992- 4340 or lbenitez(a2nrcan. c.ca. Sincerely, f Dave McCauley Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division c.c. Liliana Benitez Joanne Smith Attachment3 To Report PSD-097-09 __- Municipal Peer Review Team Comments on the CNSC Screening Report: The Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Ptoject Report to Clarington Council Prepared By Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited 364 Davenport Road Toronto, Ontario M5R 1K6 HARD Y STEV ENSON AND ASSOCIATES ____. October 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Comments on the Responsible Authorities' Dispositions of Municipality of Clarington Comments .............:..........................................:............................................... 3 2.1 General Observations .................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Specific Comments ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Adaptive Management ......................:....................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Water Treatment and Groundwater Monitoring ............................................... 5 2.2.4 Socio-Economic Monitoring and Mitigation Measures ................................. 6 2.2.5 Atmospheric and Radiation Monitoring ............................................................. 7 3.0 Lessons for the Municipality of Clarington from the Port Hope Project CNSC Licensing Hearing ................................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 9 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited October 2009 Comments bn the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Screening Report: The Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project Executive Summary The clean-up of Low Level Radioactive Waste and marginally contaminated soils in the Port Granby area of Claxington is being reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) as a screening level assessment. A screening level assessment requires a Screening Report to be prepared. The Port Granby Screening Report presents the conclusions from the Responsible Authorities (RA's) regarding the Port Granby Environmental Assessment (EA) as documented in the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR). The EASR predicts that the Port Granby Project will result in many environmental benefits. There may also be some adverse effects in some environmental components that can be addressed by mitigation measures. Additionally, the Screening Report completes and finalises the earlier work from the Draft Screening Report prepared in May 2009 and provides a disposition of comments received from the public stakeholders. This report presents to the Municipality of Clarington Council the results of the Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT) review of the Screening Report fox the Poxt Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project. The MPRT concludes that the Screening Report presents a thorough review of the Project and agrees with the majority of the analysis and conclusions as well as the responses to public comment. We note that greater detail will be provided in the forthcoming detailed design documents and follow-up program. t Review of Port Granby Scree ing Report Hazdy Stevenson and Associates Limited Octobez 2009 1.0 Introduction On May 4, 2009, the Responsible Authorities -Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) issued the Draft Screening Report for public review and comment. The Municipality of Clarington submitted comments on the Draft Screening Report in a report entitled: Review and $ecommendationc to the Municzpality of Clarington on the Draft Screening Report (~Llay 2009) dated June 2009. The Municipality also made a submission at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearing entitled: Municipality of Clarzngtan Submirsion to the Canadian Nuclear Safely Commisaian on the Port Granby Screening Report dated July 13, 2009 (CNSC submission No. 09-H119.1). In August 2009, the Responsible Authorities released the Screening Report for the Poxt Granby Long-Term Low Level Radioactive Waste management Project. The Port Granby Screening Report presents the conclusions from the Responsible Authorities regarding the Port Granby Environmental Assessment as documented in the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR). The EASR predicts that the Port Granby Project would result in many environmental benefits. There may also be some adverse effects in some environmental components that can be addressed by mitigation measures. It is important to note that the Screening Report is an overview of the items presented in the EASR and does not include the level of detail that was included in the EASR. The Screening Report and the approval of the Environmental Assessment is only the fast step in many steps. Many of the issues identified by the Municipality and local residents will be addressed later through detailed design and the Municipal Peer Review Team will ensure that the issues identified through this review will be followed up at an appropriate level of detail. Commeut Dirpo.cition In the Screening Report, the Responsible Authorities responded to the individual comments from the public on the Draft Screening Report and recorded the responses on the Public Comment Disposition Form along with an indication of whether or not the comment(s) resulted in a revision to the text of the Draft Screening Report. A total of 188 comments were received from 10 interveners. Comments were received from the Municipality of Clarington, local residents, Health Canada and the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper. Comments from all intervenors were received on the following topics: • the appropriateness of the proposed location for the LTWMF; • elaboration of technical details in the Screening Report; such as the requirements for a dust management plan, water treatment methods, the composition of the facility liner system and other follow-up documentation; • complaints resolution process, accommodating/compensation fox dust/noise/loss of peaceful enjoyment; • property value impacts; • community involvement in the monitoring process; 2 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and dssociates Limited October 2009 • Geology and Groundwater Environment Section of the Draft Screening Report, such as soil quality criteria, groundwater discharges into water sources, ground water flow and flushing ;and • human health. Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited have completed a review of the Screening Report and disposition of comments. We have reviewed the resident's comments and note that many were accepted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. However, most of the residents' comments pertained to the desire to not have a new facility in Poxt Granby. Although we have reviewed all the submitted comments, the purpose of this report is to highlight the treatment of the Municipality of Clarington's comments. Overall, considering the quantity and detail of the Municipality's comments raised on the Draft Screening Report, the Responsible Authorities continue to be thorough. While the Responsible Authorities have not agreed with every point that the Municipality of Clatington has raised, the Municipality has made some progress toward insuring that Natural Resources Canada commitments will be implemented during the construction and management phases of the clean-up. Out of the 54 comments that the Municipality of Claxington made, 18 comments were accepted by the reviewers and changes to the Screening Report were implemented as the Project moves into the licensing phase. A subsequent letter was sent from Natural Resources Canada clarifying additional comments'. In the letter, Claxington requested clarification on: the waste volumes indicated in the Screening Report, details regarding the upgrading Concession Road 1 and Newtonvile Road, the potential extension of the Property Value Protection Program, the planting of vegetative screening along the primary access road and a description of the preferred haul route. 2.0 Comments on the Responsible Authorities' Dispositions of Municipality of Clarington Comments The following summarizes the 1~lunicipality's response to the Responsible Authorities disposition of our comments, as well as additional comments on the Screening Report. In some cases, the Responsible Authorities have made it clear why there have been no actions made in response to our comments, and their explanations axe acceptable. However, there are some comments where no actions axe recommended we believe require further consideration. In general, we axe pleased with the Responsible Authorities treatment of comments. The following `General Observations' outline comprehensive comments about the direction of the Screening Report and the procession into the facility licensing phase. The `Specific Comments' refer to the Responsible Authorities disposition of Municipality of Clarington comments and our response. ~ Letter Fxom Dave McCauley, Natural Resources Canada to Janice Szwan, Municipality of Clarington, dated September 21, 2002 3 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Octobex2009 2.1 General Observations Follow-Up Program and Monitoring We continue to point out that many of the Project details will be left until the Follow-Up Phase. Many of the Municipality of Clarington's comments referred to the requirement fox information (e.g. the Dust Management Plan, noise reduction methods during construction, groundwater monitoring, socio-economic effects management, etc.). We anticipate that several of the studies will be provided between now and facility licensing, but experience with the Municipality of Port Hope Project Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission licensing hearing (August 26'~ and 27`'', 2009) has shown that some of these reports will not occur untIl the detailed design stage (after the licensing hearing). The detail in these documents will enable the resolution of the issues that the Municipality has raised about water treatment, dust management and the mitigation of socio-economic effects. We recommend that the Municipality of Clarington continue to assert to the Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) the need fox as many details as possible before the Project licensing hearing. The Municipal Peex Review Team liaises with Atomic Energy Canada Limited on a regular basis and experience has shown that detailed information can be expected to be provided. Furthermore, we recommend that the Municipal Peer Review Team take the initiative to prepare aFollow-Up Program on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington and local residents. By doing so, we will have a clear and complete list of follow-up activities expected to be completed. Hold Paints Hold points have been recommended as a component of the Municipality of Poxt Hope Project Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission license. Hold points specify a stage gate approvals process whereby certain milestones must be completed before the Project can proceed. For example, a `milestone' may be the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission agreement on the acceptability of a Dust Management Plan and other detailed design documents. Basically, hold points are tools within the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approvals process that allow all parties to ensure that sufficient progress has been reached before proceeding to the next step of actions without resulting in a new approvals process. In the Municipality of Poxt Hope there are two hold points proposed: the first hold point occurs when the final design documents are released (just prior to construction) and the second hold point occurs just before excavation proceeds. Given the need fox the additional details, the Municipality of Clarington should also consider the use of `hold points' as a component of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission license fox the Poxt Granby Project. Hold points axe important fox the Poxt Granby Project because many of the detailed reports will be released subsequent to the to the Canadian. Nuclear Safety Commission license. Furthermore, hold points allow fox the review and comment on documentation by the Municipality of Clarington before proceeding to the next stage. 4 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Octobex2009 Municipallnvolvement During Constrrsction It will be important to discern what role the Municipality will have to ensure the process is conducted properly and when municipal input will be sought. Municipal as well as public oversight and community engagement will be an important contributor to the success of the Project during the construction phase. The Municipality should be able to review all the detailed design documentation as it is released and be able to provide input accordingly in order to `sign ofP on each document. 2.2 Specific Comments The following presents an overview of ibfuniupality of Claxington remarks on the disposition of oar comments on the Draft Screening Report. 2.2.1 Adaptive Management The Follow-Up Program states that an adaptive management approach will be utilised fox monitoring the site. The use of the term `adaptive management' infers that changes will be made according to the problems that will arise in the future during the management and monitoring phase. As we have stated previously in our revision of the Draft Screening Report, "adaptive management" emphases correcting problems, should they arise (and learning how to do better next time), versus taking more conservative and prescriptive approach initially in order to avoid problems. We prefer the latter approach. In Comment 73 in the Public Comment Disposition Form, the Canadian Nuclear Safetj- Commission suggests that they have addressed our concern by adding a definition of adaptive management in the Screening Report. They stated that: `Adaptive management is a structured process of optimal decision making in the face of uncertainty, with au aim to reducing uncertainty over time via a ystem of monitoring....' However, the substance of our comment was not addressed. Oux concern remains that adaptive management still appears to be a guiding framework for the Follow-Up Program. The Municipal Peex Review Tam development of a follow-up program with input from local residents will go some distance in addressing this comment. 2.2.3 Water Treatment and Groundwater Monitoring Issues such as groundwater contamination, groundwater discharge into local water sources, groundwater flow and flushing, as well as the ion water exchange treatment option for the new facility axe among the comments forwarded by the Municipality of Clarington. Many of these issues (e.g. most notably, ground water discharge) were also brought up at the Municipality of Poxt Hope Project licensing hearing in August 2009. Although the Poxt Granby Project is further ahead of the Poxt Hope Project in regards to technical details about water treatment, it is important to ascertain why the Poxt Hope Project will be using a different treatment process (reverse osmosis versus resin ion exchange). In a previous report on the Water Treatment Memo, the Municipal Peex Review Team noted that the disadvantage of the ion exchange resin is the build up of radioactive 5 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited Octobex2009 materials on the resin and the concurrent increase in external radiation levels. While both treatment processes are acceptable, particularly the process proposed fox Port Granby, a comparison of both treatment options and an explanation of the difference is warranted. Comment 34 The Municipality of Clarington maintained that the groundwater monitoring program used to assess effects on groundwater elevations and base flows should be clearly stated. The Responsible Authorities state that an adaptive management approach will be used to identify changes in groundwater elevations and changes in base flow. As stated in our general comments regarding adaptive management, this approach would only address problems after they occur and may not prevent situations before they negatively impact the aquatic environment. We expect that an appropriate groundwater monitoring program can be agreed upon. 2.2.4 Socio-Economic Monitoring and Mitigation Measures Socio-economic effects are of particular importance to the residents of Port Granby and the Municipality of Claxington. For example, it is important to prevent noise and traffic from affecting the local community. Socio-economic issues that have arisen include the requirement for detailed xeparts regarding mitigation measures, recommendations for residents to play a vital role in monitoring activities and community involvement. Comment 40 and 41 The Municipality of Clarington asked fox stronger recommendations for Socio-economic mitigation measures. The Responsible Authorities responded that these details will be provided in the Follow-Up Program. However, there will need to be plans in place fox socio- economic mitigation strategies for pre, during and post construction of the new facility. This is especially important fox residents who axe closest to the facility who have had concerns about negative construction effects since the beginning stages of the Part Granby Project. Many of these concerns have been documented in Public Comment Disposition Form as well as through community meetings with the Atomic Energy Canada Limited. The Municipal Peer Review Team development of a sample follow-up plan will likely address these issues. Commentr 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 63 The Responsible Authorities maintain that the only complaints during the licensing and construction process that will be from local residents will be due to chronic issues, which is not necessarily the case. As with our concerns with adaptive management, a proactive approach should be taken to monitoring concerns, particularly those that need an immediate response. Additionally, the Municipality of Claxington asked fox new residents to be made aware of the Project, which remains to be addressed. A more explicit mention of mitigation measures is also required. We expect these changes to occur as the project develops. G Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates T invited October 2009 The Responsible Authorities responded that there will be a mechanism in place fox complaints resolution in the Follow-Up Program. The lbiunicipality of Clarington does not solely want communications and consultation (comment 46); an active monitoring role is required with some provision for oversight and appeal. Both residents and the Municipality of Clarington must be assured they have some ability to influence the Project activities should there be off-site effects. This role is particularly important when it comes to addressing an immediate complaint resolution process where work should cease because of an off-site,pxoblem (comment 43). The >Vunicipality of Clarington is in advanced discussion with Atomic Energy Canada about the implementation of an effective complaints resolution process. 2.2.5 Atmospheric and Radiation Monitoring Issues pertaining to atmospheric and radiation monitoring that have been raised previously by the Municipality of Clarington include the requirements fox a Dust Monitoring Plan, truck movement along the haul routes, high wind scenarios, ambient air quality and the mitigation of noise impacts. Comment 19 Excavation activities should not be initiated if high winds are anticipated. The Municipality of Clarington recommended that high wind scenarios should be anticipated through an onsite meteorological station and monitoring. The Responsible Authorities have chosen to not accept the cautious approach of the Municipality of Clarington. The Municipalit~~ recommended the cessation of activities when windy conditions occur. We continue to believe that a mare cautious approach should be taken and will continue to press fox a positive resolution. Comment 52 The use of the As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle needs to be strengthened as a critical component of design and operations. The aim of ALARA is to minurxize the risk of radioactive exposure or other hazards while keeping in mind that. some exposure may be acceptable in order to further the task at hand. The Municipality of Claxington requested stronger references to the ALARQ principle in the Screening Report. The Responsible Authorities response in the disposition stated that a radiation protection program would address the ALARA principle. They stated that this action would be added to the Screening Report text to partially address the Municipality of Clarington's concerns. Comment 56, 57 The Municipality stated that `monitoring of dust and radioactive material that moved outside the fenceline was not cautious enough. We believe that the Responsible Authorities should accept the Municipality of Clarington's request fox "inside" of fence line monitoring. Furthermore, the Municipality of Claxington does not agree with "at" fence line monitoring as the result of failure of dust suppression would be dust going into the public realm. The Municipality of Clatington specifically requested that the Screening Report include real time atmospheric monitoring. The Responsible Authorities responded that the Follow-Up 7 Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited October 2009 Program would be developed with the Municipality and stakeholders but did not provide any further details on the implementation of an atmospheric monitoring program. Specific detailed design documents should be identified to satisfy this request from the Municipality of Clarington. The Municipal Peer Review Team will address this specifically in the sample Follow-up Program. Comment 58 Atomic Energy Canada Limited has the choice of using conventional road equipment ox low emission road equipment during the construction phase. The Municipality of Clarington requested the use of newer low emission off-road equipment. The Responsible Authorities stated that these vehicles would only be used in the Municipality of Port Hope due to increased housing density. If the same contractor was retained for both Projects, it should not be out of the question to request the same level of care be used in both Project locations. Although Poxt Granby has fewer houses that will be directly affected by Project activities, individual residents will still be affected to the same degree as those individual residences in Poxt Hope. Comment 62 The detailed design documents should specify the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations that monitor radiation doses. The Municipality of Clarington requested details on how radiation doses will be monitored. The Responsible Authorities responded that it will not entail the sampling of local residents and actual methods would be described in the Follow-Up Program. Additionally, this Pxogxam would to adhere to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations. More details will be obtained before licensing. 3.0 Lessons for the Municipality of Glarington from the Port Hope Project CNSC Licensing Heating The Poxt Hope Project has already had a Project licensing hearing (which took place on August 26 and 27`h, 2009) and is ahead of schedule of the Port Granby Project by approximately one year. The Municipal Peex Review Team attended the Port Hope Project hearing and noted the implications for the Municipality of Clarington. Lessons learned from this process include emphasis on municipal involvement in dete+m*+ining procedures at hold points and refining the degree of community involvement in the facility licensing stage. The Poxt Hope Project had three documents that were required fox the licensing decision: the Water Treatment Strategy, the Environmental Assessment Follow-Up Pxogxam Plan and the Licensing Manual -all of which have been reviewed by the Municipal Peer Review Team and accepted by the Municipality of Port Hope. The Port Granby Project has already had the release of a Water Treatment Strategy document and we expect the release of the other two aforementioned documents before the Port Granby Project licensing. 8 Review of Poxt Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and elssociates Limited October 2009 Additionally, the following licensing documents will be issued by Atomic Energy Canada Limited prior to waste excavation and Long-term Waste Management Facility constmction: • Design Description Report • Quality Assurance Plan • Radiation Protection Plan • Environmental Management and Protection Plan • Emergency Management Plan • Security Plan • Fire Protection Plan • Training Plan • Occupational Health and Safety Plan • Long-term Maintenance and Monitoring Plan We have reviewed several licensing documents that have already been released for the Port Hope Project and expect the release of similar documents for the Port Granby Project. We axe confident that the detaIls that we have mentioned in our comments on the Screening Report will be addressed in the forthcoming licensing documents. 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations In conclusion, we are satisfied with how our comments have been addressed in the Screening Report. Furthermore, we agree with the recommended approval of the Project and conclude that the Project as described in the Screening Report reflects the Project that has been accepted by the Municipality of Claxington. However, there are actions arising from the review of the Screening Report. We offer the following recommendations: 1) Municipality would work with Atomic Energy Canada to develop a thorough and comprehensive follow-up program that would serve to mitigate and avoid effects, as well as to confirm the accuracy of predictions of envixontnental effects and effectiveness of mitigation measures. 2) Ensure that all licensing documents will be reviewed by the Municipality of Clarington (See list in Section 3.0) and reports provided to Clarington Council. 3) Ensure a strong monitoring role fox local residents as well as the Municipality of Clarington. Review of Port Granby Screening Report Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited October 2009