HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-041-05
.'
Cl~mglOn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Report #:
PSD-041-05
File#:
PLN 33.4.6
J!e~ trf,IJ/I. I If g'- t,:;
By-law #:
Subject:
PORT GRANBY PROJECT - REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Councii the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-041-05 be received;
2. THAT the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office be requested to
investigate the effects of installing a double composite base liner at the new Long Term
Waste Management Facility for the Port Granby Project, and that the Environmental
Assessment Study Report for the Port Granby Project be revised accordingly;
3. THAT the Environmental Assessment Study Report for the Port Granby Project, as
revised, be submitted to Council for review when completed;
4. THAT a resolution be approved to give the Municipality's consent to the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Management Office to submit the preferred option for the Port Hope
Project to Federal decision makers, and that this resolution be forwarded to the Low-
Level Waste Management Office by March 31,2005;
5. THAT a copy of Council's decision and Staff Report PSD-041-05 be forwarded in its
entirety to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office and Natural
Resources Canada; and
6. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to all interested parties indicated in this
report.
Reviewed by: a ~ -:., ~
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS*FL *DJC*df
17 March 2005
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLI;, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905) 623-0830
- _ 631
REPORT NO.: PSD-041-05
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The Legal Agreement that forms the basis of the Port Hope Area Initiative defines the
various obligations of the Municipalities of Clarington and Port Hope and the
Government of Canada. In particular, the Agreement sets out key decision points for
the municipalities as discussed below.
1.2 Selection of a Qualified Concept.
1.2.1 The Agreement (Section 4.1.2) recognizes that, through the Environmental Assessment
(EA) process, the Proponent may evaluate alternate ways of carrying out the Project, or
an Element of the Project, that the Proponent considers to be technically and
economically feasible. The Municipalities are to be consulted regarding any such
alternate ways and their input will be given full consideration.
1.2.2 The Low-Levei Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO), being the
Proponent, recommended to Council that Concept II (relocation of the Port Granby
waste to an engineered storage mound north of Lakeshore Road) proceed through the
EA process as the Qualified Concept for the Port Granby Project. Council concurred
with this recommendation at its meeting of September 27,2004.
1.3 Submission of a Preferred Option for Federal Regulatory Review.
1.3.1 The Agreement (Section 4.1.3) also requires the Proponent to submit documentation
related to the EA of the Project for final review by the relevant authorities, only after
consulting with, and reflecting any concerns of the Municipalities. The Proponent will not
submit a preferred option to decision makers without consulting with and obtaining the
written consent of the Municipalities to that option. The Municipality is currently at this
decision point.
1.3.2 On February 7, 2005, Glenn Case, the Director of the Port Hope Area Initiative, formally
submitted the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR) for the Port Granby
Project to the General Purpose and Administration Committee. The EASR represents
a summary of all of the studies that have been undertaken by the LLRWMO through the
EA for the Port Granby Project, including the assessment of the effects of the Qualified
Concept on the natural and socio-cultural environments and human health and safety.
1.3.3 As required by the Legal Agreement, the LLRWMO has requested that Council provide
its written consent to submit the "preferred option" to the relevant authorities for final
review. The LLRWMO has requested that Council's consent be provided by the end of
March 2005 to allow the EASR to be submitted to the federal Responsible Authorities
(RAs) on March 31, 2005.
1.3.4 In addition, the specific wording of the Legal Agreement requires each municipality to
consent to the preferred option being submitted for the other municipality's project. The
Preferred Option for the Port Hope Project involves consolidating the waste from Port
Hope and the former Hope Township in a new engineered storage mound located at the
Welcome Waste Management Facility. Accordingly, Council is also being requested to
G32
REPORT NO.: PSD-041-05
PAGE 3
consent to the preferred option recommended by the LLRWMO for the Port Hope
Project.
1.4 Final Municipal Consent to the Project
1.4.1 The Agreement (Section 4.1.5) requires the Proponent to provide the Municipalities with
written notice of the decision of the relevant authorities with regard to the EA. In the
event that what the authorities decide upon is not the same as the preferred option
previously consented to by the Parties pursuant to Section 4.1.3, the Parties shall have
60 days to consult and a further 30 days to decide if they do not wish to proceed with
the Project or an Element of the Project.
1.4.2 After Council provides its written consent to the submission of a preferred option for the
Port Granby Project, the LLRWMO will submit the EASR and all supporting
documentation to the Government of Canada. After review by the RAs, the Federal
Authorities (FAs) and relevant provincial ministries, the Proponent will revise the EASR
to reflect any identified concerns, and the RAs will prepare a draft screening report for
further review and public comment. Upon finalization of the screening report, the RAs
will issue their decision with respect to the Project. It is at this point that Council must
decide whether to provide its final consent to the Project as referenced in Section 4.1.5
of the Agreement.
1.5 Purpose of Report
1.5.1 The primary purpose of this report is to update Committee and Council on the results of
the peer review team's and staff's review of the Environmental Assessment Study
Report for the Port Granby Project. A second purpose is to recommend to Council that
the Municipality provide its consent to the LLRWMO to submit the preferred option for
the Port Hope Project to Federal decision makers, as required by the Legal Agreement.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION IN THE EASR
2.1 The EASR is a summary of all the various studies related to the Port Granby Project
that have been undertaken by the LLRWMO for the EA process. The Project itself is a
very complex undertaking and consists of many specific technical elements. The
precise details of the various elements of the Project will be further refined over the next
year as the result of the review by the relevant authorities and on-going engineering
work by the LLRWMO and discussions with the Municipal Peer Review Team.
2.2 In general terms, the preferred option for the Port Granby Project involves the relocation
by truck of approximately 550,000 m3 of low level radioactive waste and marginally
contaminated soils located at the existing waste management facility (WMF) to a new
Long Term Waste Management Facility (L TWMF) located approximately 430 m north of
Lakeshore Road in Lot 4, Broken Front Concession. The new facility would consist of
an engineered storage mound with a low permeability cover and liner system, would
occupy approximately 10 ha when completed, and would be approximately 8 m in
- 633
REPORT NO.: PSD-041-05
PAGE 4
height. Material for the construction of the new facility would be trucked in on
Newtonville Road, Concession Road 1, and an upgraded Elliott Road.
2.3 The liner system to be constructed underneath the L TWMF would consist of a
compacted clay layer, a single high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane, and a
sand layer for leachate collection and drainage. The geomembrane was selected to be
compatible with the leachate generated by the waste, and its primary function is to
restrict leachate movement into the surrounding soil during the period of waste
placement until the final cover is completed. The compacted clay liner would serve as a
backup in case the geomembrane is defective. Should the single geomembrane liner
deteriorate over time, the underlying low permeability till (clay soil) would provide natural
containment of the waste and leachate.
2.4 A more detailed description of the project as currently proposed forms Attachment 1 to
th is report.
3.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS OF PEER REVIEW
3.1 Overall Conclusion
3.1.1 The peer review team has concluded, based on its review of the various studies
prepared by the LLRWMO, that the EASR provides a sufficiently comprehensive
assessment of the environmental effects of the Port Granby Project. Many of the
components of the EA meet their expectations for a thorough and comprehensive
analysis of potential effects. They generally agree with the conclusions of the EASR
and feel that it, together with the supporting studies, is suitable for submission to
Federal Authorities for further review, with one exception as noted in Section 3.2.
3.1.2 As well, the peer review team believes that the preferred option can be constructed,
operated and maintained in a manner that results in minimal adverse effects on the
environment, and that mitigation measures can be developed to effectively minimize
these effects. The team has also indicated that they will continue discussions with the
LLRWMO over the next year as many of the details of the project are finalized through
the detailed design stage and the federal review.
3.2 Liner System for L TWMF
3.2.1 The peer review team has indicated that they are confident that the L TWMF, as
currently designed, will provide long term containment of the waste. However, they
also note that the goal of the L TWMF is to adopt a design concept that will contain the
waste for several hundred years, and have therefore recommended that a double
composite base liner be installed to increase the level of confidence that engineered
containment can be provided for several hundred years. The team notes that there are
many advantages to installing a double liner, as outlined below:
. If the single liner fails, there would be a loss of engineered containment and the
underlying natural till deposit would be required to provide protection;
634
REPORT NO.: PSD-041.05
PAGE 5
. A double liner would provide the necessary redundancy in case of the loss of the
primary liner.
. Double liner systems are now used for most facilities of a similar nature and is state-
of-the art technology for toxic wastes;
. The eventual decommissioning of the L TWMF will be easier with a double liner since
there will not be environmental contamination in the event the primary liner fails;
. A double liner is consistent with risk minimization, precautionary principles and the
ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle; and
. The double liner may help alleviate residents' concerns with the integrity of the
L TWMF, thereby improving their feelings of personal security and well-being.
3.2.2 The team acknowledges that the installation of a double geomembrane liner will create
additional effects that were not accounted for in the EASR. It is estimated that 4,500 -
5,000 additional trucks will be required to transport in the material for the second liner.
As well, the construction phase may need to be extended and the height of the mound
could increase by up to 1.25 m. They have recommended that the EASR be revised to
study the effects of the double liner.
3.3 Inter-Site Route Crossing of Lakeshore Road
3.3.1 The Project Description indicates that trucks moving between the existing and new
WMF will cross Lakeshore Road at grade. The peer review team notes that the large
number of truck movements would involve continual stoppage of traffic on Lakeshore
Road. The team notes that, while the wastes can be transported safely in this manner,
they recommend further study of a culvert or a grade separation to allow the Inter-site
Route to travel under Lakeshore Road.
3.4 Enclosed vs. Open Excavation
3.4.1 The peer review team, in its September 2004 report on the selection of a Qualified
Concept, indicated that enclosed excavation for the wastes should be further reviewed.
The team notes in its current report that further analysis by the LLRWMO has indicated
that enclosed excavation of the wastes would not be feasible or desirable. There would
be substantial operational difficulties associated with erecting and relocating a
temporary enclosure many times throughout the life of the project, the gorges could not
be enclosed without extensive specialized design and construction, and there would be
increased risks to workers due to the accumulation of radon gas, dust and vehicle
exhaust within an enclosure.
3.4.2 The peer review team has agreed that, with the implementation of stringent dust control
measures, open air excavation can successfully protect workers and the environment.
The levels of radon gas and radioactivity in dust are projected to be substantially within
acceptable limits at the site boundary and bey"opd.
. 6JI>
REPORT NO.: PSD-041-oS
PAGE 6
3.5 Socio-Economic Effects
3.5.1 The EASR identifies a number of residual adverse effects on the local community
resulting from the Port Granby Project. These include:
. disruption to farm operations from increased traffic and construction noise;
. reduced residential property values in the order of two to eight percent;
. increased turnover of residential properties;
. difficulty in marketing residential properties;
. disruption to some road users, pedestrians and non-motorized traffic;
. changes in the use and enjoyment of property;
. disruption of community and recreational activities;
. adverse changes to community character and image; and
. increased stress and decreased feelings of personal security and well-being.
3.5.2 The EASR proposes a number of mitigation strategies to help alleviate some of the
identified adverse effects of the project. Some of these strategies proposed include a
farmer assistance program, a business activity enhancement program, and a strategy to
address farm business losses.
3.5.3 The peer review team has indicated that it agrees with the assessment of effects on the
socio-economic environment. However, given the number of minor adverse effects,
they have suggested that a more explicit description of the proposed mitigation
strategies be provided. The team has also suggested enhancements to the Property
Value Protection Program, and has recommended that transportation routes be signed
to help truck drivers adhere to the designated routes.
3.6 Port Hope Project
3.61 As noted earlier, the Legal Agreement requires each municipality to consent to the
preferred option being submitted for the other municipality's project. The Preferred
Option for the Port Hope Project involves consolidating the waste from Port Hope and
the former Hope Township in a new engineered storage mound located at the Welcome
Waste Management Facility.
3.6.2 The Municipality's peer review team led by Hardy Stevenson and Associates has also
undertaken a peer review of the EASR for the Port Hope Project. They have concluded
that the preferred option for the Municipality of Port Hope will have no effects for the
Municipality of Clarington. The team has recommended that the Municipality of
Clarington give its consent to the preferred option for Port Hope.
. 636
REPORT NO.: PSD-041.05
PAGE 7
4.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS OF STAFF REVIEW
4.1 General Conclusions
4.1.1 Staff has been involved with the peer review team in many of the discussions with the
LLRWMO regarding the EASR and the many studies that have been undertaken
through the environmental assessment of the Port Granby project. As a result, Staff
agree with the conclusion of the peer review team that the EASR generally provides a
comprehensive and accurate analysis of the effects of the Port Granby Project as
currently proposed by the LLRWMO.
4.2 Liner System at the L TWMF
4.2.1 Although the peer review team has expressed confidence in the ability of a single base
liner to effectively contain the wastes over the long term, they have also cited many
valid reasons why a double liner should be constructed at the L TWMF Staff agree with
the need to provide redundant protection systems and note that, in the event the liner
system does not operate as expected, it will not be possible to repair or replace the liner
system once the mound is constructed. The initial installation of second liner will
provide additional insurance in the event that primary containment fails and could
eliminate the need for expensive mitigation measures in the future.
4.2.2 As well, the importance of public confidence in the L TWMF cannot be under-stated.
Area residents have consistently requested that a second liner be installed at the
L TWMF, and the EASR has identified increased stress and decreased feelings of
personal security and general well-being as adverse effects related to the project. Staff
concur with the peer review team's comment that the second liner could increase public
confidence in the L TWMF and thereby help to reduce these negative effects.
4.2.3 However, the installation of a second liner represents a change to the project
description and the effects assessment provided in the EASR. In particular, the
transportation of the material for the second liner could potentially result in a 40 percent
increase in truck volumes, primarily in the first year of construction. A longer
construction period may be required and the height of the mound may increase above
the 8 m currently proposed. There will also be additional project costs related to
installing the second liner.
4.2.4 Staff has discussed the issue of the second liner and the implications for the EASR with
both the LLRWMO and NRCan. It was agreed that, since the installation of a second
liner is not reflected in the project description and the effects assessment provided in
the EASR, it would not be appropriate for Council to give its consent to the submission
of a preferred option at this time.
4.2.5 Therefore, staff is recommending that Committee and Council request the LLRWMO to
investigate the effects related to installing a double composite base liner at the L TWMF
and that the EASR be revised accordingly. After the revised EASR has been reviewed
by the Municipality's peer review team and area residents have been consulted, staff
will bring forward a report with a recommendation on the submission of a preferred
. 637
REPORT NO.: PSD-041.05
PAGE 8
option. It is currently estimated that this could result in a three to six month delay in
the project.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Both staff and the peer review team are satisfied that the EASR as prepared by the
LLRWMO has confirmed that the relocation of the wastes to a new L TWMF north of
Lakeshore Road should proceed as the preferred option for the Port Granby Project.
The installation of a double composite base liner at the L TWMF will help to ensure that
the new facility will effectively contain the wastes for several hundreds of years.
However, there are impacts that need to be investigated. With regard to the scheduled
delays created as the result of this change, these will be offset by the improved level of
confidence in the Port Granby Project.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Description of the Preferred Option - EASR January 2005
Executive Summary - Peer Review of the Port Granby Project (full report
provided under separate cover)
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Ms. Sharon Baillie-Malo
Mr. Glenn Case, Director
Michael Ayer & Julie Jones
Vito Binetti
Wayne Boucher
Ray Coakwell and Frances Brooks
Rosemary Cooper
Marion and Stuart DeCoste
Frederic DeSourdy
Robert Edgar
Mel Edwards
Wilma Entwisle
Gord and Penny Ewington
Betty and Stephanie Formosa
Paulette Gerber
Lorri Graham
Donna Grant
Frank Hart
Luanne Hill
A. Karacsonyi
Susan Kinmond
Maria Kordas - Fraser
Jane Lawrence
Eric Leeuwner
Gerry Mahoney and Bonnie McFarlane
Andrew McCreath
Joanne McNamara
Office of Bev Oda, M.P.
Rupert McNeill
Lorri and Stuart Munro
Tim and Laurel Nichols
Dora Nichols
Carole Owens
Jean Payne
James B. Robertson
Ulrich Ruegger
Linda and Paul Ryerse
Sarwan Sahota
Barb Spencer
John Stephenson
Brian and Penny Stripp
Ken Shrives
Midori Tanabe
Brian Tayng
Harvey Thompson
Rosemary Tisnovsky
Stan Tisnovsky
Julie Tutla
Richard Walker
Mary and Harry Worrall
638
ATTACHME~lT 1
PORT GRAN BY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT, JANUARY 2005
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE (APPROXIMATELY 2007 - 2012)
Waste Volumes
Approximately 550,000 m3 of low level radioactive waste (LLRW) and marginally
contaminated soils (MCS) will be excavated and moved from the existing Port Granby
Waste Management Facility (WMF) to a new Long Term Waste Management Facility
(L TWMF) located in the north-central portion of the Cameco property north of
Lakeshore Road. This volume figure includes approximately 4,000 m3 of MCS located
under the roadbed and in the ditches of Lakeshore Road between Townline Road and
the entrance to the existing WMF.
Clean-Up Criteria
The Legal Agreement (Section 3.3.1) requires Canada to "clean up properties
contaminated with Historic Low-Level Radioactive Waste so that all such properties will
be able to be used for all current and foreseeable unrestricted uses."
Estimates of the volume of material that must be excavated from the existing WMF are
based on site specific clean-up criteria developed by the LLRWMO. These criteria
assume the site will be used for passive recreational uses and are based primarily on
Ontario Ministry of Environment soil quality guidelines for residential/parkland uses.
Where no appropriate provincial guidelines exist, criteria have been developed to reflect
accepted national or international standards.
The LLRW and MCS contain both radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants. The
radioactive Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) have been identified as radium-
226, thorium-230, and thorium-232. The non-radioactive COPCs of greatest concern
include antimony, arsenic, cadmium, magnesium, molybdenum, selenium, and uranium.
(Uranium is more chemically toxic than it is radiologically toxic, and is therefore
considered a non-radioactive contaminant.)
New Engineered Storage Mound
The new storage mound at the L TWMF will have a low permeability composite base
liner system and a low permeability cover. The bottom of the mound will be located
about 2.5 m to 6 m below existing grade and will be covered with a low permeability
composite base liner and leachate collection system approximately 1.25 m thick. The
liner will consist of compacted clay and a high density polyethylene geomembrane. The
leachate drainage layer will consist of sand with pumping wells at two sumps.
639
After all of the contaminated material waste has been deposited in the cells, a cover
system will be installed over the wastes. The cover system will be about 2.6 m thick
and will consist of layers of natural and synthetic materials designed to minimize
infiltration of precipitation to the waste. The surface of the finished mound will rise
approximately 8 m above grade.
Area of LTWMF
During construction, an overall area of approximately 33 ha will be required to
accommodate site facilities, such as soil stockpiles and contractor's yard. Prior to any
work, the entire site area will be fenced and access controlled. Trucks hauling
construction material will use a different entrance than trucks hauling waste.
The mound itself will be located approximately 430 m north of Lakeshore Road in Lot 4,
B.F.C. Its footprint will occupy approximately 10 ha (420 m north-south by 240 m east-
west). Screening berms will be constructed and trees planted to block views of the
L TWMF during construction. Clean material excavated for the construction of the new
mound will be stock-piled on-site and used as daily cover for the waste after placement
in the mound.
A map indicating the location of the existing and proposed WMFs is attached.
Transportation Access Routes
Construction material for the L TWMF will be transported by trucks along the Primary
Haul Route, which consists of Newtonville Road south of Highway 401, Concession
Road 1 and Elliott Road to the L TWMF entrance. The LLRWMO has proposed to
upgrade the roads along this route. Approximately 12,000 truckloads will be needed to
transport the required material.
Oversized loads will travel to the L TWMF and the existing WMF along the Oversized
Load Alternate Route. The EASR currently defines this route as Newtonville Road
south to Lakeshore Road, and north on Elliott Road to the L TWMF or east on
Lakeshore Road to the entrance of the existing WMF on Nichols Road. However, the
LLRWMO has recently determined that oversized loads being transported to the
L TWMF could use an entrance off Lakeshore Road, rather than Elliott Road. Limited
numbers of trucks are expected to use the oversized alternate route.
The Inter-Site Route will be used by trucks to transport the LLRWMO and MCS from
the existing WMF to the L TWMF. An additional 113,000 m3 of uncontaminated soil and
earth excavated from the site of the new L TWMF will be transported by truck via the
Inter-Site Route to the existing WMF for the regrading and restoration of the site after all
contaminated materials have been removed. This road is currently proposed to cross
Lakeshore Road at grade; however, the LLRWMO has indicated that they will
investigate the feasibility of a grade separation to allow vehicles moving between the
two sites to travel under Lakeshore Road.
~ _640
No LLRW or MCS will be transported along either the primary haul route or the oversize
load alternate route. A map indicating the proposed transportation routes is attached.
Waste Excavation and Transportation
The LLRW and MCS at the existing WMF will be progressively removed using open
excavation techniques and standard excavation equipment over four construction
seasons. Trucks will transport the waste and place it in the L TWMF, with all waste
loads to be covered with tarpaulins to prevent spillage and mitigate dust generation. All
trucks will be decontaminated prior to leaving each site and dust suppression measures
will be used at both sites and along the Inter-Site road.
Non-radioactive wastes (eg. conventional garbage and sewage) generated during
construction will be transported off-site for disposal. Radioactive wastes (eg.
contaminated construction materials, used coveralls and gloves) will be managed on-
site as LLRW and placed in the L TWMF.
Water Treatment
The water treatment facility on the existing WMF will be used during the period of waste
excavation and placement to treat contaminated liquids collected at both the existing
MWF and the L TWMF. Contaminated liquids include stormwater that has contacted the
waste and fluids used to decontaminate trucks and other equipment. The treated
effluent will continue to be discharged to Lake Ontario under existing discharge
standards.
The existing treatment facility will be decommissioned at the end of the construction
period and a new water treatment facility will be constructed near the L TWMF. The
new facility will treat groundwater collected from the new East Gorge Groundwater
Interceptor Trench at the existing WMF and leachate from the new mound, as well as
the contaminated water obtained through dewatering of the sludge in the existing
treatment ponds. The treated effluent will be discharged via buried pipe to Lake Ontario
near the East Gorge. Project specific discharge criteria are being developed.
Restoration of Existing Waste Management Facility
A specific end use plan for the existing WMF once the LLRW and MCS have been
removed from the existing WMF has not yet been developed, although passive
recreational uses have been assumed. The excavated areas will be graded to remove
peaks and troughs and. to flatten slopes to a stable configuration, uncontaminated fill
and topsoil will be placed, and the site will be seeded and landscaped.
Even after the waste has been removed, residual affected groundwater will continue to
slowly discharge to Lake Ontario, primarily through the East Gorge. A groundwater
collection system will be constructed across the low end of the Gorge and the
641
intercepted groundwater will be pumped to the new water treatment facility at the
L TWMF. Once the groundwater quality improves to a condition where direct discharge
can be made to Lake Ontario, the pumping system will be decommissioned and
groundwater will be allowed to flow through the interceptor trench without collection.
This is anticipated to occur by 2025.
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PHASE (2013 - 2500)
The overall dimensions of the final L TWMF will not change from those at the end of the
construction and development phase. The mound will be vegetated to protect it from
erosion. It will generally not be visible from Lakeshore Road and will appear as a
smooth feature from Newtonville Road. No specific end use has been proposed.
The low permeability cover on the mound is expected to act as an effective hydraulic
barrier for several hundred years. However, if it fails to perform as expected, it can be
accessed and repaired or replaced without disturbing the wastes within the mound. A
single composite base liner system will be installed under the mound and is expected to
provide an effective hydraulic/diffusion barrier throughout the maintenance and
monitoring phase. In the event that the geomembrane fails, the compacted clay liner
as well as the low permeability cover would continue to control the rate of contaminant
release from the waste.
The leachate collection system beneath the mound will continue to function for the
lifetime of the L TWMF. However, waste settlement is expected to expel much of the
remaining contaminated fluids in the waste, so that minimal volumes of leachate are
expected to be generated from the mound after 2025. After this, flow to the water
treatment plant will be almost entirely from the East Gorge Groundwater Collector.
Treatment requirements will reduce once the groundwater collector is taken off-line.
Except for the fenced area around the pumping chamber for the East Gorge
Groundwater Collector, the original WMF would be available for passive recreational
uses. It is anticipated that the collector will have captured most of the impacted
groundwater within its capture zone by 2025, although this will need to be checked
through additional contamination transport modelling.
As owner of the new and remediated Port Granby WMFs, the Government of Canada
will be responsible for routine site monitoring and maintenance. The LLRWMO has
developed a preliminary inspection and maintenance schedule for both facilities to
2025. At the L TWMF, this includes regular inspection of site security, the mound
cover, and the leachate collector system. As well, groundwater, surface water and air
quality will continue to be monitored. The East Gorge Collector System on the
remediated WMF will also be inspected on a regular basis.
- 642
, Si.LA.WRENC \
" , , E 4'iP HUDSON RAILWAY
r I I I
,
, ,
, '
. ,
,
" ,
, .
, , '
, "" . AT'IOW..L RAILWAY
CANADIAN N
, , ,
Cl Cl
C3 Proposed C3
c:: Waste c::
1= Management en
....I
0 Facility 0
::c
::::i t.)
....I
W Z
I
I
I ~.op.O
';(\O~~
I \Ji,~5
Fencing
During
Construction
UDJ
Existing
Waste
Management
Facility
Lake Ontario
J
Existing and Proposed Waste Management Facilities
-643
'"
\ HIGHWAY 401
NEWTONVILLE RD.
EXIT 448
CONCESSION ROAD 1
Peer Review of the Port Granby Project
Environmental Assessment Study Report
March 2005
Prepared for:
The Municipality of Clarington
Prepared by:
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Ltd.
364 Davenport Road
Toronto, Ontario M5R 1K6
p: 416-944-8444
f: 416-944-0900
645
HARDY
_.........__....................-.-.-,.......................--.--.......-.--"
STEVENSON
AND ASSOCIATES
.-......"....".".......-.-.-.-,....----. ,.".......
---- .......................,-...-.-..--------
ATTACHME~n 2
Executive Summary
Low-level radioactive waste and associated marginally contaminated soils were deposited in
the Port Gtanby Waste Management Facility on the Lake Ontario shoreline from 1955 to
1988 in the Municipality of Clarington. The wastes ate currently a significant source of
contamination of groundwatet, soils, natural environmental features and Lake Ontario. To
resolve this problem, the Municipality of Clarington is patt of a community-based initiative
to implement a safe, long-term management solution. This is known as the Port Granby
Project. The principal objective of the Port Gtanby Project is to manage historic wastes in a
snitably constructed, environmentally safe, socially acceptable and appropriately controlled
state for sevetal hundted yeats. This management approach would result in the construction
of a new Long-Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF).
The proponent for the Pott Granby project is the Low Level Radioactive Waste
Management Office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on behalf of the Government of
Canada. The Municipality of Clarington has an oversight and veto role by virtue of having
signed a Legal Agreementl with the Government of Canada in 2001.
To evaluate the environmental effects of the long-term solution, it was determined that a
screening level federal Environmental Assessment (EA) would be requited. Should federal
Authorities approve a LTWMF for the Port Granby Project, its construction and
development would commence in 2007 and be completed in 2012.
Tn 2002, the Municipality of Claringron tetained a Municipal Peer Review Team (l\;lPRT) led
by Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited. Ibis is the third report of the MPRT to the
Municipality ofClarington on the remediation of historic Low-Level Radioactive Wastes
(LLRW) and Marginally Contaminated Soils (MCS) in Port Granby. The first fotmal report
by the MPRT reviewed four studies defmed by the Municipality of Clarington for the Port
Granby Project in accordance with the Legal Agreement mentioned above. These four
studies were a Technical Report on: Thorium 230; Groundwater Modelling; Shoreline
Protection; and, a Contingency Plan.
The second MPRT report reviewed the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office
(LLRWMO) alternative means process and confirmed the acceptability of Feasible Concept
II. Feasible Concept II involves the telocation of the wastes to a L TWMF to be located in
the notth-central portion of the Cameco property north of Lakeshore Road.
1 TIle former Municipality of Hope Township and the Town of Port Hope also signed the Agreement.
Peer Review of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
March 2005
"646
This third report of the MPR T reviews the Final Draft Environmental Assessment Study
Report (EASR) for thc Port Gtanby Project (LLRWMO-03710-ENA-13004 Revision Od3,
January 2005) completed by Goldet Associates. A revised EASR is forthcoming and will be
submitted to the federal Responsible Authorities for review.
lbe EASR was developed using the information and analysis presented in a number of
technical study reports, including five baseline chatacterization reports. These reports
documented existing conditions for the environmental components adopted for the
screening-level EA. These reports addressed the atmosphetic, geology and groundwater,
aquatic, terrestrial, and socio-economic environments. They also included a Human Health
and Safety Considerations Study, as well as six environmental effects assessment reports.
Finally, this set of study reports comprised the earlier Feasible Concepts Repott and
Qualified Concept Report; a wotking draft of the Port Granby Project - Description of the
Ptoject for EA Purposes; and, a Report on the Consultation and Communications Program.
The MPRT's Conclusion
Having teviewed the studies and analysis, the Municipal Peer Review Team has concluded
that the Environmental Assessment Study Report provides a sufficicntly comprehensive
assessment of the environmental effects of the Port Granby Project. Many of the
components of the Environmental Assessment fully meet our expectations for a thorough
and comprehensive analysis of potential effects. We generally agree with the Study's
conclusions and we feel that the study, including addenda, is suitable for submission to
Federal Authorities for furthet review.
It is important that the Municipality continue to have an oversight role to ensure that
additional analysis requested by the MPRT be addressed. In addition to mitigation measures
rccommended in thc EASR and partially profiled in this repott, we have concluded that the
following changes should be made to the Description of the Project.
The MPRT's Recommended Changes to the Description of the Project
First, the Municipal Peer Review Team is confident that the LTWMF, as currently designed,
will provide long-term containment oflow-level tadioactive material and marginally
contaminated soils. The design includes a single geo-membrane liner and the underlying
upper till layer of soils that provides natural attenuation as part of the Design Concept.
Peer Review of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
March 2005 - 6 4 7
ii
However, the goal of the Long Term Waste Management Facility is to adopt a Design
Concept that will contain the wastes for several hundred years. The current engineered
design assumes that by the year 2150 the geo-membrane component of the base liner system
may havc deteriorated or experienced a malfunction to the extent that it no longer performs
as an effective barrier. As a consequence, the Design Concept shifts to relying on the upper
till layer of underlying soils to provide namral containment after 2150.
The LTWMF can instead be designed to provide for engineered conL~inment for several
hundred years by adding a second geo-membrane liner. Thus, the Municipal Peer Review
Team concludes that the engineered Design Concept should be changed to include a second
geo-membrane base liner that will provide a redundant containment system should the first
liner fail.
Furthermore, the EASR should be revised to study the effects of the double liner on the
environment. The MPRT expects that the operation of the double liner will result in
beneficial effects telated to leachate containment. However, there will be some adverse
effects from constructing the liner due to the additional matetials required. Specifically, we
expect the revised EASR to include analysis of the effects of constructing the liner on
transportation and on the Socio-economic Environment. The EASR should also reflect any
changes to scheduling, tequirements for additional materials, human resources, and
additional costs resulting from construction of the double liner.
Second, thc Design Concept for the Long Tetm Waste Management Facility features
movement of the wastes to the new Waste Management Facility by crossing Lakeshore
Road. The large number of truck movements required to move the wastes will involve
continual stoppage of traffic on Lakeshore Road. While the wastes can be transported safely
in this mannet, the Municipal Peer Review Team recommends futther study of a culvert or a
grade separation to be constructed at Lakeshote Road for the lntersite Road to allow trucks
to travel under Lakeshote Road.
Peer Review of the Port Granby Project Environmental Assessment Study Report
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
March 2005
iii
-648