HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-120-89DN: SITING
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, May 1, 1989
REPORT #: PD-120-89
FILE #: Pln. 17.5
&J�JECT: SITING TASK FORCE
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-120-89 be received; and
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 On April 13, 1989, the Siting Task Force on Low-level Radioactive Waste
Management conducted a regional information and consultation meeting®
The Task Force members discussed and answered questions on the siting
process, the nature of radioactive materials, potential risks, the role
of key players, and the impact management guidelines for reducing
impacts and determining compensation proposals.
1.2 In the past low level radioactive wart has been deposited without full
regard for contamination, restriction of access or the limitation of
future development. At Port Granby a storage site was established on
the lake shore protected only by the bluffs which are now eroding® To
...2
X71
il I
REPORT NO.: PD-120-89 PAGE 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ensure that the natural environment is protected from low level
radioactive waste in the future, the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources has established the Siting Task Force to oversee the
selection of a new radioactive waste facility through a voluntary
process.
1.3 The siting process that the Task Force is employing is consultative,
co-operative and non-confrontational and involves the following steps:
i) The establishment of a Siting Task Force by the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources to examine scientific and public
reports and to examine issues that will help communities and the
Task Force establish an approach and reach an agreement on
improved management of low-level radioactive waste;
ii) A series of regional information and consultation meetings are
conducted by the Siting Task Force;
iii) Meetings with individual communities to discuss the suitability
of the community as a possible volunteer are conducted. Focus is
given to technological options, potential benefits and detailed
cost implications.
iv) Subject to the federal Cabinet's endorsement of specific funds,
the Siting Task Force, together with interested communities, will
carry out detailed investigations of the technical, social and
environmental aspects of each proposal.
v) The terms of agreements are negotiated with the volunteer
communities and referred to Cabinet.
vi) The federal Cabinet decides which of the volunteer communities
will be awarded the waste management contract.
vii) A Board of Directors is established for the waste management
facility.
1.4 In developing a process based upon co-operation rather than con-
frontation, the siting process has been based on principles of voluntary
participation and full environment safeguards. These are outlined in
the attachment to this report.
...3
r -7
REPORT NO.: PD-120-89
1.5 The priorities of the Siting Task Force are set on the basis of how best
to improve the overall management of low-level radioactive wastes.
After reviewing the low-level radioactive waste inventory, the Siting
Task Force has observed that the removal of low-level radioactive waste
to a permanent waste management facility would be appropriate for some
of the uranium and radium refining wastes deposited at Port Granby.
1.6 Finally, the Task Force has developed a set of criteria for site
elimination and measures for compensation. Site Elimination Criteria
have been developed to help identify areas that would be considered in-
appropriate for a low-level radioactive waste management facility.
Compensation measures relate to residual impacts, measures aimed at
offsetting any unavoidable adverse impacts, and equity issues, measures
aimed at leaving the community better off than it was before.
2. COMMENT
2.1 The Director of Planning and Development, was in attendance for the
regional information and consultation meeting of the Siting Task Force
held in Peterborough on April 13, 1989. The Committee will be informed
of any further proceedings on this matter.
2.2 Copies of all materials will be kept by the Planning and Development
Department and may be reviewed on request.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning & Development
JB*DC*W*cc
*Attach.
April 18, 1989
1: -7 7
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence E.A' 6tseff
Chief AdmiAUtrative Officer
SITING
Low -level Radioactive Waste Management 5
TRAVAIL GROUPE DE
Choix d'un site de gestion des d6chets faiblement radioactifs
Why Have Principles and Safeguards?
• In establishing a process based upon co- operation
rather than confrontation, the siting Process must
both give the local community an essential degree
of control and ensure that required standards of
safety and environmental protection are met.
• The siting Process is based upon five basic prin-
ciples and five safeguards which specifically pro-
vide for the desired community involvement and
shared control, while not compromising health
and safety.
• The basic assumption of the five principles is that
broad community concerns will be every bit as im-
portant as technological factors in developing any
proposal for improved management, provided
standards of health and safety are satisfied.
• The five safeguards are designed to protect com-
munities' interests and ensure that all voluntary
participants have an equal chance of preparing a
successful proposal, based on full and accurate
information.
Principles of the Voluntary Process
1. Any community to be considered as a site must
have volunteered. Any community can opt out
of the Process at any time.
• The key to co- operative siting is that control
remains with the community. The communities
themselves identify potential sites on a volunteer
basis, and throughout the Process they retain
the right to withdraw their candidacy.
The principle that communities will volunteer
does not diminish the need to protect the envi-
ronment, or to make decisions that are techni-
cally sound. For example, exclusionary criteria
will be applied at the start of the Process to
eliminate from consideration any geographic
areas that are obviously unsuitable.
• These site elimination criteria will help potential
volunteer communities to assess for themselves
whether they have, within their jurisdiction, any
areas that might be a suitable waste manage-
ment site.
2. The community will be a partner in
problem - solving and decision- making
throughout the Process.
It is not enough to give a community the right to
decide for itself if it wishes to volunteer a site for
a proposed facility. The community must also
have a voice in directing the siting Process, once
it has identified itself as a candidate.
To enable the community to become a full
partner in the Process, communities will have
an equal say, along with technical experts, in
determining the kinds of studies to be carried
out, and the factors to be considered.
In commissioning studies, reports, or other
means of obtaining information that will help
problem - solving and decision - making, the
Siting Task Force and the community will
reach agreement on the terms of reference to
ensure that they include the community's con-
cerns, issues, and desire to be informed.
3. The community will receive compensation to
offset unmitigable impacts and to enhance
local benefits.
Even with the best mitigation measures, some
impacts of locating a waste management facility
either cannot be avoided, or cannot be reduced
significantly. Any residual hardships or difficulties
that a community might experience as a result of
siting will be compensated, either directly or
indirectly, using both financial and non - financial
means.
Dr, 74
SECRETARIAT 580, rue Booth St., Ottawa K1A OE4 (613) 995 -5202 Fax (613) 996 -6424
)j
SITING TASK FORCE
Low -level Radioactive Waste Management
TRAVAIL GROUPE DE
Choix d'un site de gestion des d6chets faiblement radioactifs
3. The Silting Task Force will fund thorough site
and technology assessments so that deci-
sions by the community, the Siting Task
Force, and technical advisors will be based
on full Information.
• The Siting Task Force Process seeks informed
consent. Decisions made by volunteer commu-
nities must be based on full information.
• The Process includes detailed environmental,
social, technical, and economic assessments,
designed in partnership with the communities,
carried out by technical advisors selected jointly,
and funded by the Siting Task Force.
• These studies, along with the review and assess-
ment of safety analyses - to be conducted by the
Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) and
other regulatory agencies - will be circulated for
full public review and discussion as they become
available.
• The communities will be fully informed of both
the positive and the negative implications of
hosting the facility before they make any final
decisions.
4. A broadly based Community Liaison Group will
be established to work with the Siting Task
Force and local community officials.
• The municipal council will be the decision -maker
of record in the Process. However, its decisions
ought to reflect not only its corporate interests,
but also the interests of the community at large.
• To ensure that residents' concerns will be
brought forward and that the decisions made in
the Process will be representative of the views
of the broad community, the Siting Task Force,
through negotiation with the municipal council,
will set up a Community Liaison Group.
• This Group will receive its funding and technical
resources through the Siting Task Force, but will
be accountable to both the Task Force and the
municipal council.
5. The Siting Task Force will provide funding to
allow communities to participate in the Process.
• A broad participation from the community is es-
sential to the Process. The Siting Task Force
will provide resources to the Community Liaison
Group for such activities as secretarial support,
photocopying, mailing, research, and telephone
calls.
• However, because the Process is non- adversar-
ial and focuses on joint problem - solving, funds
will not be provided to cover such things as
duplicate studies or litigation.
575
SECRETARIAT 580, rue Booth St., Ottawa K1A OE4 (613) 995 -5202 Fax (613) 996 -6424
® Compensating the community for any burden it
bears on behalf of the broader public interest is
an essential part of a fair and equitable siting
process.
• Compensation not only will be provided to offset
unavoidable negative effects, but also will be
used to ensure that the community gains a net
benefit by accepting the facility.
4. The community will have the right to select,
from the given technical options and impact
management measures, those acceptable to It.
• What constitutes an "acceptable" technical option
and an "appropriate" level of impact manage-
ment are key points of any siting process.
• The community will be able to choose, in consul-
tation with the Siting Task Force and recog-
nized technical experts, those measures that the
community feels best address the negative
effects of the siting, and that enhance the poten-
tial benefits.
5. By working with the responsible regulatory
agencies, the Siting Task Force will ensure that
the safety of the environment and human health
are not compromised for any reason.
• The facility will be sited in a suitable area and
designed to meet regulatory requirements for
environmental protection. This principle is
fundamental to the objective of the federal
Environment Assessment and Review
Process (EARP).
The Siting Task Force, in conjunction with regu-
latory agencies, is responsible for determining
whether any of waste management options or
the sites offered by volunteer communities must
be excluded from the siting Process because
they are not technically. sound and, as a result,
are unacceptable for environmental and safety
reasons.
Safeguards of the Voluntary Process
1. An explicit, up -front impact management policy
will be used to ensure that all communities are
aware of the range of options available to them.
• A fundamental objective of the siting Process is
that hosting the facility will provide a net benefit
to the community.
• The net benefit will depend upon two factors:
1) the specific impacts that the waste manage-
ment project will have on a particular commu-
nity, which can vary according to the site and
the management technology the community
chooses; and,
2) the specific kinds of impact management
measures chosen to deal with those impacts.
• Communities will be fully informed of the range
of options available to them, so that they will not
neglect, as a result of lack of information, to
include in the proposal they put forward for
negotiation any measures that will benefit the
community.
2. Advisors selected by the community will be
hired to ensure that local interests are protected
throughout the co- operative process of fact -
finding and problem - solving.
• The capability of individual communities to par-
ticipate in the Process will vary considerably,
according to the availability of staff and re-
sources, and the extent of a community's prior
experience in facility siting.
• The Siting Task Force will ensure that all
communities are provided with the expertise they
need to protect their own interests, both during
the siting Process and afterwards.
576