Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-051-03 :...>--. .,. .." .. ~ Cl!J!i.n REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, May 5, 2003 -- E07 Gflt-)1JI-O :5 Report #: PSD-051-03 File#: PLN 33.4.6 By-law #: Subject: PORT GRANBY PROJECT COMMENTS ON THE METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE MEANS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-051-03 be received; 2. THAT this report be forwarded to the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the draft "Methodology for Identifying and Evaluating Alternative Means., dated March 2003, being undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Port Granby Project; 3. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's resolution be forwarded to the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, Natural Resources Canada Energy Resources Branch, and the Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee. Submitted by: Da d J rome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning Services Reviewed b . ranklin Wu, # Chief Administrative Officer JAS*FL *DJC*sn April 24, 2003 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623- 3379 F (905)623-0830 633 .:;r- .t ". 'f REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Under an agreement that came into effect in March 2001, the Government of Canada and the Municipality of Clarington agreed to work towards the clean-up and long term management of low level radioactive waste (LLRW) currently located at the Port Granby Waste Management Facility. The Project Description document for the Port Granby Project (the Project), released in November 2001, defines the Project at a conceptual level as essentially consisting of in-situ stabilization of the waste, reflecting a concept adopted by Council in 1999. 1.2 The Environmental Assessment (EA) Scope document for the Project, released in July 2002, sets out the matters that must be addressed in the EA. These matters include technically and economically feasible "alternative means" of carrying out the Project. The Scope document defines alternative means as " ...the various ways, that are technically and economically feasible, that the project could be implemented which are local, are for the management of the wastes over the long-term and are functionally similar to the project as proposed in the project description." 1.3 The LLRW Management Office (LLRWMO), as the Project Proponent, has developed a draft methodology and criteria for identifying and evaluating alternative means to the Project. The methodology essentially consists of screening ideas through filters using evaluation criteria. The criteria to be used in the filtering and comparing of Alternatives are termed Goals and Indicators. 1.4 The Proponent is seeking the community's input on the methodology and the evaluation criteria through various means, including a public workshop held at the Newtonville Hall on March 29, 2003. The Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has also reviewed the proposed Goals and Indicators. The Proponent will finalize the methodology and criteria once all of comments have been received. 634 .l J" REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 3 2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 2.1 The purpose of this Report is to provide the Municipality's comments on the proposed methodology and evaluation criteria developed by the LLRWMO for the identification and evaluation of alternative means to the Port Granby Project. These comments are indicated in italics in the report. In the preparation of the Municipality's comments, staff drew on advice provided by the Municipality's peer review team, Hardy Stevenson and Associates. This advice generally focused on the suitability of the proposed evaluation methodology. The proposed methodology is shown schematically on Attachment 1 to this report. 2.2 Staff also referred to comments made by the Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee (CAe) on the proposed goals and indicators that will be used as evaluation criteria. The CAC prepared a memorandum to Council with their comments, which forms Attachment 2 to this report. This memorandum indicates the Goals and Indicators proposed in the draft methodology, the suggestions made by the public at the workshop, and the CAC's comments. 3.0 OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 3.1 The methodology to identify and evaluate alternative means to the Port Granby Project consists of a series of steps in which ideas are screened through filters, as outlined on Attachment 1. The ideas that remain after each filtering step are redefined to a finer level of detail prior to being screened through the next filter. The evaluation criteria to be used in the filtering steps are called Goals and Indicators. Goals are general requirements that must be met by any alternative being considered. Indicators are derived from Goals and are the measures or criteria used to assess the ability of a particular alternative to meet a project Goal. 3.2 Comments: The title of the document suggests that the methodology only perla ins to identifying and evaluating Altemative Means. However, the document describes a process for qualifying concepts for waste management and disposal, of which evaluating alternative means is only a sub-component. A title such as "Methodology for 635 , . REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 4 the Selection of Concepts for the Port Granby WMF" would more accurately reflect the process. Overall, the methodology for identifying and evaluating altemative means appears sound and logical, and is similar to methodologies used in other federal EA processes. 4.0 STEP 1 (COMMUNITY INPUT, GOALS AND GOAL STATEMENTS) 4.1 The consultation process to receive and review comments on the proposed methodology is considered as Step 1 in the process. This report with the Municipality's comments is considered to be part of Step 1. As well, the goals for the Project, as expressed in goal statements, are developed in this step. 4.2 Goals Goals are general requirements that must be met by any idea being considered through the entire evaluation. The Goals proposed in the methodology were drawn from a number of sources, including the EA Scope document and the legal agreement. Four general categories of goals have been identified - technical, community, economic, and environmental. Comments: A separate goal should be created for "human health and safety". While these factors are closely related to and largely imbedded in the "environment" goal, there may be effects associated with human health that are not relevant to the natural environment, and vice versa. A distinct goal for human health and safety will also emphasize its importance in the evaluation process. 4.3 Goal Statements The goals have been converted into goal statements that will guide the development of Alternative Means and their assembly into Alternative Concepts for evaluation. Two goal statements are of particular note: . The project must protect human health and safety, and the environment. . The project must reflect community values. 636 , . REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 5 Comments: The first statement should be divided to reflect separate goal statements for the environment, and human health and safety. The second statement should be modified to indicate that the project must reflect and protect community values and interests. The current wording is too vague and does not give appropriate weight to the importance of community acceptance of the Project. 4.4 Interpretation of Goal Statements Both the CAC and the public at the March 29, 2003 workshop provided comments regarding the factors that should be considered in the interpretation and application of the goal statements (see Attachment 2). Comments: The Municipality agrees that the suggestions made by the public and the CAC on the interpretation of the goal statements, as indicated in Attachment 2, will provide for an appropriate interpretation on the factors to be considered in the interpretation and application of the goal statements. It is noted that with respect to the goal statement for "community': the term can be defined at many different levels, both geographically (e.g.: local, municipal, regional, provincial) and in terms of time (i.e.: current residents and future residents). The values and interests of all of these communities must be considered and balanced when making decisions in the evaluation process. 5.0 STEP 2. FIRST FILTER (THE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCEPTABLE APPROACHES) 5.1 A number of general ideas, called Approaches, have been proposed by various parties including the public and consultants, that address how the Port Granby wastes should be handled. Approaches that have been identified include: . stabilization of the wastes on-site . the relocation of the wastes to a new long-term storage facility, and . moving the waste to another site elsewhere in Canada. 637 " ," REPORT NO,: PSD-Q51-03 PAGE 6 The first filter is intended to eliminate those Approaches that do not conform with the EA Scope. The approaches that remain after the first filter are deemed to conform with the EA Scope document and are called Acceptable Approaches. 5.2 Screening Criteriallndicators to Identify Acceptable Approaches The screening criteria used in the evaluation methodology are called Indicators. They are derived from Goals and are the measures or criteria used to assess the ability of a particular altemative to meet a project Goal. The Indicators used in the first filter take the form of three yes/no-type questions. These questions are designed to eliminate those Approaches that do not meet certain basic requirements, such as conformity with the EA Scope document. A single 'no' will exclude an Approach or Alternative Means from further evaluation. The three questions are indicated in the CAC's memorandum (see Attachment 2). Comments: The three questions are appropriate subject to the following modifications: The first question indicates "local" to be within the geographical area encompassing the Municipalities of Clarington and Port Hope. Although this may reflect the language in the EA Scope, it clearly does not reflect the legal agreement which specifies that the new waste management facility must be in C/arington. The question should be modified to remove the reference to Port Hope. The third question asks if the Approach is functionally similar to the Project Description for Port Granby. The term "functionally similar" needs to be defined (e.g.: using same processes, methods and techniques) to allow the functional similarity between Approaches to be determined. 6.0 STEP 3 (DEVELOP A LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS) 6.1 The Acceptable Approaches identified in Step 2 are broken down into Components. These are the specific engineering techniques, works or systems that are needed to fulfill a certain function. Each Acceptable Approach is composed of several 638 , '. , ~ REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 7 Components. For example, Components in the in-situ stabilization Approach would include bluff stabilization, groundwater diversion, and the clean-up of existing contaminated groundwater. 6.2 Once the various Components of each Acceptable Approach have been identified, a long list of Altemative Means for implementing each Component will be developed. Alternative Means are the different ways that each Component could be implemented. For example, potential Alternative Means for the bluff stabilization Component include a naturalized bio-engineered slope, and a rock-fill slope. 7,0 STEP 4- SECOND FILTER (DEVELOP A SHORT LIST OF ALTERNATIVE MEANS) 7.1 The second filter evaluates the various Alternative Means, which are the different ways that each Component could be implemented. The filtering will be accomplished in two parts. Each of these parts is discussed in more detail below. The results of this two part filtering exercise will be a short list of Altemative Means for each Component. These feasible Altemative Means and the Components they constitute will then be assembled into complete solutions for implementing the Project. These complete solutions are termed Feasible Concepts. Comments: The second filter should be divided into a coarse screening stage and a detailed evaluation stage. The coarse screening can be done initially by expert judgment, while in the detailed evaluation the coarse screened options can be further evaluated in a more methodical manner with a greater level of sophistication. Given the large number of components involved for all of the Feasible Altematives as well as the large number of alternative means available for each component, this would help to effectively narrow down choices without a lot of unproductive work. 7,2 Part 1 - Eliminating Alternative Means The first part of the filter is designed to eliminate Alternative Means that are not technically or economically feasible, or are unlikely to meet regulatory requirements for the protection of human health and safety, the environment or other regulatory requirements. To avoid being eliminated, an Alternative Means must receive a positive 639 , " REPORT NO.: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 8 answer to a series of yes/no questions grouped under the technical, environmental, and economic categories. The draft methodology proposed a number of questions under each category. Workshops participants and the CAC were asked if the questions proposed in the methodology were the right questions, and if other questions should be added to the list. The CAC's memorandum (Attachment 2) indicates the questions proposed in the draft methodology, as well as the comments made at the workshop and the CAC. Comments: The Municipality agrees with the criteria questions proposed by the pubic at the workshop and by the CAC as indicated on Attachment 2, with the foffowing exception. The third question, under Technical, should be revised to read: "Can this Alternative Means be relied upon to perform as designed with minimal maintenance over the life of the facilitv? Emphasizing that an Alternative Means should operate with minimal maintenance over 500 years wiff help to ensure the safety of the facility, the public and the environment throughout that entire period. 7.3 Part 2 - Comparative Evaluation The second part of the filter will be the application of Indicators intended to provide quantitative measures for technical, community, environmental and economic criteria. A matrix comparison approach will be used to compare and rank Alternative Means according to how well they satisfy community, environmental, technical and economic criteria. These steps are more qualitative and do not involve yes/no answers. Each criteria is to be allocated a percentage or a value out of 100 based on its importance relative to the other criteria in the group. As with Part 1, the workshop participants and the CAC were asked to rank criteria under each category. The CAC chose to rank the criteria using a 1 - 5 scale, rather than allocate weight out of 100. Their ran kings of the Goals and the criteria in the community, environmental, health and safety, technical, and economic categories are indicated in their memorandum (Attachment 2). Comments: The criteria ranking as presented in the CAC's memorandum is appropriate for the comparative evaluation to be undertaken in Step 4, with the foffowing exceptions: 640 , < REPORT NO,: PSD-Q51-Q3 PAGE 9 . Goals . the Technical criteria should be ranked as "1 ", rather than "2". It is critical that the approach used to manage the wastes over the long term be technically sound. . Community Criteria . Given the anticipated life of the Project, a new criteria should be added to reflect the potential impact on future residents, and be given a rank of 1. Staffs comments on the proposed rankings have also been indicated on the CAC's memo. 8.0 STEP 5 - OPEN HOUSE The Feasible Concepts will be assembled into a Feasible Concepts Report that will document the results of Steps 1 to 4. This report will be presented to the public at an Open House currently scheduled for summer 2003, providing the public with an opportunity to comment on the outcome of the first phase of the evaluation process. Comment: The Open House in Step 5 should be held at a time other than summer 2003. Attendance at public consultation activities and events that are hosted during the summer months tends to be low. Given the importance of the information to be presented at this Open House, it should be scheduled for a time when residents and other interested individuals are most likely to participate. The Feasible Concepts Report should detail how the various Approaches and Alternative Means were generated, including any that resulted from the public workshops held in June and October 2002. The Report should also clearly identify how each of the Approaches and Alternative Means generated have been dealt with through the evaluation methodology. 9.0 STEP 6 - DESCRIPTION OF DETAILED CONCEPTS The Feasible Concepts developed in Step 4 will be described in more detail to become Alternative Concepts. Detailed Concept Descriptions will be developed for each Alternative Concept and will detail such matters as construction specifications, 641 , " REPORT NO.: PSD-051-Q3 PAGE 10 maintenance lifetime, monitoring requirements, technical performance, and cost estimates. Community acceptance will also be addressed. Comment: The Methodology should specify how community acceptance of the Alternative Concepts will be determined. 10.0 STEP 7 (DETAILED COMPARATIVE EVALUATION) In this step, all of the Alternative Concepts will undergo a detailed comparative evaluation using the information contained in the Detailed Concept Descriptions and the same comparison criteria used in the second filter. The Alternative Concepts that have found to be the most suitable will be identified as Qualified Concepts and will form the basis for project descriptions that will be considered in the EA. It is possible for more than one Qualified Concept to be identified and thus be subjected to rigorous study under the EA. 11,0 STEP 8 - QUALIFIED CONCEPTS REPORT AND OPEN HOUSE The results of Steps 6 and 7, including the detailed comparative evaluations, will be documented in the Qualified Concepts Report. The draft Qualified Concepts Report will be presented to Council and the public for comment prior to finalization. This is expected to occur in winter 2004. 12.0 CONCLUSIONS The proposed methodology for identifying and evaluating alternative means is somewhat complex and difficult for the average person to understand. However, the comments on the methodology and the evaluation criteria provided by the public, the CAC and the Municipality will ensure that the interests of the Municipality and its residents are considered as various ideas for the management of the wastes at Port Granby are evaluated. Attachments No.1 Methodology for Evaluating Alternative Means (Diagram) No.2 Memorandum from the Port Granby Project CAC 642 '" REPORT NO.: PSD-051-Q3 PAGE 11 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Ms. Sharon Baillie-Malo Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street Ottawa, ON K1A 7K8 Mr. Glenn Case, Director Port Hope Area Initiative Low Level Waste Management Office 5 Mill Street South Port Hope, ON L 1A 2S6 The Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee c/o Planning Services Department 643 OPEN HOUSE FIRST FILTER COMPONENTS ALTERNATIVE MEANS SECOND FILTER ATTACHMENT 1 Methodology for Evaluating Alternative Means 1--. - -.,., U~ 0< A",'~"" ..., 1 I - Workshop Ideas; I - Conceptual Design Report; and L - EA Scope Document ---=--~ --- ~'F, ILTERTOIDENTIFy7 ACCEPTABLE APPROACHES ---., ,- STEP 1 STEP 2 ACCEPT ABLE APPROACHES STEP 3 ..---J FILTER TO IDENTIFY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE MEANS STEP 4 OPEN HOUSE BUILD FEASIBLE CONCEPTS 't1 STEP 5 FEASIBLE CONCEPTS DEVELOP DETAILED CONCEPT J DESCRIPTIONS --=----=c=-- STEP 6 CLTERNATIVE CONCEPT~ , C- ~ DETAILED COMPARATIVE STEP 7 EVALUATION OPEN HOUSE QUALIFIED CONCEPT(S) STEP 8 644 ATTACHMENT 2 CJaIje fl Leading 1l}gI1l MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and Members of Council Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee April 10, 2003 Port Granby Project - Comments on Evaluation Criteria for Alternative Means As part of the Environmental Assessment process for the Port Granby Project, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) has developed a Methodology for identifying and evaluating Altemative Means to accomplish the Project. This methodology identifies criteria that will be used to evaluate the various Alternative Means and Alternative Concepts for managing the waste at the existing Port Granby Waste Management Facility. It is important that the evaluation criteria identified in the methodology effectively reflect the community's values. In this regard, the Port Granby Community Advisory Committee is providing comments to Council on the evaluation criteria to assist Council in the preparation of its comments to the Low Level Office. The CAC's comments are attached to this memorandum. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 645 ,.... )-' Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Comments on the Goals and Indicators of the Proposed Methodology for Identifying and Evaluating Alternative Means Note: Comments proposed by the methodology are indicated in normal front. Goals and indicators suggested by the public at the March 29, 2003 workshop are indicated in italics, and those suggested by the CAC are indicated in bold. STEP 1 - GOALS AND GOAL STATEMENTS 1, Goals . Community . Environmental . Technical . Economic . Human health and safety 2, Goal Statements . The project must be technically feasible. . The project must reflect and protect community values and interests . The project must be economically feasible . The project must protect human health and safety BFlrJ tRe eRvif6RmeRt · The project must protect the environment. 3. Interpretation Of Goal Statements i) The proiect must be technically feasible. . Long term (design life of 500 years) . Quality assurance and quality control in design . Able to be monitored and maintained for performance . Robust to withstand impacts (e.g.: earthquakes, erosion, elements) . Apply full range of engineering and scientific expertise · Computer modelling to evaluate soundness of design over 500 years . Capable of providing for retrieval of wastes . Capable of providing for functional end use Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 646 '. . Proven and currently available technology . A secure facility . Community input to selection of peer review team. ii) The project must reflect and protect community values and interests. . Protect human health, environment and way of life . Minimize disruption to community, businesses, agriculture · Harmonize with the landscape (aesthetics) . Ensure community peace of mind · Real-time, readily accessible and transparent access to monitoring data · Agree to acceptable end use (e.g.: parkland, trails) . Ensure community not stigmatized by the presence of new waste facility . No expansion of the waste facility in the future . Preserve property values · Consider local and broader interests. iii) The project must be economicallv feasible. . Protection of community values, human health and safety, and the environment must take precedence over economic feasibility . No long term burden to community tax payers . Acceptable capital cost and long term management cost · Funds provided to deal with malfunctions, contingencies, etc. · Funds provided to address harmful effects on property values . Ba.taRG9 fJr;SRsmir; feasi9i!ity w.lt'" GOmmlJRity safety . Cost s"'olJ.'fi he I6ss sflRot a faGter . Compensation to the farming community for harmful impacts on farming operations . Independent body to deal with compensation claims . Provide funds to address communications needs re: perceived threats . Efficiency - direct funds to effectively direct issues. Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 647 ,\ ," iv) The project must protect human health and safety 3na tl:1e en'lireRment. . Local and regional, short and long term health protection · Safeguards during construction and operation . Ongoing community reassurances · Protection of worker health and safety . Preventing dispersal of enclosed materials . Extensive monitoring during and after construction · No radioactivity above background levels on-site and off-site after construction if site is to be open to public . No impact off-site during construction . Ensure the quality of ground water and surface use or human use is maintained. v) The proiect must protect the environment. . Bio-physical and social environments . Health of flora and fauna should be protected . Zero tolerance for emissions . No impact on VECs off site, during and after construction · Extensive monitoring during and after construction . QA/QC to ensure protection of Lake Ontario . Consideration offuture change (population, land use) . Measures to ensure that there is no contamination of agricultural crops on lands adjacent to the waste management facility . Consideration of local and broader communities . Ensure the quality of ground water and surface water. STEP 2 - FIRST FILTER (THE IDENTIFICATION OF ACCEPTABLE APPROACHES) 1. Is the Approach "local", i.e. is it within the geographical area encompassing the Municipalities of Clarington and Port Hope? 2. Can the Approach provide for the management of low-level radioactive wastes and marginally contaminated soils over the long-term? 3. Is the Approach functionally similar to the Project Description for Port Granby? Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 648 , Comments . The 3 questions are appropriate. . "Loca.'" Reefi& te De FR91'8 RBtrowly defined. . Define "local" to reflect the legal agreement between the Municipality and the Government of Canada. . The term "functionally similar" needs to be defined to include same processes, methods and techniques . Consider: "Does the Approach have adverse effects outside C/arington/Port Hope? . Document the process of elimination. . Allow for the evaluation of ideas raised in the future . Status of 1978 EA Panel decision and 1999 CCAC report. STEP 4 . SECOND FILTER Part 1 - Eliminating Alternative Means Technical Criteria Questions . Questions proposed in methodology 1. Has this Alternative Means been proven suitable for the site-specific conditions at Port Granby? . Some rewording suggested . Include handling procedures 2. Has this Alternative Means been successfully applied at full-scale operation? . Question may be more suitable at comparative evaluation stage 3. Can this Alternative Means be relied upon to perform as designed with minimal maintenance? 4. Can the performance of this Alternative Means be readily monitored and verified? . Additional questions suggested at workshop 5. Does the Alternative Means require rnajor infrastructure? 6. Can the Alternative Means be implemented in a timely fashion? 7. Does the Alternative Means allow for retrieval of waste? 8. Does the Alternative Means rely on overly complex technology or systems? Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 649 , " Environmental Criteria Questions . Questions proposed in methodology 1. Is the Altemative Means capable of protecting the environment as specified by Ontario and Canada regulations (e.g.: water quality objectives, contaminated soil guidelines)? . Consider current and proposed regulations/guidelines 2. Is the Alternative Means capable of meeting regulatory requirements to protect human health (e.g.: radiation exposure standards)? . Consider current and proposed regulations/guidelines 3. Does the Alternative Means meet other international guidelines and does it respect international agreements? . Additional questions suggested at workshop 4. Does the Altemative Means consider social faimess/equity? 5.. Is the Altemative Means capable of meeting "community comfort" standards? Economic Questions . Questions proposed in methodology 1. Is the Alternative Means economically feasible? . Clearly define "economically feasible" . Additional questions suggested at workshop 2. Is the Altemative Means economically feasible in the long term? . Questions proposed by the CAC 3. Is an Alternative Means that meets environmental and community objectives being prematurely discarded because it is deemed not to be economically feasible? Part 2 - Comparative Evaluation The proposed methodology suggests that the relative importance of the various goals and criteria be determined by allocating points to each, to a total of 100 points. The CAC is of the opinion that ranking is a more appropriate method for determining the relative importance of goals and criteria. The tables presented below indicate the ran kings (out of 5) suggested by the CAC, with 1 being the highest ranking. Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 650 , Revised May 2, 2003 Community 1 ., Environmental 1 . Technical 2 I Economic 5 ., Health and Safety 1 ., Criteria Proposed by Methodology Ability to return lands to beneficial use Potential to adversely affect adjacent or nearby lands! Protection of adjacent or nearby lands Economic value to local communities 3 ., 1 " 5 " Criteria Proposed at Workshop Protection of local ambience (general character of community) Degree of disruption to community life (Socio-economic conditions) Disturbance of visual quality of landscape Aesthetic acceptability (Visual effects assessment) Degree of detrimental effects on the community e.g.: truck traffic (socio-economic effects) Local community acceptance 1 " 2 " 1 " 1 " Broad community acceptance 5 " Criteria Added by Staff Potential Impact on future residents 1 NOTE: Checkmark ( " ) indicates staff concurrence with CAC. Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council Criteria Proposed by Methodology Effects on atmospheric environment 1 " Effects on aquatic environment 1 " Effects on terrestrial environment 1 " Effects on socia-economic conditions 1 " Effects on geophysical environment 1 " Radiation and radioactivity release levels 1 " HEALTH & SAFETY CRITERIA Criteria Proposed at Workshop Long-term and short-term health and safety effects on workers Long term and short term health and safety effects on the public/community Animals (domestic and farm) 1 " 1 " 1 " Visitors 5 " TECHNICAL CRITERIA CAC Criteria Proposed By Methodology Compatibility with site features (Compatibility of Project elements with environmental features on-site) Long term reliability, effectiveness and durability Ease and level of monitoring required to verify performance Experience with implementation 1 " 1 1 1 " " " Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 652 ECONOMIC CRITERIA Criteria Proposed by Methodology Capital cost Operating and maintenance costs Cost of future replacement or major repairs in event of failure Criteria Proposed at Workshop/Deleted by CAC Present f'Ia}' \<ersus fieferriJfi costs Port Granby Project Community Advisory Committee Memo to Council 653 1 " 1 1 " " "