Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-075-03 .,; . ~ . . C/JJ!-ilJgron REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, June 16, 2003 ,FO~ ~PH- ;;2 7 7 -D3 By-law #: Report #: PSD-075-03 File #: PLN 26.10 Subject: Environmental Assessment for the Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility Proposed on the Darlington Nuclear Generation Station Lands - Revised Environmental Assessment Study Report and Draft Screening Report RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-075-03 be received; 2. THAT Report PSD-075-03 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the documents entitled "Darlington Used Fuel Dry Storage Project- Environmental Assessment Study Report" dated March 2003 and "Draft Screening Report on Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Darlington Used Fuel Dry Storage Project", dated May 2003; 3. THAT a copy of Report PSD-075-03 be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Ontario Power Generation; 4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Councils decision. 665 . REPORT NO.: PSD-07S-03 PAGE 2 SOOm;"'by' ~ Dal1'id J. orne, M.C.I.P. R.P.P. Director, Planning Services RevieWedby:d~----.S ~ Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Chief Administrative Officer HB/CP/DJC/df June 11, 2003 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623- 3379 F (905)623-0830 666 REPORT NO.: PSD-07S-03 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has proposed to construct and operate a used dry fuel storage facility at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Plant. The facility will provide an area to process the dry storage containers and an area to store the containers. The dry storage containers are filled with used fuel bundles that have been removed from the water-filled irradiated fuel bays. Prior to licensing this facility by the nuclear regulatory agency, successful completion of an Environmental Assessment in accordance with Section 20 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is required. 1.2 Staff have previously reported to Council on the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Guidelines establishing the EA study parameters (PSD-027-02) and on the submission of the draft Environmental Assessment Study Report (PSD- 012-03), In March 2003, the Municipality was advised that the review process had been altered and that the EA Study Report would be available for review during the public consultation stage for the draft Screening Report. With this notification, the CNSC provided OPG's disposition of Clarington's comments on the draft Study Report and requested that the Municipality endorse the EA Study Report. Many items in this disposition referred to a document entitled Appendix 'E' of Volume 2 of the Study Report. At the time of the release of OPG's disposition, this document was not available. 1,3 On March 19th, 2003 staff advised the CNSC by letter that OPG's disposition of the Municipality's comments had been reviewed and that there remain some areas where additional information or clarification had not yet been provided. It was also clearly stated that until the Municipality has opportunity to review the content of Appendix E of Volume 2 of the EA Study Report, the Municipality will not endorse the final EA Study Report. 1.4 On May 2, 2003, the Municipality received a copy of the revised EA Study Report (dated March 2003) from CNCS with a request to review the document and advise 667 REPORT NO.: PSD-07S-03 PAGE 4 if there were any serious concems about the manner in which the Municipality's concerns were addressed. A copy of this substantial sized document was forwarded to the Municipality's consultant, IER, and on May 16, 2003, comments from IER on the revised Study Report were forwarded to Clarington. Four days later, on May 20,2003, CNSC forwarded the draft Screening Report to Clarington, The Municipality did not have any opportunity to forward any concems with respect to the revised Study Report to CNSC prior to receiving the draft Screening Report. 1,5 Staff are reporting to Council on the following: (1) The revised Environmental Assessment Study Report prepared by OPG; (2) The draft Screening Report prepared by the CNSC. The public commenting period for the draft Screening Report ends on June 30, 2003, The CNSC will review all submissions prior to finalizing the Screening Report. The final Screening Report will then be presented at a CNSC hearing for a decision to be made on the construction and operation of the facility in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 1,6 A copy of IER's findings with respect to the revised EA Study Report and the draft Screening Report are contained in Attachments 1 and 2. 2.0 THE REVISED EA STUDY REPORT 2.1 The revised EA Study Report included the document entitled Appendix E of Volume 2, Appendix E was reviewed and found to provide much of the information requested during review of the disposition documents. The following issues will need to be addressed, . The document does not provide a traceable explanation of why the preferred site was chosen. 668 REPORT NO.: PSD-075-03 PAGE 5 . Appendix D of Volume 2 of the revised EA Study Report does not provide OPG's response to all comments raised by IER during review of the disposition documents. A lack of response makes it difficult to trace how these comments were addressed. OPG should address all comments raised by IER. . The potential social economic impacts resulting from the operation of this facility is important to monitor. The Municipality should be consulted and provide an active role in the preparation of any monitoring program. Attitude and field surveys should be undertaken prior to constructing each new section of the facility, Information regarding the increasing presence of nuclear facilities and nuclear waste facilities within Clarington and the Region of Durham should be gathered through the use of attitude surveys. The survey should be conducted within the local area and beyond extending throughout the regional study area, The Municipality has also designated prestige employment lands in proximity to the site. The future storage of nuclear waste may impact the ability to market these lands and adversely impact the tax base of the Municipality. 3.0 DRAFT SCREENING REPORT 3.1 The draft Screening Report summarizes the revised EA Study Report. For this reason, a general overview of the findings of the revised EA Study Report will not be provided. The draft Screening Report states that the results of the environmental assessment identified there to be no significant residual adverse environmental effects from the construction and operation of this proposed facility, Furthermore, it is unlikely that any measurable cumulative effects will occur when this facility is considered in combination with other projects and activities. The overall results of the environmental assessment confirm that the chosen location (site B) is the preferred site. 3.2 A preliminary decommissioning plan is provided in the draft Screening Report. It is anticipated that all fuel will have been removed from the buildings and stored in accordance with the nuclear waste disposal strategy to be developed by the federal government before the facility is decommissioned. Decommissioning of the buildings will involve complete radiological surveys to confirm that there is no radiological contamination. If contamination exists, decontamination will be 669 REPORT NO.: PSD-075-03 PAGE 6 undertaken. OPG radiation protection procedures will be maintained to prevent loose contamination on persons, packages or containers leaving the site, Environmental monitoring of the site and surrounding area will continue while the fuel is being removed and the site is being decommissioned. 3.3 The CNSC licensing and compliance program will be the mechanism for initiating the final design and implementation of the follow-up and monitoring program, and ensuring reporting of the program occurs. As this will be detailed in a different licensing procedure, the draft Screening Report briefly addresses monitoring and a follow-up program. The preliminary elements of the follow-up and monitoring program include a program to monitor public attitudes and the effectiveness of mitigation. It is proposed that the program will run the year prior to commissioning of the first storage building and one year after the first storage building has been operational. A survey of Waterfront Trail users and users of the adjacent sports fields will be conducted during this time frame, 3.4 The draft Screening Report has covered the major points necessary to make a decision on the construction and operation of the proposed Darlington used dry fuel storage facility. The following information was not addressed and the Screening Report should be revised to include this information: . The Municipality's comments on the revised EA Study Report should be considered and addressed in the Screening Report. . The draft Screening Report does not provide infonnation on the design and long-term integrity of the dry storage containers. The Municipality has expressed concern with respect to the integrity of the dry storage containers since the start of this process. As an expressed concern of a host community, this should be addressed in the Screening Report, . The EA Study Report discussed safety and environmental programs, This was not included in the draft Screening Report, As this provides information on the methods used by OPG to ensure visitor and employee safety and how risk to the environment is reduced, this is an important topic for the residents of Clarington and needs to be included in the Screening Report. 670 REPORT NO.: PSD-07S-03 PAGE 7 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The draft Screening Report concludes that the construction and operation of this facility will not result in any significant residual adverse environmental impacts. The Screening Report is the last stage in the federal environmental assessment process. The final Screening Report will be presented to a CNSC Hearing. 4.2 It is recommended that Council adopt this report and the comments of IER and submit them to the CNSC before June 30th, 2003 as the Municipality's comments on the revised EA Study Report and the draft Screening Report. 4.3 A key principal of the EA process is to ensure a completely transparent and traceable process where one can review the EA and clearly follow the decision making path. With respect to the selection of the preferred location, this EA did not provide a clearly transparent decision-making process. To ensure the integrity of the EA, this should be rectified. It is important to note that although traceability was not present, the final outcome would not change and Site 'B' would remain the preferred site. 4.4 The Municipality as the host community should have a more active role in cooperation with CNSC in the preparation of the follow-up and monitoring program. The attitude and survey program described within the draft Screening Report should be expanded and conducted within the regional study area and should be carried out for one year prior to and after the construction of each phase of the facility, 4.5 CNSC needs to improve the process for future environmental assessments. The release of the revised EA Study Report just prior to issuance of the draft Screening Report was unanticipated, Opportunity should be provided to stakeholders to review the revised EA Study Report and provide comments prior to the release of the draft Screening Report, otherwise there is no opportunity for stakeholders comments to be addressed in the draft Screening Report. 67! REPORT NO.: PSD-075-03 PAGE 8 It is also recommended that in order to ensure municipalities have an adequate time to review the documents and report to their Councils, the public commenting period be extended beyond the 30 day commenting period to a minimum of 60 days. It is impossible for the Municipality to provide comments to the CNSC within 30 days and very difficult to complete this task within 45 days, Extension of the commenting period will allow staff and consultants the time necessary to review these extensive reports, prepare comments and report to Council. Attachments: Attachment 1 - IER's Darlington Dry Used Fuel Storage Facility-Environmental Assessment Study Report date May 13, 2003 Attachment 2 - IER's Draft Screening Report-Darlington Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility dated May 23, 2003 , 672 REPORT NO.: PSD-075-03 PAGE 9 Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. Kurt Johansen, M.Eng., P. Eng. Project Manager - Environmental Assessment Nuclear Waste Management Division Ontario Power Generation 700 University Avenue Office H 16-E 14 Toronto. ON M5G 1X6 Mr. Don Howard Licensing Project Officer Waste and Decommissioning Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street P,O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, ON K1 P 5S9 Mr. Guy Riverin EA Specialist Processing Facilities and Technical Support Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O, Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, ON K1 P 5S9 Mr. Jim Micak IER - Planning, Research and Management Services 7501 Keele Street Suite 300 Concord, ON L4K 1Y2 Sierra Club of Canada Suite 412 1 Nicolas Street Ottawa, ON K1N 7B7 613 ATTACHMENT 1 Planning, Research and Management Services 7501 Keele Street Suite 300, Concord, Ontario L4K lY2 Telephone: (905) 660-1060 Fax: (905) 660-7812 e-mail: ier@inforamp.net May 13, 2003 r' --jT,j'l fT'o1F1"'1 , ,- i ; I'd ~').J~~:1_; Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LlC 3A6 Attention: Ms. Heather Brooks, MCIP, RPP Planner - Community Planning Branch Ii ji, , L 'All-ry U~ i~j!f\lG U~p;:\:,:r,r,< ..--.' Dear Ms. Brooks, Re: Darlinl!ton Drv Used Fuel Storal!e Facilitv Environmental Assessment Studv Report Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Revised Environmental Study Report. You have asked us to identify any outstanding concerns relative to the revisions to the Draft EA Study Report which were based, in part, on the Peer Review performed by IERlSCIMUS on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington. Our comments are as follows: 1. Volume 2 of Revised Environmental Assessment Study Report, Appendix D "Technical Review of Darlington Used Fuel Dry Storage Project Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report" On March 21,2003 IER provided Ms. Heather Brooks of the Municipality of Clarington with an electronic version of our comments on all Draft Responses by OPG to the Municipality of Clarington and IERlSCIMUS/NSE technical review of the Draft EA Study Report. Appendix D of Volume 2 of the Revised EASR does not provide OPG' s response to IER's comments, therefore, it is difficult to trace how our comments were addressed. For example, referring to IER-153 in Appendix D, IER disagreed with the OPG response and explained that bobolink would be more appropriate than Carolina Wren as a VEC. Similarly, with respect to IER-284, IER reiterated that the EAGLE project be reviewed as a source of information about contamination in the Great Lakes environment and the effects on Aboriginal People's health. It would be beneficial to know OPG's final position on these matters and several other comments submitted to Clarington with respect to OPG's responses to the IER Technical Review, IER recommends that Appendix D include OPG's disposition regarding IER's comments on OPG responses to the technical review, 674 - 2 - 2. Volume 2 of Revised EASR, Appendix E.1 "Summary of Site Selection Process" Appendix E.I provides a traceable evaluation of the eight Opportunity Locations using a four-level impact potential rating scheme. The evaluation could be improved, however, by revising Figure EI-2 to show all eight of the locations (we could only find seven) and to distinguish the locations as per the numbering scheme in Table E.I-l. It is evident from Table E.I-I why Site B wa~ considered to be the preferable project location at the outset of the EA and why Sites A, C and D were considered to be good alternative locations that could be acceptable, depending on future circumstances and further study. We do question, however, why Opportunity Location 4 (Candidate C) did not have a higher impact potential for terrestrial ecology given the number of concerns raised in the review of the Terrestrial TSD (See IER-133, 135, 137, 139, 146, 156, and 160 and associated "Draft Responses" and "IER Comments" provided in our March 21, 2003 submission to the Municipality of Clarington). It is not clear why a weighting system similar to that shown in Table E.I-I was not used during the final selection of project location. Chapter 4 of Appendix E.I still does not provide a traceable explanation of why Site B was the preferred location after completing the EA process. For example, referring to IER-15l in Appendix D, Table 4.8-1 from the Terrestrial TSD would suggest that Site A is better than Site B but the response indicates that the selection of Site B was based on a number of factors, not just terrestrial environment. It would be beneficial to include a chart similar to Table E.I-I that would provide a summary of the evaluation using a rating scheme. 3. Follow-Up and Monitoring Program Again referring to IER's March 21, 2003 submission to Clarington, IER stresses the importance of follow-up and monitoring with respect to potential social impacts resulting from the continued operation of the DUFDS facility (reference: IER-221). IER recommends that attitude and field surveys be undertaken when each new section of the DUFDS facility is commissioned. Furthermore, IER recommends that the survey questionnaire be revised to canvas attitudes about the increasing presence of nuclear waste and facilities in Clarington and other nuclear facilities in the Region of Durham. For this reason, perhaps the attitude surveys should be extended to the Regional Study Area to determine Regional attitudes about the increase in nuclear related facilities in Durham, This could lead to a residual social impact and mitigation could be necessary. Furthermore, this residual social impact when combined with potential social impacts from other existing or future nuclear projects could cause a cumulative social effect which also may require mitigation. While the Revised EASR states that".... the project offers little potential for the attribution of stigma", this could change in time. 675 " - 3 - IER strongly recommends that the Municipality of Clarington take a proactive role in the process for developing the final scope of the follow-up and monitoring program as reflected in Section 11.2.3 of the Revised EASR. This will ensure a structured approach towards surveying and will enable Clarington to be involved at an early stage in any Community Agreements that could arise from emerging social impacts. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about our review. Yours truly, ~ . 0Jtk~ David Matchett, P. Eng. Manager, Environmental Services DM:jc 676 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning, Research and Management Services May 23, 2003 7501 Keele Street, Suite 300, Concord, Ontario L4K 1Y2 Telephone: (905) 660-1060 Fax: (905) 660-7812 e-mail: ier@inforarn .net ]1)) Tt'CCIElr\VT~rm" I l['0.lY ,'''''.. I 1'/ MAY 2 6 7;103 I I "U"'I("P "1' ." 'P' 'd"" ' '\I 'I~. JI h~!, U~, L.:"~\',iI'J:..ilur\j PLA~'r'ilr'il' ,1cPA,-:::nili~r\'1 ~~,'.:;.:..._:.....:..~~~.:...~"~ Municipality ofClarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LlC 3A6 Attention: Ms. Heather Brooks, MCIP, RPP Planner - Community Planning Branch Dear Ms. Brooks, Re: Draft Screeninl!: Report - Darlinl!:ton Used Fuel Dry Storal!:e Facility Further to our telephone conversation of Tuesday, May 20, 2003, we have reviewed the Draft Screening Report which we received from the CNSC on May 20, 2003 and our comments are as follows. The Draft Screening Report provides an adequate summary of the Environmental Assessment Study Report (EASR). Based on our initial review we noted that several pieces of information were left out as the several hundred page EASR was distilled down to 70 pages. As a minimum, the following information should be included in the Screening Report to produce a more complete document: I. We received the Draft Screening Report and Request for Public Comment by courier on May 20, 2003. The Revised Environmental Assessment Study Report on which the Screening Report was based, was delivered to Clarington on May 2, 2003 with a covering letter asking Clarington to advise CNSC if there were any serious concerns about the manner in which Clarington's concerns were handled. You, in turn, couriered the Revised EASR to IER (received May 6) and asked that we conduct a review and provide comments to you by May 16,2003. We sent our comments to you by courier and I understand you received them on May 16. Clearly, CNSC did not wait for Clarington's comments on the Draft EA Study Report and our concerns regarding the Draft EASR should be carried over to the Draft Screening Report, A copy of our letter of May 15, 2003 is attached as our comments apply equally to the Draft Screening Report. 677 ! - --'~ . - 2 - 2. In Section 7.2 "Description of the Components of the Project", there is no reference to information on the design and long-term integrity of the Dry Storage Containers as set out in Appendix E.2 of Volume 2 of the EASR and referenced in Section 2.4.1 (p. 2-5) of Volume I of the EASR. This is an important issue because it was brought up by Clarington during the dispositioning of public comments on the Draft EA Guidelines and OPG was advised to address it. 3. There is no discussion in the Draft Screening Report on Safety and Environmental Programs as discussed in Section 2.7 of Volume I of the EASR. It may be that the CNSC is not so concerned with these at this stage since they should be more closely scrutinized during the licensing process. Generally CNSC staff captured the major points for a go/no go decision and left the stage open to deal with some of the more detailed issues at a future time in the process, We recommend that Clarington should convey a strong desire to CNSC to be directly involved in any future activities including follow-up and monitoring. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about our review of the Draft Screening Report. Yours truly, 'LW~ David Matchett, M. Eng., P. Eng. Manager, Environmental Services DM:jc 678