HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-028-02
"t' -~,'
~...
it"
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
;:o:i
PLN 33.4.3
Monday, April 8, 2002
PSD-028-02 File #:
6PfJ-lt7-o ~
By-law #:
Subject:
DRAFTSCOPEOFTHEEN~RONMENTALASSESSMENTFOR
THE PORT GRANBY LONG TERM LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-028-02 be received;
2. THAT Report PSD-028-02 be approved as the comments of the Municipality of
Clarington on the document entitled "Draft Scope of the Environmental Assessment for
the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Project," dated
February 20, 2002 FORTHWITH;
3. THAT a copy of Report PSD-028-Q2 and Council's resolution be forwarded to Natural
Resources Canada; and
4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Dav [I. Crome, MCIP,R.P.P.
DireCtor, Planning Services
Reviewed by:
C htJJ2_ ~
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS*BN*DJC*df
April 2, 2002
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
687
i t 1{"'" .I.
~
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE 2
1.0 SACKGROUND
From 1955 to 1988, low level radioactive waste (LLRW) from the former
Eldorado Nuclear Limited plant in Port Hope was deposited at a site in the former
Township of Clarke. This site, known as the Port Granby Waste Management
Facility, is licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission but is not
adequate for the safe long term storage and management of the waste.
In 2001, the Municipality and the Government of Canada announced the signing
of a legal agreement under which both parties agreed to work towards
developing a facility on the existing licensed site for the secure long-term storage
and management of the LLRW. Under the terms of the Agreement, an
environmental assessment (EA) for the Port Granby Project (the Project) will be
undertaken pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEM).
The scope of the Project and the scope of the factors to be included in the EA
are determined by the Responsible Authorities (ie. federal decision makers) and
are to be defined in a Scope document. On February 20, 2002, Natural
Resources Canada (NRCan), as the lead Responsible Authority (RA) for the
Project, released a draft document entitled "Scope of the Environmental
Assessment for the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Management Project".
NRCan and the other RAs are requesting the public and other stakeholders to
provide comments on the draft EA Scope document. The public consultation
period runs from Monday, February 25, 2002 to Thursday, April 11, 2002. The
RAs will consider the comments provided in their final review of the EA Scope
document. The finalized EA Scope document is expected to be released in May
2002.
688
...:~ .j.
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S..o2
PAGE 3
This staff report has two purposes. The first purpose is to provide Council with a
brief overview of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Process and the draft
EA Scope document for the Port Granby Project. The second purpose is to
provide the Municipality's comments on the draft EA Scope document. Staff was
assisted by the consulting firm Hardy Stevenson in the preparation of these
comments. A summary of the comments is provided Section 5. The consultant's
report is Attachment 1 to this report.
Public comments on the draft EA Scope document are also summarized in this
report, including a letter submitted from Mr. John Stevenson considered by
Council on April 2, 2002 and referred to staff.
A copy of the draft EA Scope document and the full text of the consultant's
comments are available in the Planning Services Department for review.
2.0 CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
CEM provides for both RAs and the proponent for a Project to be identified. In
addition to NRCan, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have been identified as RAs for the
Port Granby Project. The LLRW Management Office (LLRWMO) has been
identified as the proponent for the Project and is responsible for preparing the
EA study report.
Once the finalized EA Scope has been released, the proponent will develop a
program to outline the work required through the EA to meet the requirements of
the Scope document. The RAs are responsible for ensuring that this work
program, as well as the work undertaken for the EA, is performed in accordance
with both the Scope document and the CEM.
689
.
,
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE 4
As part of the EA, the proponent will develop alternatives means for the
management of the waste in consultation with the Municipality and the public.
Each of these alternatives will be assessed and, as the EA progresses, the
proponent will narrow down the alternatives and develop a preferred alternative
for undertaking the project in consultation with the municipality and the public.
This preferred alternative will be reflected in the EA study report prepared by the
proponent and submitted to the RAs for review. The RAs will use the EA study
report as the basis for the preparation of a screening report and to make a
determination under CEM regarding the significance of the environmental
effects of the Project.
3.0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE DOCUMENT
3.1 Purpose and Description of the Project
The draft Scope states that the purpose of the Port Granby Project: is: "to clean
up and provide appropriate local long-term management of low-level radioactive
wastes and marginally contaminated soils currently located in Clarington that are
associated with the Port Granby Waste Management Facility."
The Port Granby Project is described as consisting of "in-place stabilization of
the low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soils at the existing
Port Granby Waste Management Facility, with possible relocation of some
wastes to a waste management mound to be located within the boundaries of
the present licenced site." This description of the Project reflects management
option 82 recommended by Council in August 1999 and adopted by federal
government as a potential solution for the long-term management of the Port
Granby waste.
6QO
, ~,~ -;I.
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE 5
3.2 Alternatives To the Project
The draft Scope notes that since the 1970s, various efforts to resolve the issue
of the Port Hope area low-level radioactive wastes, including those at the Port
Granby site, were unsuccessful. As such, it is not considered appropriate to
require that alternatives to the Project be evaluated in this environmental
assessment.
3.3 Alternative Means
The draft Scope requires altemative means of carrying out the Project to be
considered in the EA. Altemative means are the various ways that the Project
can be implemented or carried out. Altemative means considered may range
from alternative methods of development, implementation and mitigation, to
alternative transportation routes and locations.
The draft Scope suggests that the EA for the Port Granby Project should
consider a number of alternative means, including the construction and operation
of a long-term low-level radioactive waste management facility sited away from
the Lake Ontario shoreline in the vicinity of the existing site.
3.4 Type of Assessment
The CEM provides for either a screening study or a comprehensive study to be
undertaken, depending on the specific characteristics of a project. A screening
level assessment is being prepared for the Port Granby Project, and is required
to address the environmental effects of the Project, including any cumulative
environmental effects, and appropriate mitigative measures.
A screening level assessment is not required to address as many factors as a
comprehensive level assessment. However, the draft EA Scope document
691
. "!. _T .!.
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S-02
PAGE 6
proposes to require the assessment to also address all of the factors required for
a comprehensive study, including the need for and purpose of the Project,
alternative means of carrying out the Project, and the need for and requirements
of any follow-up program in respect of the Project.
The draft Scope defines "environment" to include both biophysical components
(atmosphere, geophysical, aquatic, terrestrial, and radiation) and the social and
economic components (population, economic base, community infrastructure,
renewable and non-renewable resource use, existing and planned land use,
landscape, heritage, cultural or archaeological sites, recreation areas, and use
by aboriginal persons).
3.5 Public and Stakeholder Consultation Program
The draft Scope states that the EA should be completed in consultation with the
public and other stakeholders, and that an extensive public consultation program
must be established that keeps the community and stakeholders fully informed
about the Project.
4.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public have submitted the following comments to the federal
government on the draft Scope:
. The potential impacts from truck traffic on Lakeshore Road are not
adequately addressed.
. All of the waste should be stored in a remote site in northern Canada.
Members of the former LLRW Advisory Committee appointed by Council in 1999
submitted the following comments to NRCan on March 28, 2002:
. Alternative means to the Project must be considered in the EA, including
6q2
.' . ,. . _.!
,
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE 7
the construction of a 15 to 20 metre deep trench on the north side of the
site and the installation of a stainless steel barrier into the ground. This
would intercept groundwater flow through the East Gorge and eliminate
the need to move the waste form the Gorge.
. The evaluation of an engineered storage mound on the north side of
Lakeshore Road is completely unacceptable and would represent an
"alternative to" the Project.
. Concerned that the design selected by Clarington Council is considered
to be the "Reference Design" against which "altemative means" are
compared.
. The purpose of the Project should be ''to stabilize the site so as to
contain the waste materials for a minimum period of 500 years".
A second letter from Mr. John Stephenson, on behalf of former Advisory
Committee members, was considered by Council on April 2, 2002 and referred to
the Planning Department. This letter reiterated the comment on the "Trench
Concept", and also requested Council to recognize and support their
stakeholders group. The letter noted that it is very important that a group of
citizens, preferably from the Port Granby area, be nominated by Council to
represent local residents. The letter also questioned the adequacy of the present
communication system being used by the federal government.
In response to Council's direction, Staff has reviewed the letter from Mr.
Stephenson and has the following comments:
693
, .
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE S
. It is important that a number of alternatives to managing the waste be
considered through the EA to ensure that the best possible option is selected.
However, the EA cannot be restricted to only studying management options
that involve in-situ stabilization of the site. The concept recommended by
Council and the "Trench Concept" have not been subjected to the rigorous
scrutiny demanded by the Canadian environmental assessment process. It is
important that the EA examine all potential solutions to ensure that the
management option selected is in the best interests of current and future
residents.
. The importance of an effective public participation program throughout the
environmental assessment cannot be understated. Public acceptance of the
Project cannot be accomplished without effective public participation and
involvement. The draft Scope directs the proponent to develop an effective
program to consult with the public and stakeholders throughout the EA
process. This program should be developed in consultation with the
Municipality and the public. In this way, the various stakeholders in the
process, including the members of the former LLRW Advisory Committee and
the residents in the vicinity of the existing site, can be assured that they will be
able to effectively participate in the process of selecting the best option for the
long term storage and management of the Port Granby wastes.
5.0 MUNICIPALITY'S COMMENTS
5.1 The following is a summary of the Municipality's comments on the draft EA Scope
document, including the comments provided by Hardy Stevenson. The full text of
the comments provided by the consultant will be forwarded to NRCan under
separate cover.
694
REPORT NO.: PSO-o2S-02
PAGE 9
Restructure EA Scope document
The draft Scope appears to present the management option endorsed by
Council in August 1999 as the preferred concept. This impression is further
reinforced by the minimal discussion of alternative means and how they are to be
evaluated. The draft Scope must be restructured to indicate that many
alternative means to managing the Port Granby waste will be evaluated, and that
each of these will be subject to rigorous evaluation and scrutiny.
Document the analysis leading to the 'Reference Alternative'
The Draft EA Scope Document states that the Port Granby Project consists of in-
place stabilization of the low-level radioactive waste and marginally
contaminated wastes at the Port Granby Waste Management Facility, with
possible relocation of some wastes to a waste management mound to be located
within the boundaries of the present licensed site. The choice of this alternative
appears premature, given there are several key issues yet to be resolved with
respect to this alternative. The preferred alternative should be established only
after reviewing all other options available.
Do not assess 'alternatives to' the Project
Given the extent of previous efforts to relocate the waste, alternatives to the
Project should not be considered. The legal agreement between the
Municipality and the federal government is premised on a local solution to the
problem.
Evaluate al/ reasonable alternative means to the Project
It is important that the EA examine all reasonable altemative means to the long
term management of the Port Granby wastes to ensure that the management
option selected is economically and technically feasible and is in the best
interests of current and future residents.
695
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S..o2
PAGE 10
Specify that alternative locations for the Project are to be on CAMECO
lands
The draft EA does not currently limit the area within which alternative locations
for the Project may be considered. The EA Scope must specifically state that
these alternative locations shall be on CAMECO lands in the vicinity of the
existing waste site.
Identify and assess all local alternatives sites on CAMECO lands
NRCan has indicated that several local Port Granby sites may be assessed on
lands owned by CAMECO, but beyond the licensed site boundaries. These sites
should be identified and assessed. The selection of the preferred alternative
then needs to be justified based on a comparative evaluation of all site
alternatives. Without a comparative evaluation, the EA runs the risk of
eliminating alternatives under different and often inconsistent criteria and
circumstances. Without a defendable case in the EA for the selection of the
alternative, it could become hard to obtain general consensus on the alternative
chosen for implementation.
Given the need for a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, the adequacy of
a screening level assessment proposed in the EA Scope Document may have to
be revisited, and potentially, a comprehensive level assessment could be
required. A comprehensive assessment could understandably take longer to
complete, require larger resources, and demand greater management attention
on the part of the Municipality as a key stakeholder in the Project.
Develop a criterion for passive care-taking
It is necessary that the Project be designed so that the need for care-taking
activities is kept to a minimum in the long-term. The ability to minimize long-term
696
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S..o2
PAGE 11
maintenance is contingent on the technical merits of the site and the alternative
considered in terms of long-term performance. The degree of care-taking
required (i.e. passive management vs. against active management) should be
considered as an evaluation criterion for the alternatives.
Expedite studies requested by Clarington Council
The various studies commissioned by the Council are key to assessing the
adequacy of the in-place stabilization concept. These studies should be
expeditiously completed, peer reviewed, and information made available such
that the EA Study could be appropriately structured in terms of the scope of the
Project.
Concept alternatives need to be assessed such as for the engineered
Barrier, shoreline toe, and leachate collection systems
The in-place stabilization concept relies among other things on an engineered
barrier - steel sheeting -- to prevent groundwater from contacting the waste.
Steel sheeting is susceptible to corrosion and degradation. There are other
altemative ways for protecting the waste from groundwater intrusion, such as the
use of bentonite clay or concrete. Other types of barriers should be assessed
and the barrier of choice selected in the development of the alternative. There
should also be additional evaluation of alternative means of developing the
shoreline toe and leachate collection system.
Undertake detailed soil testing for contamination around the waste site
Due to past hydro-geological history of the site, it is possible that the waste
nuclides have migrated around the site potentially in soil plumes in the direction
of the flow. This could put additional burden on the characterization of the buried
waste and determination of the amount of waste that actually needs to be
contained or relocated. Detailed soil testing studies should be carried out around
697
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S-02
PAGE 12
the waste to determine the extent to which radioactivity migration might have
taken place.
Study potential lake-bottom contamination along the shoreline and its
cleanup.
It is also possible that historical patterns of groundwater flow and wetting of the
waste might have resulted in contamination of the lake bottom at the locations
where the groundwater discharges to the lake. Studies should be undertaken to
review this effect and put in place measures if needed to dredge the lake bottom
and for its cleanup.
Assess future changes in Lake Ontario water levels
Long-term changes in Lake Ontario levels need to be assessed as part of the
environmental assessment study. Factors such as climate change should be
included. High water levels also need to be assessed. These changes should be
considered in terms of potential effects on shoreline and near-shore erosion
mechanisms.
Include a full range of technical design options
The environmental assessment study must include the assessment of the full
range of technical design options, including assessment of socio-economic and
ecosystem effects.
Assess impacts of loss of institutional control
Any loss of institutional control during the long-term could result in breach of
public and environmental safety once the control is lost. The EA should provide
assessments of such a state of loss of control and its impacts on the public and
the environment.
698
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S-o2
PAGE 13
Describe necessary long term institutional control measures
The Project description should include description of institutional control systems
needed for providing long-term stewardship of the waste. This should include
such things as: systems that are required; type of workers who will provide long
term monitoring: financing: and the organizational set-up.
Assess long term land-uses
To account for future land use changes in the vicinity of the site, long-term
assessment of possible future land uses should be included as part of the
environmental assessment study. Creation of amenities for the public should be
developed as part of the facility design to offset visual impact, loss of aesthetics
and other adverse effects from facility structures (such as shoreline engineering,
storage mounds, and gorge modifications).
Expand the scope of consultation to include other governments and
institutions
The environmental effects from the Project will cross the established boundaries.
These effects may include traffic, construction-related activities etc., and as such
it is necessary that affected areas in Durham Region are included in the study
scope. Durham Region, the Ganaraska Region Conservation, International Joint
Commission and other organizations should be encouraged to become involved
in the consultation process.
Involve First Nations early in the process
Local First Nations must be formally engaged in the consultation program on a
government-to-government basis, starting from the early stages, such as the
review of the Draft EA Scope Document. A formal consultation process should
be expeditiously put in place with the First Nations.
699
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S-02
PAGE 14
Follow Privy Council Office principles on public consultation
Proposed public consultation approach should be enhanced to ensure that the
recent guidelines on consulting with the public, issued by Canada's Privy Council
are incorporated into the public consultation program. More specifically, the EA
Scope Document should describe how it would ensure adherence to the
principles established by the Privy Council.
Provide information beyond the Public Registry
Accessing the Federal Environmental Assessment Index is not likely to be easy
or convenient for the public. Furthermore, information available on the Federal
Environmental Assessment Index is very limited. Channels of communications
should be used that are more intuitive to the public and more widely known.
Define roles and responsibilities of other federal and provincial
departments
The Draft EA Scope Document identifies several relevant departments that will
participate in the environmental assessment. Additional detail is needed to
describe the nature and type of interactions with those Departments and
participation that is planned.
Evaluate the Public Consultation Process
A public consultation process can typically be evaluated through review of the
proposed activities and activities actually completed against the process
expectations such as the Privy Council guidelines. The quality of the public
consultation process should be evaluated using a 'consecutive evaluation'
approach at the end of each significant step of the EA study.
69~Of
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S..o2
PAGE 15
Provide a full opportunity for C/arington residents to participate in the EA
process
A comprehensive community consultation program should be developed that
provides communities not only opportunities to review and comment, but to be
part of the decision-making process. The following specific recommendations
are provided:
. Involve communities in deciding what constitutes "economic" or ''technical''
feasibility. Work with communities to also identify "environmental" and "
social" feasibility as additional evaluation criteria. Specify how evaluation
criteria are to be weighed and ranked.
. Involve the Council, staff, the local community and other stakeholders in
decisions on what constitutes a 'valued ecosystem component'. In addition,
these stakeholders should be involved in reviewing scopes of work and
results of various studies such as exposure pathway modeling and socio-
economic studies.
. The community involvement should be part of a larger long-term program that
extends throughout the life of the facility. It is only with full community
involvement that public acceptance can be eventually sought, and not
otherwise. It is also necessary to evaluate the contingency of not being able
to obtain public acceptance to the Project.
. Community education programs including radiation and radiation safety
should be part of the communications process so as to alleviate community
concerns on the overall safety of the Project.
69902
REPORT NO.: PSO-o2S..o2
PAGE 16
Provide for Municipal input on public consultation plan
There is an opportunity for some of the issues raised here to be resolved through
the preparation of a 'public consultation plan'. A formal document should be
prepared and Council should have the opportunity to provide input to this
document. The criteria provided earlier should assist in evaluating consultation
plan proposals.
. The EA Scope Document requires that a proposed 'public consultation plan'
be submitted to the RAs for review in April-June 2002. Clarington Council,
staff, residents and other stakeholders should be allowed to comment on the
proposed public consultation plan before the plan is finalized.
. The consultation plan should use a variety of methods for soliciting, tracking
and responding to community concerns. A stakeholder list should be
maintained. All community concerns should be methodically addressed using
tracking and response mechanisms with full disclosure of information.
. There should be opportunities to review and comment on documents and
decisions at key stages of the process. Decisions made during the EA
should be 'transparent' - the public should be able to clearly see who is
making the decision and understand how the decisions are being made.
Clarify assumptions for the socio-economic impact analysis
Assumptions to be made in Socio-Economic Impact Analysis should be clarified at
the outset of the study to ensure that all factors have been addressed. It may
also be helpful to arrange the socio-economic analysis according to the phases
(environmental assessment phase; construction; operation and maintenance; if
applicable, decommission/abandonment) of the project considering different
situations and impacts that may arise across different phases.
69903
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S..o2
PAGE 17
Use a range of methodologies to assess socio-economic and socio-cultural
effects
Given the long-term horizon of the project, it is important to use a range of
methodologies in projecting anticipated effects. Besides "straight line" projections,
the EA Scope Document require assessors to consider using the following as
tools to examine anticipated effects:
. Comparisons of effects in similar or related projects;
. Frameworks from social science theories and effects that would be predicted
should the theory play itself out (e.g., diffusion of innovations, environmental
stress theory);
. Expert testimony;
. Multiplier methods;
. Calculation of scenarios if certain conditions are not available (e.g., if there is
no lakefront recreation, how does this impact other variables).
Implement meaningful timelines
Rather than adopting rigid time periods for comment, EA timelines should be
established and refined on the basis of sensible criteria. Using criteria will
ensure that sufficient time is allocated to the required tasks, that these tasks are
conducted at an appropriate time, and that adequate input is provided through
public consultation. The criteria leading to the selection of specific timelines
should include the following factors:
. The volume of work to be undertaken at each step
. Appropriateness of the proposed sequence of activities
. The need for full year or multi-season baseline data (e.g. groundwater
elevations)
/19904
'. .r !
REPORT NO.: PSD..o2S..o2
PAGE 1S
. The need for work to be conducted at the appropriate season (for example,
biological inventories in spring/summer)
. Urgency
. Timely production of responses to submissions
Implement meaningful and sensible time/ines for Clarington consultation
activities
Sensible timelines should also be developed for obtaining public consultation
within the Port Granby EA process for Clarington consultation activities taking
into consideration the following factors:
. The volume and complexity of material to be reviewed
. Whether consultation opportunities are timed so that there is an opportunity
to comment at critical stages of the process
. Reasonable timeframes for review and production of a formal response
where required (for example, considering the review cycle of a municipality,
and traditional breaks such as summer, spring break, and elections)
. Seasonal commitments of stakeholders and the public (e.g. public and
religious holidays, farming activities, seasonal presence of cottagers, more
relevant to timing of public events than review of documents)
. Issues requiring more time to resolve with the proponent
. Extent to which the public is kept informed of the progress of the project and
technical findings on an ongoing basis, rather than being faced with
intermittent release of large volumes of new technical material
. Extent to which stakeholders and the public have the benefit of government
responses to the relevant material when making comments
69905
,
, '
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S..o2
PAGE 19
. Whether stakeholders will need to retain additional expertise to review the
material
. Extent to which the proponent is prepared to be flexible when the public has
difficulty in meeting deadlines
Change sequencing of definition of alternatives and assessment
The Draft EA Scope Document calls for the environmental effects to be
assessed before alternatives are established. These steps need to be reversed.
The evaluation of potential effects should not be undertaken until the design and
nature of the project have been established or confirmed through the
consideration of alternatives. If the project does change as a result of the
consideration of altematives, time and effort used for assessment would be
wasted and additional time would be required to redevelop baseline data and to
evaluate changes.
Establish protocol for responding to submissions
The EA Scope Document should specify the proponent's protocol for responding
to concerns and requests for information in the Consultation Plan.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The EA scope document for the Port Granby Project must establish an
appropriate framework for the environmental assessment process to ensure that
the option selected for the long-term management of the Port Granby wastes is
in the best interests of current and future residents of Clarington. In this regard, a
full evaluation of all viable options is required. As well, ensuring the effective
participation of the Municipality and the public throughout the entire EA process
is critical.
69906
,
REPORT NO.: PSD-02S..o2
PAGE 20
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management
Project - Strategic Review and Recommendations to the Municipality of
Clarington on the Scope of the Environmental Assessment and Public
Consultation; Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited, April 2, 2002
forwarded under separate cover)
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Sharon Baillie-Malo
Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division
Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street
Ottawa, ON KiA OE4
Mike Rostetter, Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of Port Hope
56 Queen Street
P.O Box 117
Port Hope, ON L 1 A 3V9
Mr. John Stephenson
5300 Old Scugog Road
Hampton, ON LOB 1 JO
69907
l' , l .
ATTACHMENT #1
TO
REPORT PSD-028-02
PORT GRANBY LONG-TERM LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROJECT
'~
.
,
ATTACHMEINT 1
PORT GRANBY LONG-TERM LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
STRATEGIC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
April 2, 2002
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
364 Davenport Road
Toronto, Ontario MSR lK6
416-944-8444
1-877-267-7794 Toll Free
,~
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Executive Summary
Introduction
Review of the Project
Malfunctions and Accidents
Timeframes
Study Areas
Public and Stakeholder Consultation Program
Process Steps and Involvement of Clarington Council
Socio-economic Analysis
Environmental Assessment Process
References
Page
iii
I
3
7
9
IO
11
16
I7
19
25
26
27
28
30
31
APPENDICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Public Consultation Principles
Privy Council's Checklist for Public Participation
Proposed Clarington Public Consultation Process (Flow Sheet)
Timelines for EA Process (Chart) ,
Additional Comments on Draft EA Scope Document
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
't
III
PORT GRANBY LONG-TERM LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
STRATEGIC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
ON THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hardy Stevenson and Associates have been retained by the Municipality of Clarington to
provide assistance with respect to the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Project (referred hereafter as "the Project").
Within the terms of the agreement for providing the assistance, the Municipal staff
requested Hardy Stevenson and Associates to undertake a review of the Draft Scope of
the Environmental Assessment for the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Project (hereafter referred to as the "Draft EA Scope Document"),
prepared by Natural Resources Canada, the prime Responsible Authority (RA) for the
Project.
This Report summarizes the strategic review and recommendations on the Draft EA
Scope Document and the Public Consultation Process. The key recommendations are
listed below.
Hardy Stevenson and Associates are grateful to the Municipality of Clarington for
providing this opportunity for serving the Municipality and residents of the Town of
Clarington.
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Analvsis Leadinl! to the Reference Alternative Needs to be
Documented
The Draft EA Scope Document states that the Port Granby Project consists of in-
place stabilization of the low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated
wastes at the Port Granby Waste Management Facility, with possible relocation of
some wastes to a waste management mound to be located within the boundaries of
the present licensed site. The choice of tWs alternative appears premature, given
there are several key issues yet to be resolved with respect to this alternative. It is
recommended that the preferred alternative be established only after reviewing all
other options available.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
.
IV
Recommendation 2: Analvsis of All Local Alternative Sites on CAMECO Lands
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the lead Responsihle Authority (RA), has
indicated that several local Port Granby sites may be assessed on lands owned by
CAMECO, but beyond the licensed site boundaries. In our opinion, these sites
should be identified and assessed. The selection of the preferred alternative then
needs to be justified based on a comparative evaluation of all site alternatives.
Without a comparative evaluation, the EA runs the risk of eliminating alternatives
under different and often inconsistent criteria and circumstances. Without a
defendable case in the EA for the selection of the alternative, it could become hard
to obtain general consensus on the alternative chosen for implementation.
Given the need for a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, the adequacy of a
screening level assessment proposed in the EA Scope Document may have to be
revisited, and potentially, a comprehensive level assessment could be required. A
comprehensive assessment could understandably take longer to complete, require
larger resources, and demand greater management attention on the part of the
Municipality as a key stakeholder in the Project.
Recommendation 3: Passive Care-takinl! Criterion
It is necessary that the Project be designed so that the need for care-taking activities
is kept to a minimum in the long-term. The ability to minimize long-term
maintenance is contingent on the technical merits of the site and the alternative
considered in terms of long-term performance. We recommend that the degree of
care-taking required (i.e. passive management as against active management) be
considered as an evaluation criterion for the alternatives.
Recommendation 4: Studies ReQuested bv the Clarinlrton Council
The various studies commissioned by the Council are key to assessing the adequacy
of the in-place stabilization concept. These studies should be expeditiously
completed, peer reviewed, and information made available such that the EA Study
could be appropriately structured in terms of the scope of the Project.
Recommendation 5: Concept alternatives need to be assessed such as for the
Enl!ineered Barrier. Shoreline Toe. and Leachate Collection Svstems
The in-place stabilization concept relies among other things on an engineered
barrier - steel sheeting -- to prevent groundwater from contacting the waste. Steel
sheeting is susceptible to corrosion and degradation. There are other alternative
ways for protecting the waste from groundwater intrusion, such as the use of
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
"f',
v
bentonite clay or concrete. It is recommended that other types of barriers be
assessed and barrier of choice selected in the development of the alternative.
There should also be additioual evaluation of alternative means of developing the
shoreline toe and leachate collection system.
Recommendation 6: Detailed Soil Testine for Contamination Around the Waste Site
Due to past hydro-geological history of the site, it is possible that the waste nuclides
have migrated around the site potentially in soil plumes in the direction of the flow.
This could put additional burden on the characterization of the buried waste and
determination of the amount of waste that actually needs to be contained or
relocated. It is recommended that detailed soil testing studies be carried out around
the waste to determine the extent to which radioactivity migration might have taken
place.
Recommendation 7: Potential Lake-bottom Contamination alone the shoreline and
its Cleanup.
It is also possible that historical patterns of groundwater flow and wetting of the
waste might have resulted in contamination of the lake bottom at the locations
where the groundwater discharges to the lake. Studies are recommended to review
this effect and put in place measures if needed to dredge the lake bottom and for its
cleanup.
Recommendation 8: Lake Ontario Level Chanl!es
Long-term changes in Lake Outario levels need to be assessed as part of the
environmental assessment study. Factors such as climate change should be
included. High water levels also need to be assessed. These changes should be
considered in terms of potential effects on shoreline and near-shore erosion
mechanisms.
Recommendation 9: Full Ranl!e of Technical Desil!n Options
The environmental assessment study must include the assessment of the full range of
technical design options, including assessment of socio-economic and ecosystem
effects.
Recommendation 10: Loss ofInstitutional Control
Any loss of institutional control during the long-term could result in breach of
public and environmental safety once the control is lost. The EA should provide
assessments of such a state of loss of control and its impacts .on the public and the
environment.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04102
"
VI
Recommendation 11: Lonl!: Term Institutional Control Measures
The Project description should include description of institutional control systems
needed for providing long-term stewardship of the waste. This should include such
things as: systems that are required; type of workers who will provide long term
monitoring; financing; and the organizational set-up.
Recommendation 12: Lonl!: Term Land-Uses
To account for future land use changes in the vicinity of the site we recommend that
a long-term assessment of possible future land uses be included as part of the
environmental assessment study. Creation of amenities for the public should be
developed as part of the facility design to offset visual impact, loss of aesthetics and
other adverse effects from facility structures (such as shoreline engineering, storage
mounds, and gorge modifications).
Recommendation 13: EXDand the ScoDe of Consultation to Include other
Governments and Institutions
The environmental effects from the Project will cross the established boundaries.
These effects may include traffic, construction-related activities etc., and as such it is
necessary that affected areas in Durham Region are included in the study scope.
Durham Region, the Ganaraska Region Conservation, International Joint
Commission and other organizations should be encouraged to become involved in
the consultation process.
Recommendation 14: First Nations
Local First Nations must be formally engaged in the consultation program on a
government-to-government basis, starting from the early stages, such as the review
of the Draft EA Scope Document. It is recommended that a formal consultation
process be expeditiously put in place with the First Nations.
Recommendation 15: Privv Council Office PrinciDles
Proposed public consultation approach should be enhanced to ensure that the recent
guidelines on consulting with the public, issued by Canada's Privy Council are
incorporated into the public consultation program (See Executive Summary-
Appendix 1). More specifically, the EA Scope Document should describe how it
would ensure adherence to the principles established by the Privy Council (See
Executive Summary-Appendix 2 for a check list).
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby WaSle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04102
,... "
VII
Recommendation 16: Information Bevond Public Rel!istrv
Accessing the Federal Environmental Assessment Index is not likely to be easy or
convenient for the public. Furthermore, information available on the Federal
Environmental Assessment Index is very limited. It is recommended that channels
of communications that are more intuitive to the public and more widely known be
used.
Recommendation 17: Roles and Responsibilities of Other Federal and Provincial
Departments
The Draft EA Scope Document identifies several relevant departments that will
participate in the environmental assessment. Additional detail is needed to describe
the nature and type of interactions with those Departments and participation that is
planned.
Recommendation 18: Evaluation of the Public Consultation Process
A pnblic consultation process can typically be evaluated through review of the
proposed activities and activities actually completed against the process expectations
such as the Privy Council guidelines. We recommend that the quality of the public
consultation process be evaluated using a 'consecutive evaluation' approach at the
end of each significant step of the EA study.
Recommendation 19: Full Opportunitv for Clarinlrton residents to participate in the
EA process
It is recommended that a comprehensive community consultation program be
developed that provides communities not only opportunities to review and
comment, but to be part of the decision-making process. We offer the following
specific recommendations:
. Involve communities in deciding what constitutes "economic" or ''technical''
feasibility. Work with communities to also identify "environmental" and"
social" feasibility as additional evaluation criteria. Specify how evaluation
criteria are to be weighed and ranked.
. Involve the Council, staff, the local community and other stakeholders in
decisions on what constitutes a 'valued ecosystem component'. In addition,
these stakeholders should be involved in reviewing scopes of work and results
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
" ...'
VIII
of various studies such as exposure pathway modeling and socio-economic
studies.
. The community involvement should be part of a larger long-term program
that extends throughout the life of the facility (see Appendix 3: 'Proposed
Clarington Public Consultation Process for Port Granby Project'). It is only
with full community involvement that public acceptance can be eventually
sought, and not otherwise. It is also necessary to evaluate the contingency of
not being able to obtain public acceptance to the Project.
. Community education programs including radiation and radiation safety
should be part of the communications process so as to alleviate community
concerns on the overall safety of the Project.
Recommendation 20: Consultation Plan
There is an opportunity for some of the issues raised here to be resolved through the
preparation of a 'public consnltation plan'. A formal document should be
prepared. Clarington Council should insist on having the opportunity to provide
input to this document. The criteria provided earlier should assist in evaluating
consnltation plan proposals.
. The EA Scope Document requires that a proposed 'public consultation plan'
be submitted to the RAs for review in April-June 2002. Clarington Council,
staff, residents and other stakeholders should be allowed to comment on the
proposed public consultation plan before the plan is fmalized.
. The consultation plan should use a variety of methods for soliciting, tracking
and responding to community concerns. A stakeholder list should be
maintained. All community concerns should be methodically addressed
using tracking and response mechanisms with full disclosure of information.
. There should be opportunities to review and comment on documents and
decisions at key stages of the process. Decisions made during the EA should
be 'transparent' - the public should be able to clearly see who is making the
decision and understand how the decisions are being made.
Recommendation 21: Socio-Economic ImDact Analvsis
It is recommended that assumptions to be made in Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
be clarified at the outset of the study to ensure that all factors have been addressed.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
.,', ,.I
IX
It may also be helpful to arrange the socio-economic analysis according to the
phases (environmental assessment phase; construction; operation and maintenance;
if applicable, decommission/abandonment) of the project considering different
situations and impacts that may arise across different phases.
Recommendation 22: Methodolol!ies to Assess Socio-Economic and Socio-cultural
Effects
Given the long-term horizon of the project, it is important to use a range of
methodologies in projecting anticipated effects. Besides "straight line" projections,
we would recommend that the EA Scope Document require assessors to consider
using the following as tools to examine anticipated effects:
. Comparisous of effects in similar or related projects;
. Frameworks from social science theories and effects that would be predicted
should the theory play itself out (e.g., diffusion of innovations, environmental
stress theory);
. Expert testimony;
. Multiplier methods;
. Calculation of scenarios if certain conditions are not available (e.g., if there is
no lakefront recreation, how does this impact other variables).
Recommendation 23: Implement Meaninldul Timelines
Rather than adopting rigid time periods for comment, it is recommended that EA
timelines be established and refined on the basis of sensible criteria. Using criteria
will ensure that sufficient time is allocated to the required tasks, that these tasks are
conducted at an appropriate time, and that adequate input is provided through
public consultation. The criteria leading to the selection of specific timelines should
include the following factors:
. The volume of work to be undertaken at each step
. Appropriateness of the proposed sequence of activities
. The need for full year or multi-season baseline data (e.g. groundwater
elevations)
. The need for work to be conducted at the appropriate season (for example,
biological inventories in spring/summer)
. Urgency
. Timely production of responses to submissions
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
~, .o,
x
Recommendation 24: Implement Meaninlrl'ul and Sensible Timelines for Clarinl!:ton
Consultation Activities
Sensible timelines should also be developed for obtaining public consultation within
the Port Granby EA process for Clarington consultation activities taking into
consideration the following factors:
. The volume and complexity of material to be reviewed
. Whether consultation opportunities are timed so that there is an opportunity
to comment at critical stages of the process
. Reasonable timeframes for review and production of a formal response
where required (for example, considering the review cycle of a municipality,
and traditional breaks such as summer, spring break, and elections)
. Seasonal commitments of stakeholders and the public (e.g. public and
religious holidays, farming activities, seasonal presence of cottagers, more
relevant to timing of public events than review of documents)
. Issues requiring more time to resolve with the proponent
. Extent to which the public (a review committee, for example) are kept
informed of the progress of the project and technical findings on an ongoing
basis, rather than being faced with intermittent release of large volumes of
new technical material
. Extent to which stakeholders and the public have the benefit of government
responses to the relevant material when making comments
. Whether stakeholders will need to retain additional expertise to review the
material
. Extent to which the proponent is prepared to be flexible when the public has
difficulty in meeting deadlines
Recommendation 25: Seauencinl!: of Definition of Alternatives and Assessment
The Draft EA Scope Document calls for the environmental effects to be assessed
before alternatives are established. In our opinion, this step needs to be reversed.
The evaluation of potential effects should not be undertaken until the design and
nature of the project have been established or confirmed through the consideration
of alternatives. If the project does change as a result of the consideration of
alternatives, time and effort used for assessment would be wasted and additional
time would be required to redevelop baseline data and to evaluate changes.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
"
Xl
Recommendation 26: Respondinl! to Submissions
The EA Scope Document should specify the proponent's protocol for responding to
concerns and requests for information in the Consultation Plan.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
......
" -',
Executive Summary-Appendix 1: Public Consultation Principles
Principle Definition of principle Considerations for scope document!
environmental assessment orocess
Accessibility Appropriate measures to ensure access, Describe how access will be enhanced in all
regardless of participants' linguistic. public consultation activities. Holding open
regional, ethno-cultural or socia-economic houses, by themselves, is unlikely to be
background or ohvsical caoabilities sufficient to meet this guideline.
Clarity Clear and mutual understanding of the What are the specific outcomes? What will be
purpose and process, including the a successful process?
nrovision of feedback
Commitment Shared commitment at all levels of the How will the process be monitored to ensure
organization, both to the process and to the that the right people are included (see
integration of results into decision-making "Inclusiveness" below)?
How will comments and input be used in the
decisions? What are the decision "rules"? [
What types of "agreements" are needed to
move forward?2
Inclusiveness Involvement of the broadest possible range What will occur regarding funding to enable
of groups or individuals who may be people to participate (see Participant Funding
affected by a Government decision, or who as provided under CEEA)?
can make a meaningful contribution to the
debate
Mutual respect Respect for the legitimacy and views of all How will difficult group dynamics be
participants addressed, and yet insure people's diverse
opinions?
Responsibility Commitment to participate in good faith See "Commitment" above
and to ensure that adequate resources and How will the process and the outcome be
time are allocated to the process evaluated? What system will be used to
incorporate participants' comments into the
decision process? How will these processes
feedback to oarticipants?
Transparency Stakeholders can see all aspects of the How will it be ensured that the process allows
process, including input of others, into the effective exchange between parties involved,
decision making process. how will the information be shared, and how
Establishment of open lines of will an effective working relationship be
communication, provision of information nurtured?
and investment in working relationships in
order to build trust
Traceability Public can review steps in the decision- Does the process incorporate system for
making process to determine how the documenting, follow-up and auditing of
department! agency made its decision. exchanges between the parties involved?
Timeliness Allow adequate time for meaningful Does the process allow for schedule
participation. flexibilities required by the organizations
involved and the public and ensure that the
activities are carried out in a timely manner?
I How will decisions be made (this should be explicit in all public participation activities): unanimous;
majority vote; person in charge decides with discussion; person in charge decides without discussion)
2 Levels of agreement can include: endorsement; endorsement with minor contention~ agreement with
reservation; abstain! no opinion; stand aside (don't like but won't hold up progress); formally disagree but
willing to go along; formally disagree but not want responsibility for implementation. and blocking.
Higher levels of agreement and support are most important in longer-term projects with non-reversible
outcomes with large stakeholder bases and complex issues.
X111
Executive Summary-Appendix 2: Privy Council's Checklist for Public Participation
STAGE 1: PREPARATION
./ Scan internal and external environments.
./' Confirm support of senior officials and Minister(s).
./' Develop clear objectives and desired outcomes.
./' Establish performance indicators for evaluating the success (process and outcome).
./' Coordinate with related activities across the federal government/other levels of government.
STAGE 2: DESIGN
./' Identify an appropriate mix of participants.
./' Involve participants in shaping the process and framing the issues.
./' Allow enough time for meaningful participation.
./' Choose an approach, tools and resources that are appropriate to the issue and context.
./' Use a variety of public involvement techniques.
./' Ensure materials are neutral. user-friendly and distributed well in advance.
./' Respect the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
./' Ensure that adequate human and financial resources are available.
./' Develop a communications strategy which clearly links the process to decisions taken.
STAGE 3: IMPLEMENTATION
./ Implement the process based on the work done in the preparation and design stages.
./' Refer back to the objectives and desired outcomes to ensure the process is on track.
./' Make adjustments to the process as required, in keeping with objectives/desired outcomes.
./' Consider providing resources to groups and individuals to enable their participation.
./' Be clear with participants about their role and how their input will be used.
./' Specify feedback processes and mechanisms clearly, including the timing of any feedback.
STAGE 4: FEEDBACK AND FOLLOW UP
./ Maintain a tracking document of participant input as the basis of a consultation report.
./' Give feedback on what was heard, how that input was used and the impact of the input.
./' Send timely letters of thanks and copies of final consultation reports to all participants.
./' Post final consultation reports and other relevant documents on the appropriate Web site(s).
./' Brief federal partners (and others) about the results and next steps.
./' Provide participants with information about next steps, if appropriate.
STAGE 5: EV ALUA TION
./ Evaluate the process and the outcome, using the established performance indicators.
./' Involve participants in the evaluation and assessment stage.
./' Document and share lessons from the consultation and evaluation processes.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Hardy Stevenson and Associates have been retained by the Municipality of Clarington to
provide assistance with respect to the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Project (referred hereafter as "the Project"). The primary nature of
this assistance is to:
. To provide strategic advice on the process, work plan and key decisions to be made
throughout the Project.
. To review reports and studies being prepared as part of the federal environmental
review process, including the four studies specifically requested by the Clarington
Council.
. To provide assistance to Municipal staff in understanding the content of the technical
reports.
. To attend meetings related to the Project, including Open Houses
. To provide expert testimony if required at the Environmental Assessment (EA)
hearings, including licensing hearings of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC).
To meet the above objective, Hardy Stevenson and Associates have set up a Peer Review
Team for this Project consisting of experts in radioactive waste management,
hydrogeology and modeling, soils and coastal engineering, socio-economic impact
assessment, public consultation and communications.
Within the terms of the agreement for providing the above assistance, the Municipal staff
requested Hardy Stevenson and Associates to undertake a review 'of the Draft Scope of
the Environmental Assessment for the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Project (hereafter referred to as the "Draft EA Scope Document"),
prepared by Natural Resources Canada, the prime Responsible Authority (RA) for the
Project.
Hardy Stevenson and Associates commissioned the Peer Review Team to expeditiously
carry out this task to meet the deadlines provided by the Municipal staff. Two key
members of the Peer Review Team attended a meeting held on March 21, 2002 by
Natural Resources Canada staff that included staff from other RA organizations, and the
Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO), the proponent of the
Project. The Team also visited the Port Granby Long-Term Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Management Project site on March 27 to see first hand current management
practices, and to review the site potential for the Long-term Low-Level Radioactive
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
2
Waste Management Project. Discussions were also held with the Municipal staff on
March 27 on the Draft EA Scope Document.
This Report summarizes the Peer Review Team's strategic review and recommendations
on the EA Scope Document and the Public Consultation Process. We have relied on the
expertise of the various staff in the Team with regard to scientific, technical,
environmental and socio-economic issues in preparing this Report. Additional comments,
and comments which are editorial in nature, are provided in Appendix 5.
Role of the Draft EA Scooe Document in the Federal Environmental Assessment
Process
An environmental assessment is both a study and a process. The purpose of the EA
Scope Document is to establish the boundaries of the assessment study and the process.
This becomes a statement of what to include and what to exclude. The EA Scope
Document serves to focus the EA onto relevant issues and concerns.
The scope of an EA is determined on a case-by case basis, considering a proponent's
project description, and its justification; involvement of federal departments in the
proposed project and the nature of involvement; whether the Project has been subject to
assessment of environmental effects by others and their assistance in establishing the
boundaries for the scope; current policies, and technical and scientific information;
potential effects on valued ecosystem components likely to be significant; and mitigation
measures (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Operational Policy Statement,
OPS-EPO/1-1998).
Screenin!! versus Comorehensive Level of Assessment
There are two levels of assessment, screening level and comprehensive level. Most
projects are assessed at the screening level. However, for larger projects where the
environmental effects are complex, comprehensive level assessment is usually
recommended by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), which is
charged with the task of setting policies at the assessment level.
The EA Scope Document reviewed the CEAA regulations with respect to the assessment
level required for this Project and determined that a screening level assessment must be
conducted and a screening report prepared as part of the EA.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04102
3
2. REVIEW OF THE PROJECT
The Draft EA Scope Document is based on the Port Granby Project consisting of in-situ
stabilization of the low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated wastes with
possible relocation of some wastes to a waste management mound to be located within
the site boundaries.
Issue of Alternatives
Residents of the Municipality of Clarington developed the project proposal. The project
description was one of the several options studied, which was accepted by the Clarington
Council, and proposed to the Federal Government (Natural Resources Canada, the
Responsible Authority for this project). The proposal was then accepted by the Federal
Government as a potential option. Based on the historical failure of attempts to resolve
the long-term waste management issue with off-site alternatives, the EA Scope Document
assumes that alternatives to this Project (i.e., functionally different ways of meeting the
purpose of the Project such as off-site options) are not to be considered. Accordingly, the
purpose of the Project is to achieve an appropriate local solution. The Draft EA Scope
Document states that only the project as described is to be assessed, although alternative
means of carrying out the project within the site boundaries may be considered in the EA.
Several key project constraints have been identified in the past particularly with respect
to the waste placed in the East Gorge at the Port Granby site and the long-term stability
of the shoreline. The Council has requested that specific studies be conducted to assess
these constraints. These are with respect to: concentration of Thorium-230 in the wastes
located in the East Gorge; ground water flow at the East Gorge and the contact of the
waste with ground water; adequacy of erosion control measures on the shoreline; and a
contingency plan for relocation of wastes in the event of a system failure.
The suitability of the Project is contingent on the characteristics of the site that are being
studied. Depending on the outcome of these studies, and the EA study itself, decisions
will have to be taken as to whether the 'screening' level assessment that has been chosen
is adequate for the Project. Should the above studies indicate unfavorable characteristics
for the Project as described, other alternatives may need to be considered for the Project.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the lead Responsible Authority (RA), has indicated
that several local Port Granby sites may be assessed on lands owned by CAMECO,
beyond the licensed site boundaries.
Recommendation 1: Analvsis Leadine to Reference Alternative Needs to be
Documented
The EA Scope Document states that the Port Granby Project consists of in-place
stabilization of the low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated wastes
at the Port Granby Waste Management Facility, with possible relocation of some
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
4
wastes to a waste management mound to be located within the boundaries of the
present licensed site. The choice of this alternative appears premature, given there
are several key issues yet to be resolved with respect to this alternative. It is
recommended that the preferred alternative be established only after reviewing all
other options available.
Recommendation 2: Analvsis of All Alternative Sites on CAMECO Lands
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the lead Responsible Authority (RA), has
indicated that several local Port Granby sites may be assessed on lands owned by
CAMECO, but beyond the licensed site boundaries. In our opinion, these sites
should be identified and assessed. The selection of the preferred alternative then
needs to be justified based on a comparative evaluation of all site alternatives.
Without a comparative evaluation, the EA runs the risk of eliminating alternatives
under different and often inconsistent criteria and circumstances. Without a
defendable case in the EA for the selection of the alternative, it could become hard
to obtain general consensus on the alternative chosen for implementation.
Given the need for a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives, the adequacy of a
screening level assessment proposed in the EA Scope Document may have to be
revisited, and potentially, a comprehensive level assessment could be required. A
comprehensive assessment could understandably take longer to complete, require
larger resources, and demand greater management attention on the part of the
Municipality as a key stakeholder in the Project.
Issue of Lonl!:- Term Manal!:ement
The stated purpose of the Project is to clean up and provide an appropriate local solution
for the long-term management of the low-level radioactive wastes including the
marginally contaminated wastes in a suitably constructed, environmentally safe, socially
acceptable and appropriately controlled facility for the long-term. A timeframe of several
hundred years is envisaged. By definition, this implies that long-term environmental
stewardship of the facility would be required. One of the challenges would be to the
design facility with a consideration to minimize long-term care-taking required, such as
by minimizing active management systems (pumps, leakage water management etc.),
durable systems that do not need frequent maintenance, and reliance on passive systems.
Recommendation 3: Passive Care-takinl!: Criterion
It is necessary that the Project be designed so that the need for care-taking activities
is kept to a minimum in the long-term. The ability to minimize long-tenn
maintenance is contingent on the technical merits of the site and the alternative
considered in terms of long-term perfonnance. We recommend that the degree of
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
5
care-taking required (i.e. passive management as against active management) be
considered as an evaluation criterion for the alternatives.
Any potential issues in this regard, such as poor hydrogeology, poor shoreline erosion
characteristics, and poor choice of design could undermine the long-term management of
the waste requiring major site remediation or relocation of the waste within the lifecycle
period of the facility.
The Draft EA Scope Document takes into account such a possibility, only to a limited
extent, by requiring assessment of alternative means of carrying out the Project, which
include relocation of the waste away from the shoreline in an engineered storage mound
but within the site boundaries so that the erosion poses no threat to the facility.
In-site Stabilization versus Relocation
Alternatives involving relocation of the waste radically change the nature of the project
from one of in-situ stabilization of the waste (remediation by capping the waste with a
multi-layer cover to minimize surface water infiltration and engineered barriers to
prevent groundwater intrusion) to one of exhumation of the waste and its relocation to an
engineered mound.
What is essentially a site remediation project becomes a major radioactivity management
program due to the radioactive character of the waste (Thorium-230 and particularly
potential for worker exposure due to radon gas and its daughters), and the precautionary
measures required to deal with relocation of the waste. Toxicity in the waste due to non-
radioactive toxic elements (selenium, arsenic and other heavy metals) could also pose
some management problems. Waste relocation may need to be carried out in a contained
manner (such as with tents, closed transport containers etc) and with licensed atomic
radiation workers. It should be noted that the relocation option (originally referred to as
Concept A) had been earlier rejected by the Advisory Committee for the Council in
favour of in-situ stabilization (referred to as Concept B). Even so, the remediation of the
radioactive waste sites with relocation of waste and contaminated soils is a well-known
technology in North America and should not pose an insurmountable problem.
The studies with respect to alternative sites could require hydro-geological studies to
assess the adequacy of such sites. Such site characterization is inherently expensive.
Nevertheless, it is essential to describe the alternative means to the Project to the same
degree of depth as the reference Project such that a reasonable comparative evaluation
can be performed on all alternatives.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
"
6
Recommendation 4: Studies Requested bv Clarington Council
The various studies commissioned by the Council are key to assessing the adequacy
of the in-place stabilization concept. These studies should be expeditiously
completed, peer reviewed, and information made available so that the EA Study can
be appropriately structured in tenns of the scope of the Project.
Engineered Barriers, Shoreline Toe and Leachate Control
The Port Granby site soils and soils in the vicinity of the site are conducive to
groundwater flow. Thus, the concept relies on an engineered barrier - steel sheeting
backed by drainage trenches-- to protect against the outward flow of contaminants and to
prevent groundwater from interacting with contaminants. There are other alternative
methods for protecting against the effects of groundwater flow that are more durable and
trouble-free, such as a multi-barrier including bentonite clay and geotextile fabric, or hard
barriers such as grouting. It is recommended that various types of barriers be assessed in
the development of the project and the EA.
Similarly, there are alternatives to shoreline toes to improve shoreline stability. These
may consist of seawalls, use of tetrapods, etc. Also there are alternatives to leachate
collection systems to make them more durable and maintenance-free.
Recommendation 5: Concept alternatives need to be assessed such as for the
Enlrlneered Barrier, Shoreline Toe, and Leachate Collection Svstems
The in-place stabilization concept relies among other things on an engineered
barrier - steel sheeting -- to prevent groundwater from contacting the waste. Steel
sheeting is susceptible to corrosion and degradation. There are other alternative
ways for protecting the waste from groundwater intrusion, such as the use of
bentonite clay or concrete. It is recommended that other types of barriers be
assessed and barrier of choice selected in the development of the alternative.
There should also be additional evaluation of alternative means of developing the
shoreline toe and the leachate collection system.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
. , ~ ..-
7
3. MALFUNCTIONS AND ACCIDENTS
Any relocation of the waste will require detailed assaying of the soil regime around the
waste prior to removal. Much of the waste at the Port Granby site has been placed
several decades ago in unlined trenches. There was some open dumping of the waste at
the East Gorge site which is particularly susceptible to large groundwater flow and
surface erosion. The waste has been covered with inadequate soil covers without the use
of liners. Potentially this situation could allow contaminants to discharge to the lake.
Furthermore, this could make the remediation and cleanup of the site much more difficult
than anticipated. The leachate water collection system at the downstream side is
susceptible to overflow as well at times of heavy precipitation, allowing contaminants to
discharge to the lake at those locations.
Recommendation 6: Detailed Soil Testinl! for Contamination Around the Waste Site
Due to past hydro-geological history of the site, it is possible that the waste nuclides
have migrated around the site potentially in soil plumes in the direction of the flow.
This could put additional burden on the characterization of the buried waste and
determination of the amount of waste that actually needs to be contained or
relocated. It is recommended that detailed soil testing studies be carried out around
the waste to determine the extent to which contaminant migration might have taken
place.
Recommendation 7: Potential Lake-bottom Contamination alonl! the shoreline and
its Cleanup.
It is also possible that historical patterns of groundwater flow and wetting of the
waste might have resulted in contamination of the Lake Ontario bottom at the
locations where the groundwater discharges to the Lake. Studies are recommended
to review this effect and put in place measures if needed to dredge the lake bottom
and for its cleanup.
Significant changes in water levels are normal to lake Ontario. These changes in water
levels could be worsened by climate changes and general increase in water levels in the
future. These changes impact shoreline stability and near shore erosion characteristics.
The proponent needs to look at the range of possible scenarios that may alter the
shoreline over the next several hundred years.
Recommendation 8: Lake Ontario Level Chanl!es
Long-term changes in Lake Ontario levels need to be assessed as part of the
environmental assessment study. Factors such as climate change should be
included. High water levels also need to be assessed. These changes should be
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
8
considered in terms of potential effects on shoreline and near-shore erosion
mechanisms.
EA Scope Document should provide guidance for the analysis of the full range of
technical design options including socio-economic and ecosystem effects. These are
alternative-specific and could widely vary among the in-place stabilization option and the
various other site options, particularly outside the fenced area in the CAMECO-owned
land and are important for assessing impacts on local communities.
Recommendation 9: Full Ranl!e of Technical Desil!n Options
The environmental assessment study must include the assessment of the full range of
technical design options, including assessment of socio-economic and ecosystem
effects.
Various technical designs could respond differently to loss of institutional control. While
a well-designed system that is durable and maintenance-free could last for several
hundred years in an abandoued state without any long-term effects, designs that are
wanting in these respects could become a liability for future generations. The impacts
from a loss-of-control situation need to be fully assessed in the EA.
Loss of institutional control does not necessarily imply breakdown of social order or loss
of residual control by the government, which are highly unlikely. Even so, the
institutional control could deteriorate over time due to shifting views and priorities,
funding cutbacks, lack of timely response to deal with malfunctions and accidents, and
other types of administrative neglect.
Recommendation 10: Loss ofInstitutional Control
Any loss of institutional control during the long-term could result in breach of
public and environmental safety once the control is lost. The EA should provide
assessments of such a state of loss of control and its impacts on the public and the
environment.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Slevenson and Associates Limited
02/04102
" ...,.(
9
4. TIMEFRAMES
The Project has a long timeframe of several hundred years. Given this, long-term
stewardship of the waste becomes an important element in assuring the safety of the
public and the environment. It is important to put into place necessary institutional
measures to ensure that society does not lose track of the waste and proper monitoring is
made available on an ongoing basis over the long timeframe.
At the end ofthe design life of the facility, decisions will have to be made by the future
society whether the facility could be abandoned, life-extended or exhumed for re-storing,
or if some other type of ultimate treatment such as vitrification (i.e. immobilization of the
waste by conversion to ceramic or glass state) would be required. There need to be
financial arrangements to cover the eventual costs and organizational arrangements for
implementing the ultimate disposition of the waste.
Recommendation 11: Lone: Term Institutional Control Measures
The Project description should include description of institutional control systems
needed for providing long-term stewardship of the waste. This should include such
things as: systems that are required; type of workers who will provide long term
monitoring; rmancing; and the organizational set-up.
The future of the Clarington lakefront will continue to be an important land-use planning
issue over the long term. We've seen rural areas 100 years ago become the center of a
thriving community today (e.g. R.C. Harris Filtration plant). Recreational uses considered
in the Draft EA Scope Document as potential future land use could be subject to revisions
over time as demographic, ecological and societal pressures change. Land-use planning
necessarily should consider future anticipated demographic change, community lifestyle
change, and other long-term changes that can be expected.
Communities could consider construction of amenities over time to meet these needs.
Technical designs should consider the construction of amenities to offset the visual
impacts and stigmatization of the site that normally are associated with waste
management projects. These impacts could arise from shoreline engineering changes,
construction of storage mounds and modifications of natural settings like the Gorges.
Recommendation 12: Lonl! Term Land-Uses
To account for future land use changes in the vicinity of the site we recommend that
a long-term assessment of possible future land uses be included as part of the
environmental assessment study. Creation of amenities for the public should be
developed as part of facility design to offset visual impact, loss of aesthetics and
other adverse effects from facility structures (such as shoreline engineering, storage
mounds, and gorge modifications).
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
10
5. STUDY AREAS
The EA Scope Document appropriately recognizes the need for consideration of
environmental effects in geographic areas surrounding the site, ranging from local site
areas to regional areas. Depending on the effect, these effects cross the established
boundaries in diverse ways due to direct effects of construction, transportation of off-site
construction materials, and various potential exposure pathways for environmental
effects. Careful consideration is required to identify such effects, and include all affected
areas (Durham Region, the Ganaraska Region and the International Joint Commission,
First Nations) in the EA consultation process. First Nations normally have different
working relationships (government-to-government) that should be recognized in the
development of the consultation process.
Recommendation 13: Expand the Scope of Consultation to Include other
Governments and Institutions
The environmental effects from the Project will cross the established boundaries.
These effects may include traffic, construction-related activities etc., and as such it is
necessary that affected areas in the Durham Region are included in the study scope.
The Durham Region, the Ganaraska Region Conservation, International Joint
Commission and other organizations should be encouraged to become involved in
the consultation process.
Recommendation 14: First Nations
Local First Nations must be formally engaged in the consultation program on a
government-to-government basis, starting from the early stages, such as the review
of the Draft EA Scope Document. It is recommended that a formal consultation
process be expeditiously put in place with the First Nations.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
" "
11
6. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROGRAM
Section 6.13 of the EA Scope Document on public and stakeholder consultation states
that "extensive public consultation is appropriate for this project." However, the EA
scope relies on a variety of methods to consult, in which the public and other stakeholders
are provided only a limited opportunity to have meaningful consultation throughout the
review and to comment on the assessment documents.
The public consultation approaches recommended in the Draft EA Scope Document
could at best be described as 'traditional'. Traditional approaches have been problematic
for other projects of this nature and these approaches do not necessarily drive the project
to successful public acceptance. Indeed the lack of social acceptance was the Achilles
heel of the well-known EA hearing for the Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal
Concept for Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste held in the early 1990's.
Meaninlrl'ul Public Consultation Approaches based on PCO Principles
Overall, we agree strongly with the principle of 'extensive consultation' and believe that
the proposed public consultation approach should be expanded to ensure that the recent
guidelines on consulting with the public, issued by Canada's Privy Councitl are
incorporated into the description of the public consultation program. More specifically.
the EA Scope document should describe how it would ensure it is adhering to the
principles discussed by the Privy Council. Appendix 1 provides a summary of these
principles. Appendix 2 provides a checklist for public participation consistent with these
principles.
Recommendation 15: Privv Council Office Principles
Proposed public consultation approach should be enhanced to ensure that the recent
guidelines on consulting with the public, issued by Canada's Privy Council Office
(PCO) are incorporated into the public consultation program (See Appendix 1).
More specifically, the Draft EA Scope Document should describe how it will ensure
adherence to the principles established by the Privy Council Office (See Appendix 2
for a check list).
3 The Privy Council's policy on public consultation: "It is the policy of the Government of Canada to
involve Canadians in the development and evaluation of public policies, programs, and services through
consultation and citizen engagement processes that are transparent, accessible, ... and take into account the
broad diversity of Canada. The Government is also committed to reporting back to Canadians on how their
views have been considered in the decision-making process. In support of this policy, the Government of
Canada will strengthen the consultative culture in the public service through the allocation of resources for
more effective management and accountability of the consultation function in federal departments and
agencies. support to horizontal coordination, opportunities for public servants to enrich their knowledge
and skills, and ongoing research and development in this area." (Policy Statement and Guidelines on
Consulting and Engaging Canadians. Draft. Privy Council Office, December 2000)
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
','.
12
Access to Information Bevond Public Reeistrv
The EA Draft Scope Document identifies that documents pertaining to the environmental
assessment may be obtained at the Low-level Radioactive Office in the Municipality of
Port Hope. Keeping information there is an important first step in assuring that the public
has access to information and materials. However, this approach should be seen as a bare
minimum and only a first step traditionally used by the Office. Accessing the Federal
Environmental Assessment Index is not likely to be a route that will be widely known to
the public. Furthermore, information available on the Internet through Federal
Environmental Assessment Index is very limited. If the general public does use that
route to access the information, it may not find sufficient detail to answer its questions.
Indeed, it seems more sensible to use channels of communications that are more intuitive
to the public and more widely known. This advice is reflected in the Privy Council's
Public Consultation guidelines. Specifically, five principles apply here:
. Transparency -- Stakeholders can see all aspects of the process, including
input of others, into the decision making process
. Traceability - Public can review steps in the decision-making process to
determine how the department! agency made its decision..
. Accessibility -- Appropriate measures to ensure access, regardless of
participants' linguistic, regional, ethno-cultural or socio-economic background
or physical capabilities.
. Accountability: Provision of feedback on the full range of views expressed,
and a clear report of the ways in which those views have been considered in
the decision-making process
. Timeliness: Allow adequate time for meaningful participation.
Broadening the available of information could include provision at locallibraries4 with
news releases made widely available announcing the availability of the information and
similar such activities.
Recommendation 16: Information Bevond Public Reeistrv
Accessing the Federal Environmental Assessment Index is not likely to be easy or
convenient for the public. Furthermore, information available on the Federal
4 Natural Resources Canada's website unit on Uranium, Nuclear Energy & Waste Management lists the
libraries in the vicinity where documents can be obtained, under a section called "What's New." It would
be helpful to add reference to this fact in the Draft EA Scope document.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
),.-
13
Environmental Assessment Index is very limited. It is recommended that channels
of communications that are more intuitive to the public and more widely known be
used.
Roles and Resoonsibilities of Other Federal and Provincial Deoartments
The Draft EA Scope Document identifies several relevant departments that will
participate in the environmental assessment, but provides little information on the
processes involved, timelines for these processes and relevant details about their
participation. Additional detail is needed to describe the nature and type of interactions
and participation that are planned.
For example:
. How do the different departments participate?
. What type of decision authority do they have?
. How is this effort coordinated with other Low-Level Radioactive Waste Office
activities?
. How is this effort coordinated with other federal, provincial and municipal
activities occurring within the Port Granby vicinity?
Recommendation 17: Roles and Resoonsibilities of Other Federal and Provincial
Deoartments
The Draft EA Scope Document identifies several relevant departments that will
participate in the environmental assessment. Additional detail is needed to describe
the nature and type of interactions with those Departments and participation that is
planned.
Evaluation of the Comoleted Public Consultation Process
A meaningful public consultation process can typically be evaluated through assessment
of the proposed activities and activities actually completed against the criteria provided
by the Privy Council guidelines (See Appendix 2). We therefore recommend that the
Privy Council's checklist contained in Appendix 2 be used to evaluate the public
consultation process. The evaluation should take place in a continuous manner at the end
of each step in the EA.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
','
14
Recommendation 18: Evaluation of the Public Consultation Process
A public consultation process can typically be evaluated through review of the
proposed activities and activities actually completed against the process expectations
such as the Privy Council Office guidelines. We recommend that the quality of the
public consultation process be evaluated nsing a 'consecutive evaluation' approach
at the end of each significant step of the EA study.
Full Opportunitv for Clarilllrton Council, staff and residents to participate in the
EA process
On reviewing the Draft EA Scope Document we feel that it is necessary that more
thought be put into working with the Municipality of Clarington to develop a more
comprehensive community consultation program that allows communities not only
opportunities to review and comment, but to be part of the decision-making process. We
have attached a draft process that we feel would provide better opportunities for
Clarington Council, staff and residents to comment throughout the process. (See
Appendix 3: Proposed Clarington Public Consultation Process for Port Granby Project).
Recommendation 19: Full Opportunitv for Clarinlrton residents to participate in the
EA process
It is recommended that a comprehensive community consultation program be
developed that provides communities not only opportunities to review and
comment, but to be part of the decision-making process. We offer the following
specific recommendations:
. Involve communities in deciding what constitutes "economic" or ''technical''
feasibility. Work with communities to also identify "environmental" and
"social" feasibility as additional evaluation criteria. Specify how evaluation
criteria are to be weighed and ranked.
. Involve the Council, staff, the local community and other stakeholders in
decisions on what constitutes a 'valued ecosystem component'. In addition,
these stakeholders should be involved in reviewing scopes of work and results
of various studies such as exposure pathway modeling and socio-economic
studies.
. The community involvement should be part of a larger long-term program
that extends throughout the life of the facility (see Appendix 3: 'Proposed
Clarington Public Consultation Process for Port Granby Project'). It is only
with full community involvement that public acceptance can be eventually
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
,'t
15
sought, and not otherwise. It is also necessary to evaluate the contingency of
not being able to obtain public acceptance to the Project.
. Community education programs including radiation and radiation safety
should be part of the communications process so as to alleviate community
concerns on the overall safety of the Project.
Recommendation 20: Consultation Plan
There is an opportunity for some of the issues raised here to be resolved through the
preparation of a 'public consultation plan'. A formal document should be
prepared. Clarington Council should insist on having the opportunity to provide
input to this document. The criteria provided earlier should assist in evaluating
consultation plan proposals.
. The Draft EA Scope Document requires that a proposed 'public consultation
plan' be submitted to the RAs for review in April-June 2002. Clarington
Council, staff, residents and other stakeholders should be allowed to
comment on the proposed public consultation plan before the plan is
finalized.
. The consultation plan should use a variety of methods for soliciting, tracking
and responding to community concerns. A stakeholder list should be
maintained. All community concerns should be methodically addressed
nsing tracking and response mechanisms with full disclosure of information.
. There should be opportunities to review and comment on documents and
decisions at key stages of the process. Decisions made during the EA should
be 'transparent', i.e., the public should be able to clearly see who is making
the decision and understand how the decisions are being made.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
'<, ~ J .
16
7.0 PROCESS STEPS AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF CLARINGTON
COUNCIL IN THE PROCESS
The Draft EA Scope Document has listed the various process steps for the environmental
assessment. It is advised that the Council be kept involved by the Municipal staff at key
decision milestones in the Project. Such involvement could be essentially characterized
as (1) being informed and (2) providing approval. Table 1 provides the key milestones
and the degree of involvement recommended.
In addition to the steps to be taken by the RA' s, the Council should ensure that the
following activities are undertaken:
. Complete independent peer review of the four technical issues previously
identified by the Council with respect to the technical suitability of the Project.
. Complete independent peer review of all technical reports and studies to be
prepared by the RA's.
. Revisit Clarington's Official Plan for the waste management site and make any
amendments that may be needed.
Table 1: Degree ofInvolvement by the Municipality required at various Milestones
Number Milestone Council Council
infonned approval
1 Comments on the Draft EA Scope Document (current x
milestone)
2 Comments on the proposed public consultation program. x
3 Preparation and distribution of final scope document by x
theRA.
4 Consultation programs with the public and stakeholders. x
5 Municipality's Comments on the Draft EA Study Report. x
6 Comments on the Draft Screening Report. x
7 RA's submit final Screening Report to decision-makers x
for the decision.
8 RA's make public notice of the course of action. x
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04102
"
17
8.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Clarify Studies reQuired for Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
We have assumed that the socio-economic requirements would take into account the
questions given in the bulleted list below. However, clarifying these assumptions will
assist in ensuring that all factors have been addressed. Specifically:
.
Are traffic patterns, increased road traffic, etc. addressed under "existing and
future land use?" Proposed and existing zoning activity?
Does "community infrastructure" include: schools, housing stock, fire/police
protection, as well as community groups/ interest group activity, etc.?
Does "landscape" refer to aesthetic considerations? What else would be included?
Under what category does "worker safety and health" fall?
.
.
.
It may also be helpful to arrange the socio-economic analysis according to the phases of
the project given that different situations and impacts may arise across different phases.s
Recommendation 21: Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
It is recommended that assumptions to be made in Socio-Economic Impact Analysis
be clarified at the outset of the study to ensure that all factors have been addressed.
It may also be helpful to arrange the socio-economic analysis according to the
phases (environmental assessment phase; construction; operation and maintenance;
if applicable, decommission/abandonment) of the project considering different
situations and impacts that may arise across different phases.
ReQuire a Rane:e of Methodololrles to Assess Socio-Economic Effects
Given the long-term horizon of the project, it is important to use a range of
methodologies in projecting anticipated effects. Traditional "straight line" projections
are considered inadequate in assessing socio-economic effects. We would therefore
recommend that the EA Scope Document require assessors to consider using the various
tools identified in Recommendation 22 to examine anticipated socio-cultural and socio-
economic effects:
Recommendation 22: Methodololrles to Assess Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural
Effects
Given the long-term horizon of the project, it is important to use a range of
methodologies in projecting anticipated effects. Besides "straight line" projections,
5 This approach might also be helpful for other components of the bio-physical environment.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
",
18
we would recommend that the EA Scope Document require assessors to consider
using the following as tools to examine anticipated effects:
. Comparisons of effects in similar or related projects;
. Frameworks from social science theories and effects that would be predicted
should the theory play itself out (e.g., diffusion of innovations, environmental
stress theory);
. Expert testimony;
. Multiplier methods;
. Calculation of scenarios if certain conditions are not available (e.g., if there is
no lakefront recreation, how does this impact other variables).
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
. 02104/02
,Jr-
19
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
ReQuirements and Expectations for Timelines
The following analysis and recommendations arise from the review by Hardy Stevenson
and Associates Limited of the timelines proposed within the Draft EA Scope Document.
The section is meant to be read with the appended chart, (Appendix 4:Timeline of EA
Process for Port Granby Project). The chart was prepared by HSAL based on a careful
review of the Draft EA Scope Document.
The EA scope document indicates that this project is subject to a required screening
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). No assessment under the
Ontario Environmental Assessment Act is required.
For the purpose of this review, timelines are discussed under two categories: (i) the
periods allowed for the internal activities of the proponent and the RAs including
gathering data, assessing environmental effects and producing reports, and (ii) the periods
allowed for external members of the public and stakeholders to comment on materials
that are released for review.
There are no timelines for the internal activities of proponents set out in the CEA Act
legislation, regulations or guidance documents.
In terms of consultation, Section 18 (3) of the CEA Act states that:
"Where the responsible authority is of the opinion that public participation in the
screening of a project is appropriate in the circumstances, or where required by
regulation, the responsible authority shall give the public notice and an
opportunity to examine and comment on the screening report and on any record
that has been filed in the public registry established in respect of the
project.. ..before taking a course of action under Section 20. "
A search of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) web site
indicates that there is currently no regulation requiring public notice (or specifying notice
periods) for project screenings. Release of the screening report for public review is at the
discretion of the Responsible Authority, and is not provided for in the timelines. At the
same time, Section 16.1 of the Act requires that a screening:
"shall include a consideration of..commentsfrom the public that are received in
accordance with this Act and the regulations ".
The Act also provides for public participation through the Public Registry, which
provides access to documentation.
The "Responsible Authority's Guide" to the CEA Act, produced by the CEA Agency in
1994, states that
"A public involvement program goes beyond allowing the public to comment on
a completed screening report....Rather, it seeks to provide the public with a
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
1\'
20
variety of opportunities to be informed at all stages of the EA, to offer ideas and
information, to react to proposals in order to influence recommendations and
decisions, and to be informed of all decisions ".
At the same time, public review in a project screening remains discretionary and so,
therefore, are timelines for consultation.
As already stated above, the EA Scope Document for this screening states that extensive
public consultation is considered appropriate for this project. In this case, therefore, the
Responsible Authorities have determined that consultation is required during the process.
However, the requirement for circulation of the EA scope document at the end of the
process is not included, and should be included as part of the process.
Timelines for Internal Proponent's and RAs' Activities
The Municipality of Clarington's interest in timelines for the proponent's and RAs' work
relates to whether sufficient time is allocated to the required tasks, whether these tasks
would be conducted at an appropriate time for the work to be done properly, and whether
input provided through public consultation will be dealt with in a transparent way.
The following are recommendations for establishing time lines for the EA to be conducted
by the proponent and RAs. A number of them would be difficult to apply in this situation,
since the Draft EA Scope Document and project description do not provide a clear idea of
the gaps in existing baseline data, or the specifics of the work to be undertaken.
Recommendation 23: Implement Meaninlrt'ul Timelines
Rather than adopting rigid time periods for comment, it is recommended that EA
timelines be established and refined on the basis of sensible criteria. Using criteria
will ensure that sufficient time is allocated to the required tasks, that these tasks are
conducted at an appropriate time, and that adequate input is provided through
public consultation. The criteria leading to the selection of specific timelines should
include the following factors:
· The volume of work to be undertaken at each step
· Appropriateness of the proposed sequence of activities
· The need for full year or multi-season baseline data (e.g. groundwater
elevations)
· The need for work to be conducted at the appropriate season (for example,
biological inventories in spring/summer)
. Urgency
· Timely production of responses to submissions
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
. ..
21
Timelines for Clarington Consultation Activities
We have made below reasonable recommendations for establishing public consultation
timelines within the Port Granby EA process (Recommendation 24). Although the
information provided on the timelines chart (Appendix 4) deals only with the more
significant documents, these criteria may also be helpful in reviewing the consultation
plan (though the Draft EA Scope Document provides only for the RAs-and not the public
and other stakeholders-to review the draft).
Recommendation 24: Implement Meaningful and Sensible Timelines for Clarington
Consultation Activities
Sensible timelines should also be developed for obtaining public consultation within
the Port Granby EA process for Clarington consultation activities taking into
consideration the following factors:
. The volume and complexity of material to be reviewed
. Whether consultation opportunities are timed so that there is an opportunity
to comment at critical stages of the process
. Reasonable timeframes for review and production of a formal response
where required (for example, considering the review cycle of a municipality,
and traditional breaks such as summer, spring break, and elections)
. Seasonal commitments of stakeholders and the public (e.g. public and
religious holidays, fanning activities, seasonal presence of cottagers, more
relevant to timing of public events than review of documents)
. Issues requiring more time to resolve with the proponent
. Extent to which the public (a review committee, for example) are kept
informed of the progress of the project and technical findings on an ongoing
basis, rather than being faced with intermittent release of large volumes of
new technical material
. Extent to which stakeholders and the public have the benefit of government
responses to the relevant material when making comments
. Whether stakeholders will need to retain additional expertise to review the
material
. Extent to which the proponent is prepared to be flexible when the public has
difficulty in meeting deadlines
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wa,te Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
.* '-
22
Overall Structure of the Timelines
We are providing in the chart appended (Appendix 4: Timelines ofEA Process for Port
Granby Project), the initial sequence of activities we are proposing as minimally required,
based on the limited amount of information we have thus far in the EA process.
As seen on the chart, the total period allocated for completion of the EA from initiation to
submission of a screening report is five years and twenty-three days. This is
approximately one year longer than the estimate of around four years provided in the
Project Description. Other activities not specified in the timeline would extend beyond
the submission of the screening report, including licensing under the Nuclear Safety and
Control Act and possibly the Fisheries Act. Licensing is estimated in the Project
Description to take two years, one year of which would extend beyond the submission of
a screening report.
Review of Timelines for Internal Proponent and RA Activities
It is difficult to provide any detailed critique of these timelines, since the Draft EA Scope
Document provides only a general indication of the work to be undertaken and gaps in
baseline data are not identified. We have no indication of the human resources -or indeed
the individual disciplines involved-that would be assigned to the task.
SeQUencin2 of Activities for Assessment of Effects and Evaluation of Alternative
Means
The sequence of proposed activities shows that the evaluation of alternative means would
be undertaken after the assessment of the potential effects of the project. It would be
more appropriate to reverse this order, since the assessment of alternatives may lead to
refinements or more radical changes to the project. The evaluation of potential effects
should not be undertaken until the design and nature of the project have been established
or confirmed through the consideration of alternatives. If the project does change as a
result of the consideration of alternatives, some preceding work may be wasted and
additional time would be required to develop additional baseline data and to evaluate the
new location and/or design. The EA scope document states "the rationale should be
providedfor why these alternative means of carrying out the project were not adopted as
preferred alternatives" (p.17), but the proposed sequence of activities suggests that the
outcome of the evaluation of alternatives is pre-determined, and is not expected to affect
the design of the project.
There is apparently no immediate urgency to the EA-the Annex A to the Project
Description states that the waste storage facility is currently in full compliance with the
requirements of its license, but is considered to be inappropriate for the long-term
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
'oil
23
management of the wastes because of the erosion of the bluffs as well as surface and
groundwater contact with the waste.
Recommendation 25: Selluencinl! of Definition of Alternatives and Assessment
The Draft EA Scope Document calls for the effects to be assessed before alternatives
are established. In our opinion, this step needs to be reversed. The evaluation of
potential effects should not be undertaken until the design and nature of the project
have been established or confirmed through the consideration of alternatives. If the
project does change as a result of the consideration of alternatives, time and effort
used for assessment would be wasted and additional time would be required to
redevelop baseline data and to evaluate changes.
Review of Timelines for Consultation
Table 2 shows proposed Hardy Stevenson minimum timelines that should be provided for
public and stakeholder consultation events.
Table 2: Timelines for Public and Stakeholder Consultation
Activitv Proposed Timeline
Comments on the scope of the EA: 6 weeks
Preparation of a consultation plan: Consultation period shoutd be added
Update on Potential Environmental Effects: 2 months
Consultation on the identification of alternatives 2 months
Consultation on the assessment of alternatives 3 months
Consultation on the draft EA Study Report 2 months
While the consultations on the scope of the EA and the Draft EA Study Report would
include written submissions on reports, the format of the other consultations is less clear.
Although the volume of material to be presented at each step is uncertain, a review period
of at least two months is considered appropriate and generally consistent with other EA
processes that are subject to involvement by the Municipality. It is considered that two
months would be appropriate for consultation on the EA Study Report as well.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
~.
24
Provide Adequate Time to Comment on Screening ReDort
The public would comment on the Draft EA Study Report before it is reviewed by the
Responsible Authorities and other agencies. No other public review would take place
prior to the submission of the screening report. It would be appropriate to provide an
opportunity for public review of the EA Study Report in light of the government review,
as is done in the case of the public's review under the Ontario Environmental Assessment
Act. Also, the RAs should be asked to confirm that there will be an opportunity for the
public to comment on the Screening Report, and whether there will be opportunities for
consultation on the licensing of the project.
There is an opportunity for the issues raised here to be resolved through the preparation
of the consultation plan, and Clarington should insist on an opportunity to provide input
to this document. The criteria provided above should assist in evaluating consultation
plan proposals. Flexibility in review periods should be provided for when stakeholders
have difficulty in meeting deadlines.
Recommendation 26: ResDonding to Submissions
The EA Scope Document should specify the proponent's protocol for responding to
concerns and requests for information in the Consultation Plan.
Comments 00 Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
~.
25
References
Branch, K. D. Hooper, J. Thompson and J. Creighton. 1984. Guide to Social Impact
Assessment. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Operational Policy Statement, OPS-
EPO/I-1998
Finsterbusch, K. and CP Wolf, eds. 1981. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment.
Stroudsburg, P A: Hutchinson Ross.
Privy Council Office. 2000. Policy Statement and Guidelines On Consulting and
Engaging Canadians. Draft Guidelines. Ottawa, Ontario.
Interorganizational committee. 1994. "Guidelines and principles for Social Impact
Assessment." Impact Assessment. Vol 12, #2.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
..
26
APPENDIX 1: PUBLIC CONSULTATION PRINCIPLES
Principle Definition of principle Considerations for scope docnmentJ
environmental assessment orocess
Accessibility Appropriate measures to ensure access, Describe how access will be enhanced in all
regardless of participants' linguistic, public consultation activities. Holding open
regional, ethno-cultural or socia-economic houses, of themselves. is unlikely to be
back.round or nhvsical canabilities sufficient to meet this .uideline.
Clarity Clear and mutual understanding of the What are the specific outcomes? What will be
purpose and process, including the a successful process?
nrovision of feedback
Commitment Shared commitment at all levels of the How will the process be monitored to ensure
organization, both to the process and to the that the right people are included (see
integration of results into decision-making "Inclusiveness" below)?
How will comments and input be used in the
decisions? What are the decision "rules"? 6
What types of "agreements" are needed to
move forward?7
Inclusiveness Involvement of the broadest possible range What will occur regarding funding to enable
of groups or individuals who may be people to participate (see Participant Funding
affected by a Government decision. or who as provided under CEEA)?
can make a meaningful contribution to the
debate
Mutual respect Respect for the legitimacy and views of all How will difficult group dynamics be
participants addressed, and yet insure people's diverse
oninions?
Responsibility Commitment to participate in good faith See "Commitment" above
and to ensure that adequate resources and How will the process and the outcome be
time are allocated to the process evaluated? What system will be used to
incorporate participants' comments into the
decision process? How will these processes
feedback to oarticioants?
Transparency Stakeholders can see all aspects of the How will it be ensured that the process allows
process, including input of others, into the effective exchange between parties involved,
decision making process. how will the information be shared. and how
Establishment of open lines of will an effective working relationship be
communication. provision of information nurtured?
and investment in working relationships in
order to build trust
Traceability Public can review steps in the decision- Does the process incorporate systems for
making process to determine how the documenting. follow-up and auditing of
denartmentJ a.encv made its decision. exchan.es between the oarties involved?
Timeliness Allow adequate time for meaningful Does the process allow for schedule
participation. flexibilities required by the organizations
involved and the public and ensure that the
activities are carried out in a timelv manner?
. . .. . . . . ..
How Will decISIOns be made (thIS should be exphclt m all publIc partIcIpatIon actiVItIes): unammous;
majority vote; person in charge decides with discussion; person in charge decides without discussion)
7 Levels of agreement can include: endorsement; endorsement with minor contention; agreement with
reservation; abstain! no opinion; stand aside (don't like but won't hold up progress); fonnally disagree but
willing to go along; formally disagree but not want responsibility for implementation, and blocking.
Higher levels of agreement and support are most important in longer term projects with non-reversible
outcomes with large stakeholder bases and complex issues.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Wasle Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
. .
27
APPENDIX 2. PRIVY COUNCIL'S CHECKLIST FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
STAGE 1: PREPARATION
,/ Scan internal and external environments.
,/ Confirm support of senior officials and Minister(s).
,/ Develop clear objectives and desired outcomes.
,/ Establish performance indicators for evaluating thc success (process and outcome).
,/ Coordinate \vith related activities across the federal government/other levels of government.
STAGE 2: DESIGN
,/ Identify an appropriate mix of participants.
,/ Involve participants in shaping the process and framing the issues.
,/ Allow enough time for meaningful participation.
,/ Choose an approach, tools and resources that are appropriate to the issue and context.
,/ Use a variety of public involvement techniques.
,/ Ensure materials are neutral, user-friendly and distributed well in advance.
,/ Respect the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
,/ Ensure that adequate human and financial resources are available.
,/ Develop a communications strategy which clearly links the process to decisions taken.
STAGE 3: IMPLEMENTA nON
,/ Implement the process based on the work done in the preparation and design stages.
y' Refer back to the objectives and desired outcomes to ensure the process is on track.
y' Make adjustments to the process as required. in keeping with objectives/desired outcomes.
y' Consider providing resources to groups and individuals to enable their participation.
y' Be clear with participants about their role and how their input will be used.
y' Specify feedback processes and mechanisms clearly, including the timing of any feedback.
STAGE 4: FEEDBACK AND FOLLOW UP
y' Maintain a tracking document of participant input as the basis of a consultation report.
y' Give feedback on what was heard, how that input was used and the impact of the input.
y' Send timely letters of thanks and copies of final consultation reports to all participants.
y' Post final consultation reports and other relevant documents on the appropriate Web site(s).
y' Brief federal partners (and others) about the results and next steps.
y' Provide participants with information about next steps, if appropriate.
STAGE 5: EV ALUA TION
y' Evaluate the process and the outcome, using the established performance indicators.
y' Involve participants in the evaluation and assessment stage.
y' Document and share lessons from the consultation and evaluation processes.
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104/02
4 .
28
APPENDIX 3: PROPOSED CLARINGTON PUBLIC CONSULTATION
PROCESS FOR PORT GRANBY PROJECT (FLOW SHEET)
'v Environmental Assessment
Initiation of
Assessment
Assessment of
Alfcrmlthc
'h',lOS
I ASflceSSllIcnt of
Potential
En\ironmcntal
Eller's
Dc\clolllllent
of f'ollo\\-Up
Pro~n,"l
PI eparation of
Draft EA Stud)
RepOlt
Dc\clollment of
SClccnillg
Report
Preparation of
Consultation Plan
Consultation on]
Identification of
Alternatives (and
preparation of
responses) _
I-~-
I Consultation on
Potential Effects
(and preparation
of responses)
Consultation 0." !
Follow-Up
Program
Consultation on
Draft EA Study
i Report (and
! preparation of
L_~s~~es)
Consultation on
Screening
Report
'l; Design and Licensing
PI cparation of
Design
AUernati\cs
Compil'tion of
Design and
License Phase
I Consultation on
l Design
Alternatives
~,go'" J
i
I Pre-Consultation
., on Consultation
I Plan
Consultation on
Assessment of
Alternatives (and
preparation of
responses)
Notice of
Assesstnent
Completion and
Course of Action
nnl
!
i
Notice of
Issuance of
License
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
3; Construction
Initiation of
Construction
"
Ongoing
Comtl Delioo
"
Completion of
Construction
. ~
29
Notice of
Construction
Commencement
Establishment of
Community
Liaison
Coordinator
..
Preparation and
Distribution of
Quarterly
Newsletters
Notice of
Construction
Completion
~
,
I
I
I
I
i
,
c
1\1onitoring
:4> Monitoring and Maintenance
--;stabliSh~~~-t-:;l1
Community I
Outreach !
Program I
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
On~ojng
Maintenance
Preparation and
Distribution of
Yearly
Newsletters
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
0< .
30
APPENDIX 4: TIMELINE OF EA PROCESS FOR PORT GRANBY PROJECT
.
~ ~
i ~ 0..
il P
]~n I
" . I
: I J i I
~~ 1:lil,1
~ ~Y1 '
. 0 0
" , 11
. .
:r ~ I '
~ ~ ~ .
I'
: ~
~ " -T
Ii
~ ,
~
~ "
Ii
.
~
~ ~
Ii
-
u
"
'0-
Ii:
>-
.0
c
~
iT>
t
o
a..
~
.E!
..
..
"
u
~
a..
...
w
'0
"
.=
0;
E
j::
'i
~
~ "
Ii
.
~
~ ~
Ii
" ! I
,
"
,.
.
~ 1
.--H-
1
!
!
I
,
- ,
U'_ T T"IJ I J -1~~- : ---
, -!. .
~ :' ~.!
Ii - Ja[t~~'
"'.., -_.:-.f---c _ Ii! 1i
~~ ~i, -..~~.
.~ .i~ I~
i jl1!l~ ! "
~ . ~~.
i" ~ d
" .
:-l'::-m -
~:s :!l ~
~ ' -
.i ,,= I
- I
~ ~ I
. ~
Ii
I
j_ , I ~I
~ j:~~11
~ . .
~ i ~ m
, i!i-~~
i - t: ~
i~
I-
. !
. . ~ ' I
· =~U.I
"'... Ii! ,
~ = 0 _ ~II _. i- e---
I!:! ~ i
. . ,
o :
.
~
_.~
~
!i
!
~
~
I
!i I
. "
1M 1 I
, i
I n~ I ,
,
I I
I
i ,
s ' ,L' ! I
_ ~ * ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~i~ire g ~ ~ g g ~ ~ ~I~~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ '" =
6 - - i'" ... ! I ~ i
I I "
I
I
~!, " . .0
~II ~ i ~ "q ~ H ~ ! 1< I ~
j ), Il~ 1 oj! ! H ,; i In JI H ~ P j
~ i I ~ ~ J · i ! ~ ; ! ~ i i i. I I ~ ~ ~ . ! I ~ i ~ j I ! J ~
-I ~~ li>,!~.~~.j '~~~"'.'i~~.{.
j ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ I . ~ ! 0 I ~ 0 ~ ; ~ I I Joj . ~ ~ ~ ~
I J' i J i'll lit j J" i I i j j J J i J I I ! I i j ; i I I j I I
~ -<, 1J:ci: t~l;:::!f~...i:i",n.
m m'll! rr '"' 03
I : i CD [!]
i
0;
_ N ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 01_ ~IMI~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~
~I~ ~I~I~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M M M M M M ~ M
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
I !!
... i ~
. 0"
t ~ I L
i i d I
.HH
~"l'
Hhl
~ ~ ~
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
-..
31
APPENDIX 5.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EA SCOPE DOCUMENT
INCLUDING COMMENTS OF EDITORIAL NATURE
1.0 Purpose
Para I. What are the other factors for consideration in the scope. The statement is too
open-ended.
2.0 Background
No comments.
3.0 Application to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
3.1 Initial Determination
Para 1. Can we clearly state that if alternative means is of relocating the waste away from
the shoreline, DFO may not be an RA?
Para 3. Explain what "screening" is. What are we screening? Options, effects?
3.2 Delegation of Assessment Studies to the Proponent
Para 1. Provide a cross reference to Section 3.3 where the federal authorities are
identified.
Para 3. The text should be more specific as to the expectations with respect to public and
stakeholders comment.
4.0 Scope of the Project
Since Uranium-Thorium activity is long-Jived, as well as presence of non-radioactive
contaminants, long-term continuity of management is important. It should be explicitly
stated upfront.
The CEA Act definition for a "project" includes "any proposed construction, operation,
modification, decommissioning, abandonment or other undertaking in relation to that
physical work". Should the EA not include the effects of extraction of earthwork material
from other sites?
Project Description: Would leachate contaminated by radioactive waste material be
disposed of outside the facility? If so, how?
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
"
32
5.0 Factors To Be Considered In The Screening.
The scope should state the need for a comparative evaluation of alternatives and reasons
for rejecting other off-site alternatives for managing the waste.
Add "socio-economically" feasible to bullet 3, under paragraph "in accordance with
subsection 16(l)(e).. .."
6.0 Assessment Methodology
6.1 Structure of the Screening Report and EA Study Report
State the rationale for undertaking the four studies listed.
6.3 Purpose of the Project
Explain the term "long-term"
6.4.1 Regulatory Environment - a review of laws and regulations might include, in
addition to Canadian federal/provincial regulations, international instruments that may be
described by USEPA, and the European Environment Agency. There is a database (the
BNA Database) that may be helpful to identify relevant legislation.
6.4.2 Description of the Project.
Include institutional control management system
Add to the bulleted list -- "institutional arrangements" - what organizations will be
responsible for what kinds of decisions and authority and how they will be funded. Given
the long-term nature of the site, institutional arrangements should be spelled out for the
next 100-200 years.
6.5.2 Timeframes
Five to 7 years will hardly take us through the EA phase, leave alone the short term
phase of the project. Clarify the timelines (esp. year zero).
What is the basis of the "intermediate term" in the timeframes on page II of the Scoping
Document? What factors lead to the conclusion that the facility would be safe after
"several decades" have elapsed? Why would mitigation and monitoring not take place
over the "long term", particularly in light of potential climate change effects on lake
water levels and weather events?
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02104102
,-
33
6,6 Alternative means of carrying out the project.
While the practice of relocating radioactive wastes is a common practice across North
America, the alternative means of construction of a facility away from the shoreline is a
major task, more involved than the in-situ project in terms of radioactivity management,
earthwork involved and radiation safety implications, To lump it with other alternative
means such as land-use, transportation and monitoring, underestimates the challenges of
the relocation task.
6,7 Baseline
On page 12 of the EA Scope Document, it is stated that the baseline environment must
include the historic low-level radioactive waste. While this is reasonable in itself, it raises
a few issues. First, the Act requires the evaluation to be based on the significance of the
adverse environmental effects of the project, which is not the same as the residual effects
of the facility as a whole once the project is in place. Adverse effects may still be present,
or have potential to occur, despite the project.
6.8.2 Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects
With respect to Mitigation Measures, if there is potential for accidents or malfunctions
that could result in spills or unplanned releases of contaminants in the environment,
Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act may be relevant. Section 36(3) deals with prevention
of release of deleterious substances to fish and fish habitat. Section 35(2) is administered
by DFO and Section 36(3) is administered by Environment Canada.
On page 15 of the Draft EA Scope Document, the factors for characterizing effects and
their significance should also include the value of the feature or situation affected (with
reference to the earlier discussion of VECs). This is more specific than "ecological and
social context".
Page l5-"effects ofthe environment on the project"-there should be a detailed risk
assessment of the potential effects of long-term climate change on lake levels and events
that may affect the project.
6.10 Should the proponent propose solutions or stop short of actual recommendations if it
is the RA's that are responsible for drawing conclusions?
6.11 Is abandonment really feasible?
Page 17/18: abandonment, decommissioning and follow-up-the EA Scope document
should require the proponent to actively seek public input on monitoring results
(newspaper advertisements, meetings etc.), rather than passively making information
available,
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02
34
6.13 Public and Stakeholder Consultation Program
Page 18: Conservation authorities should be added to the list of stakeholders. Responses
to concerns raised in consultation should be made public before, or at latest at the same
time as documents are finalized.
Should there not be full involvement from the public in decision-making? What is to be
done if the public does not accept the project or the EA findings?
Comments on Draft Scope EA Document
Port Granby Waste Management Project
Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
02/04/02