OPG Deep Geologic Repository
Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
OPG Offices
700 University Avenue
Toronto, ON
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
This page left intentionally blank
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Table of Contents
1.0
Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Meeting Agenda .............................................................................................................. 2
3.0
Participants ..................................................................................................................... 3
4.0
Information Session Notes............................................................................................... 4
4.1
Introductions ................................................................................................................ 4
4.2
Overall Review and Approval Process ......................................................................... 5
4.2
Presentation 1: Alternate Locations Environmental Effects .......................................... 6
4.3
Presentation 2: Transportation ....................................................................................12
4.4
Presentation 3: Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis .................................................16
4.5
Presentation 4: Mitigations Report ..............................................................................19
5.0
Additional Topics Raised.............................................................................................22
6.0
Final Comments from Participants ..............................................................................22
7.0
Thanking Participants and Next Steps ........................................................................23
Appendix A – Table Summarizing Post-Information Session Clarifications
Appendix B – PowerPoint presentation
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
OPG Deep Geologic Repository
Information Session Notes
These notes are a compilation of questions and comments received during the OPG Deep
Geologic Repository (DGR) Information Session that was held on November 11, 2016.
Please note that this record of the meeting is not intended to be exhaustive and does not provide
a verbatim transcript. It is meant to provide an overview of the nature and topics of discussion.
In addition, names are not attributed to specific comments except for OPG’s staff and consultants.
As was indicated by a few participants during and after the session, the comments by any
participant should not necessarily be interpreted as representative of the views of other
participants.
The Power Point presentations are attached as Appendix B.
Meeting Date, Time and Location
Date:
Time:
Location:
1.0
November 11, 2016
8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
700 University Avenue
Mini-Auditorium
Mezzanine Level
Toronto, ON
Background
OPG is in the process of seeking regulatory approvals for its long-term plan to manage low and
intermediate level radioactive waste (L&ILW) in a deep geologic repository (DGR) at the Bruce
Nuclear site in the Municipality of Kincardine.
In 2012, the Minister of Environment and the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC) established a Joint Review Panel (Panel). The Panel’s Environmental
Assessment Report of May 6, 2015, concluded that constructing a DGR at the Bruce nuclear site
is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, considering existing and
committed mitigation measures presented by OPG and those recommended by the Panel.
On February 18, 2016, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, requested additional
information from OPG, specifically to carry out three activities: (1) study the environmental effects
of technically and economically feasible alternate locations including the additional off-site
transportation; (2) update the analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the project in
light of the results of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Phase 1
Preliminary Assessments; and (3) update the list of mitigation commitments for each identified
adverse effect while identifying outdated and redundant commitments.
Ontario Power Generation |
1
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
OPG committed to providing the requested information by the end of 2016. Throughout 2016
OPG shared its proposed work plans and preliminary findings with the public, elected officials,
communities of interest, and key stakeholders.
The purpose of the November 11 information session was to provide details on OPG’s preliminary
response to the Minister’s request and to hear comments from participants prior to OPG
completing its work and submitting the final studies to the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency.
2.0
Meeting Agenda
The agenda was designed to inform participants about the DGR project and OPG’s preliminary
findings in response to the Minister’s letter and to hear comments and receive input from
participants before the response is finalized. The agenda appears below.
Time
Activity
9:00 a.m.
Welcome / Opening Remarks
9:05 a.m.
Introductions
9:10 a.m.
Safety Message
Facilitator’s Remarks
Agenda Review
Meeting Courtesies
9:20 a.m.
Presentation: Alternate Locations Environmental Effects
10:10 a.m.
Q&A and Discussion
10:45 a.m.
Break
11:00 a.m.
Remembrance Day Moment of Silence
11:02 a.m.
Presentation: Off-site Transportation
11:30 a.m.
Q&A and Discussion
12:00 p.m.
Lunch Break
1:00 p.m.
Presentation: Cumulative Effects and Mitigation Measures
1:30 p.m.
Q&A and Discussion
2:15 p.m.
Wrap up and Final Comments
Adjournment
Ontario Power Generation |
2
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
3.0
November 11, 2016
Participants
People attending the workshop included a mix of: experts on environmental assessment; experts
on nuclear waste management; Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs); and
local resident and stakeholder groups.
Information Session Participants
1.
Eugene Bourgeois
Inverhuron Committee
2.
Dr. Ellen Dailey
SOS Great Lakes
3.
Dr. Brian Devitt
Durham Nuclear Health Committee
4.
Dr. Don Gorber
IEC
5.
Dr. Sandy Greer
Individual Stakeholder
6.
Charles Hazell
SOS Great Lakes
7.
Brennain Lloyd
Northwatch
8.
John Mann
Individual Stakeholder
9.
Theresa McClenaghan
Canadian Environmental Law Association
10. Marti McFadzean
Inverhuron Committee
11. Jill Taylor
SOS Great Lakes
12. Linda Thompson
Former Mayor of Port Hope
13. Dr. Gord Wichert
SLR Consulting
OPG Staff and Consultants
1.
Lise Morton
Vice President, Nuclear Waste Management
2.
Kevin Powers
Director, Corporate Relations and Communications - Nuclear
3.
Paul Gierszewski
4.
Donna Pawlowski
5.
Gord Sullivan
6.
Fred Kuntz
7.
Vasile Bostan
8.
Alyson Beal
9.
Dave Hardy
Director, Safety & Licensing, NWMO
Senior Manager, Strategic Initiatives, Nuclear Waste and
Decommissioning
Manager, Deep Geological Repository Program Oversight
Manager, Corporate Relations and Communications – Bruce
County
Section Manager Engineering, Nuclear Decommissioning
Associate, Environmental Assessment Specialist,
Golder Associates
Principal, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
10. Noah Brotman
Senior Planner, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
11. Jeremiah Pariag
Planner, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited
Ontario Power Generation |
3
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
4.0
November 11, 2016
Information Session Notes
Throughout the presentations, participants were invited to provide comments and ask questions
to clarify their understanding of the material. Comments, questions and responses were noted
and can be found below. Questions are listed in chronological order and grouped according to
topic. Notes were taken by Noah Brotman and Jeremiah Pariag and reviewed by Dave Hardy.
Sub-headings have been added for ease of reading. Ontario Power Generation was asked to
review the notes for technical accuracy.
The draft information session notes were provided to the participants for their review and
feedback. Some participants did not respond, one participant indicated that the notes were an
accurate summary of the questions and answers and other participants provided comments on
the draft notes. In addition to substantive comments, a few participants expressed their view
that the draft notes did not represent a fair and full representation of the questions and answers.
In particular, and as specifically requested by Northwatch, it does not accept the meeting report
as provided by Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited to be a fair and full representation of
the discussions.
These comments were reviewed by Dave Hardy, Noah Brotman and OPG’s staff. To extent
that the comments were consistent with the understandings of Dave Hardy, Noah Brotman,
Jeremiah Pariag and OPG’s staff, they are reflected in these notes.
4.0
Presentations
4.1
Introductions
Dave Hardy welcomed everyone to the Information Session, thanked them for coming, and
introduced Donna Pawlowski who provided OPG’s opening remarks.
On behalf of OPG, Donna Pawlowski welcomed everyone and thanked them for participating in
the Information Session. OPG appreciates the time participants have taken to learn about
OPG’s preliminary findings in response to the Minister and is looking forward to receiving
comments. OPG continues to work on the studies requested by the Minister, as such, any of
the discussion points offered during the session are subject to change and may vary for the
purposes of OPG’s final submission.
Participants were invited to introduce themselves and organizations that they represent.
Gord Sullivan provided a safety briefing on the meeting room and building emergency
procedures.
Dave Hardy reviewed the meeting courtesies, the agenda for the day, and explained how the
Information Session would be facilitated. Participants asked clarification comments and
questions about the process. A participant noted they are in attendance primarily for
information gathering and will need to speak with their members before providing any specific
feedback. Another participant stated that he/she are here to participate in an information
session and the meeting today should not be considered to be a consultation event. A few
Ontario Power Generation |
4
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
participants noted that comments by any one participant should not necessarily be taken as
representative of the views of others.
Q: Why OPG is sharing information now?
OPG committed to sharing the draft response before it was finalized and submitted. The
preliminary findings are being shared with local municipal councils in the Bruce area at public
council meetings, and to First Nations and Métis organizations (Saugeen Ojibway Nations
(SON), Historic Saugeen Métis and the Métis Nation of Ontario). OPG felt that it would be a
beneficial to also share preliminary findings with key stakeholders, such as organizations who
had an interest in the Project.
Q: Why OPG didn’t pick a venue where all stakeholders who have been involved in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Joint Review Panel (JRP) processes could
participate?
The public was informed about the preliminary response to the Minister through municipal
council presentations. OPG chose to invite representatives of key organizations involved in the
EA and JRP who might be interested in receiving detailed information. The Toronto location was
thought to be a reasonably central location for the range of organizations invited. Some of the
invitations had to be directed to general information addresses. This was interpreted by some
organizations as an overall invite to all of their members rather than inviting a single
representative from their organization. We found that to be a learning process, some of those
things could have been better done.
A participant stated the participant had sent numerous emails to OPG and various Ministers
about this issue (the DGR project) and has not had a response. The participant expressed
frustration with OPG not answering emails. OPG stated the questions had been answered
previously at hearings or in prior emails. Many of the questions were to the Minister and OPG
cannot respond for the Minister.
A participant asked if the Q&A and discussion required more time, would it be alright to take a
shorter lunch break. Dave Hardy responded that the timing of the schedule would be flexible to
allow for discussions to continue as needed.
4.2
Overall Review and Approval Process
Donna Pawlowski described the DGR project and provided background information about the
approvals process to date, the details of the Minister’s request and the description of alternate
locations. Information was also presented on the activities to be completed in 2016. A Decision
on the EA and Construction Licence should occur in 2017. The work packages were described.
Donna Pawlowski stated that OPG is continuing to work on the study requested by the Minister.
Q: What are the expectations for the CNSC regarding public consultation in the event
that OPG gets a positive decision (from OPG’s perspective)?
Ontario Power Generation |
5
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
If there is a positive response from the Minister (i.e. if the EA is approved), the submission will
go back to the JRP and they will have 90 days to come back with a ruling on the licence to
prepare the site and construct.
Q: If the JRP panel has been dissolved, who will be reviewing and making decisions?
The process after the Minister’s decision and prior to the licensing of the L&ILW facility is yet to
be determined.
Q: Does this mean that there would be no public review of what is being submitted to the
Minister?
OPG will provide its submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the
Agency) and they would conduct a public review.
Q: The participant asked if the matter would need to be remanded back to the JRP to
hold a hearing.
The Minister has instructed that the JRP would not be needed to conduct a review. They would
reconvene once the Agency public review is completed. If the Minister accepts the EA, the JRP
would be involved in the licensing determination.
Q: Does this mean that the Minister would be reviewing without public input?
The Minister will be holding a public review and comment process through the Agency, who
have been instructed to hold that public review.
Q: Why won’t the JRP be doing this review?
Another participant responded that the JRP had been released by the Minister and would
therefore not be meeting again until reconvened.
Q: Why won’t there be a public hearing process?
This is a question that would be more appropriately directed to the Agency as they will be
responsible for the approval process. OPG doesn’t have information about the intended
process.
Q: The Minister made three simple requests of OPG. Has OPG been in communication
with the Federal government to know if their approach is an appropriate answer to the
Minister’s questions?
OPG has reviewed all correspondence with the Minister and the Agency, and OPG is following
their directions.
4.2
Presentation 1: Alternate Locations Environmental Effects
Alyson Beal (Golder) presented the methodology used to assess the environmental effects, and
the preliminary findings for alternate locations. Information was presented on the geologic
Ontario Power Generation |
6
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
regions, economic and technical feasibility criteria. Key environmental features typical of a
reference location were described. The potential environmental effects were presented in terms
of valued components. This was followed by a description of the basis for the effects
assessment. Environmental effects were described using the example of aquatic, geologic and
hydro-geological effects for sedimentary and crystalline locations. Conclusions were described
and overall preliminary findings about increased environmental effects were presented. The
following questions and comments were provided.
Process Used To Identify Locations
Q: Has OPG considered a specific reference location and do they view this as the actual
site that will be evaluated? What is the difference between identifying a reference
location and doing a full site search process?
The request of the Minister was to study actual locations. If a full siting process were
undertaken, it would essentially be starting the entire DGR approval process over again. It was
also noted that OPG can’t simply select an alternate location and announce it without consulting
with the local communities. There would need to be a full multi-year site search to identify a
willing community.
Q: What information would OPG rely on in their description of alternate sites? Is there
any intention to rely on any of the Step 3, Phase II assessments from NWMO?
Golder stated they relied on published information (as it is presented today) but would not be
relying on NWMO Step 3, Phase II assessments.
Q: The Ivy School of Business prepared a report for Kincardine in 2004 which identified 7
willing host communities for the DGR, Kincardine being one of them. None of that
information was presented at the hearings or to the community of Kincardine. The report
was not tabled in municipal council. Were any of those actual sites considered in this
alternative review that is going to the Minister?
Those sites were not considered.
A participant commented that if OPG were to identify a specific location they would end up with
a community group challenging the decision and pulling the plug on the DGR. The participant
stated, not naming a specific location was a political decision.
Q: Will socio-economic effects be a criterion that OPG must meet?
Socio-economic effects are not an area of Federal jurisdiction and as such there are no
applicable regulations. However commitments pertaining to socio-economic effects would be
included.
Another participant stated CEAA is focused on environmental and species impacts, but does not
look at social impacts. They stated there isn’t enough consideration about the human impact
side, particularly in relation to differences between locations in remote areas vs. population
centres like southern Ontario.
Ontario Power Generation |
7
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Nature and Specificity of Locations
Q: Are those representative examples, actual specific locations rather than theoretical
composite locations that describe general geologic features?
The locations are actual locations. Reference features would be used to describe a geologic
region.
A participant observed that what OPG has done is start originally with a specific site (Bruce
Power site), but are now looking at general theoretical alternatives. It was suggested that the
site search should have identified representative locations based on criteria that address the
specific concerns/complaints that came out of the review process up this point. They stated, the
question should be “are there different sites that would address the concerns that have been
raised?”
A participant stated the question of “synthetic vs. real location” is important because sometimes
local site peculiarities can overwhelm the general characterization of overall areas. Also, there
was difficulty understanding OPG’s characterization because there isn’t a comparison of
crystalline and sedimentary locations against the Bruce site itself.
OPG responded that the full report examines and compares all three locations (the two geologic
locations and the Bruce nuclear site). The intent of the presentation is to give a general sense of
how the work to assess environmental effects was done.
Another participant stated, the fact that Kincardine came forward as a host community might be
what muddied the waters in this process. If OPG had originally done a full Province site search,
this process would have gone very differently. Because Kincardine came forward the original
study was done specifically on that site.
A participant raised the example of Port Hope in reference to the feasibility of the L&ILW being
hosted by a community that is involved in the NWMO APM siting process. The participant stated
that in Port Hope, 30 years was spent trying to find another community to take their low-level
radioactive waste. The waste was dirt and not equipment, rags, or construction materials. In the
case of Port Hope, the community actually came back and said that they needed to deal with it
themselves and not push it on another community. Port Hope residents wanted to deal with their
own waste. However, the decision was also made that the Port Hope facility would not receive
any other waste from any other locale. This was a very important factor for the community. For
this reason, from NWMO’s perspective, it should not be assumed that those potential host
communities would simply add additional types of waste. This would have a significant impact
on the process.
Q: Why is a location not within 120m of any provincially significant wetlands one of the
key environmental features defining the location of the repository?
The 120m requirement is in the Provincial Policy Statement and represents best practices
established by the Province.
A participant commented, in their opinion, OPG had stated that no significant adverse effects
were likely, but studies to determine the significance had not been completed. The participant
Ontario Power Generation |
8
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
also asserted that OPG had concluded that the JRP already accepted the project because there
would not be any significant effects. In the participant’s opinion, there is no clear definition of
significance in the relevant legislation.
OPG responded that many of the detailed studies and quantitative analyses of significant
adverse effects were already completed as part of the EA. For the response to the Minister, they
are being referenced where applicable to the assessment of alternate locations. There are
regulatory expectations and requirements for stormwater ponds and all of the regulatory
requirements would be met.
Q: Will OPG be showing a map of the specific locations?
Maps would be used in the response. The study looked at the characteristics of locations as
generalities, but a full site search would need to be done in order to identify specific sites. It
would be inappropriate to identify specific communities without a full engagement program
being undertaken.
Q: Will the location would be in the Great Lakes Basin?
Golder responded that both the sedimentary and crystalline locations were in the Great Lakes
Basin. [After the meeting OPG clarified that the locations would be in either the Great Lakes or
Arctic/Hudson Bay watersheds.]
Q: Why couldn’t OPG have just let the NWMO undertake their Adaptive Phased
Management (APM) site search and simply combine the DGR facility onto a single site?
In the original thinking for the response to the Minister the possibility of approaching the NWMO
APM communities was considered. However, it was ultimately determined that introducing the
idea of a secondary site search for a potential DGR location could potentially undermine the
current APM process in those communities.
A participant stated, society has a responsibility to deal with nuclear wastes and it should be
one process for both the DGR and APM facilities. OPG responded that the legislation is clear
that the NWMO is responsible for dealing with the used fuel waste.
Q: Is an opportunity is being missed to partner with NWMO?
The scope of the response to the Minister is focused on approvals at the Bruce site.
Coordination and combination with NWMO is a larger strategic conversation that was not in the
scope of this work.
Q: If the NWMO is studying 21 communities, why isn’t OPG studying more communities
for the L&ILW facility?
The NWMO is looking for a willing host community and is studying geology and other factors. In
the case of the L&ILW DGR, Kincardine came forward as a willing host community. OPG
reminded the participant that this was covered at the JRP hearing and it is in the public record
that Kincardine came forward. This was challenged, discussed, and ultimately upheld in the
hearing.
Ontario Power Generation |
9
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Q: Were any of the NWMO communities used as case studies?
The NWMO communities were not used in this study.
Q: OPG has claimed that Kincardine is the best spot for spent fuel, does this undermine
the NWMO?
OPG responded that this statement was not accurate and that the DGR facility is not being
designed for used fuel and will not have any used fuel located in the DGR.
Project Definition and Waste Characteristics
Q: What does OPG mean by the statement that the DGR capacity “may be doubled”.
Part of the application was to look at whether there is enough quality rock to double the size of
the DGR. The current plan for the DGR is to store 200,000 cubic metres (m3) of Low and
Intermediate Level (L&IL) waste. OPG previously said that in the future (2050s), they would
consider increasing the size of the DGR to include OPG decommissioning wastes. That
proposal would have technical reviews, geology reviews, another public hearing process and
licensing reviews.
Q: Why not do both at the same time? If OPG is already going through the effort now,
why not go the whole way and build a full-sized facility?
In hindsight there may be advantages to approaching it differently. Because the process has
been going for a long time (started in 2004) the decision was made to get the first 200,000 m3
approved and conduct the studies and initiate the approvals process to expand at a later date if
necessary.
Q: If the studies have been done, why not just revise the application to be for the full
400,000 m3 now?
There is confidence in the technical analysis for the area needed for the first 200,000 m3, but
those studies have not been done for the expanded area.
Also, the waste management process is about responsible phasing. It is logical to take the
current existing waste that is well characterized, build the DGR for that material, and then learn
from the development process. In the future, as refurbishment and decommissioning processes
proceed, there will be an increasing amount of knowledge that will help refine the understanding
and influence the decision about whether to expand or build elsewhere for the second 200,000
m3. Since a decision on expansion is not necessary today, gaining more knowledge before
making that decision is advisable.
A participant commented there has always been a struggle with the issue of how far to take the
EA at this point and how far to take it in the future. For that reason, a phased approach was
taken. The participant stated, there is a danger in getting things approved for 50 years in the
future in that the EA process doesn’t provide for an iterative approach that builds on learnings
over time. There needs to be a balance between making complete decisions early and
developing and refining those decisions over time.
Ontario Power Generation |
10
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Q: Douglas Point is owned by AECL. Is AECL planning to have their waste stay above
the ground forever? Why haven’t those wastes been accommodated in the DGR and why
isn’t AECL partnering with OPG? If OPG is taking the position that Low and Intermediate
Level Waste should be below the surface, why is AECL taking a contradictory position?
OPG pointed out that the purpose of the upcoming submission is to respond to the Minister’s
request and that revisiting the overall basis of the project was not within the scope of work.
Q: Have the specific radionuclides been identified for the first 200,000 m3 and is there a
different set of radionuclides for the second 200,000 m3?
Work has been continuing on the characterization of radionuclides for the first 200,000 m3.
Specific details will be needed to be known for the full safety assessment (needed for the
operating licence). Information on later phase radionuclides will be studied in detail.
Q: Will those studies identify specific radionuclides?
Radionuclide identification was done at a general level in order to talk about feasibility, but
further detailed study will be required for the full safety assessment. At the moment, the safety
case is around the operations and refurbishment waste and OPG understands the radiological
characteristics of those wastes quite well.
Additional comment.
A participant stated OPG appears to have said elsewhere to the regulator that decommissioning
wastes will not be going to the facility. But before the hearing for this DGR, the participant
asserted that OPG had stated without qualification that they intended to put the
decommissioning waste in the DGR. The participant stated there are two competing realities.
Other approvals appear to be obtained on the basis of there being a plan for the
decommissioning waste, challenging the credibility of the process.
Q: What impact will the heat generated by L&ILW have on groundwater?
The thermal design of the L&ILW facility is not a defining feature.
Q: Is OPG looking at alternate means of dealing with the waste such as storing it above
ground and allowing radiation to degrade?
80% of all radioactive materials to be dealt with are low level waste that would not benefit
significantly from being allowed to degrade (for 30 years) prior to disposal. The intermediate
level waste would not degrade significantly during storage.
Q: Has OPG done further work after the submission of the 2011 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and follow-up questions in the Independent Experts Panel Report?
There is an ongoing waste characterization plan and OPG understands what waste streams
need refining. There has been an opportunistic data collection program, meaning that readings
are taken whenever waste streams are opened up and there is access to previously
inaccessible systems. This characterization will occur up to and beyond achieving the operating
license. The waste characterization program will be discussed in the operating license process.
Ontario Power Generation |
11
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Q: In 2002 OPG said to Municipal Council that no waste would be reclassified. In OPG’s
2002 annual report it was stated that type 3 intermediate wastes have the same features
as used fuel waste and should be combined with fuel in an APM. But the DGR is intended
to have type 3 intermediate wastes. Does this mean that type 3 wastes have been
reclassified? It now appears that the type 3 waste is going to be located with L&ILW.
When did that change occur and is it a reclassification?
No reclassification of the wastes has occurred. Only low and intermediate level waste is to be
emplaced in the DGR. No used fuel will be emplaced. Further, this discussion of waste types is
not relevant to today’s discussion of OPG’s submission to the Minister.
A participant stated this is relevant because the Michigan Waste Act was incorrectly interpreted
in the hearing. The participant believed it was implied that low and intermediate waste could be
buried on site when next to a power generating station. According to the participant, the
Michigan Waste Act does not permit that in Michigan. The participant asserted, if we are talking
about this being in the Great Lakes Basin, then there is the potential of leakage that would be a
major cross-border issue.
Assessment of Effects
Q: Given that OPG will be continuing to develop their understanding of conditions right
up until the construction of the site, does that mean that OPG doesn’t really have a clear
vision of what the effects will be?
Conditions are understood and were reviewed at the hearing. For some radionuclides scaling
was used. It’s not that OPG doesn’t have the data, but rather it is a matter of honing in on that
data and making sure it is accurate by continuing to review it. Fundamentally the waste hasn’t
changed significantly over the years of operation, so there is a good understanding of the
characteristics of existing wastes. Also the start of the decommissioning process gives OPG a
chance to study previously inaccessible systems and to help improve waste characterization. It
is a matter of improving our understanding and building on existing knowledge
Q. Might crayfish be impacted?
We think that crayfish at an alternate location may be impacted.
Additional comment:
A participant stated that they felt serious concern whether any conclusions could be made about
significance of adverse effects at this time.
4.3
Presentation 2: Transportation
Gord Sullivan (OPG) presented the incremental transportation costs and risks, covering: the
scope of the study; key planning assumptions; cost estimating methodology; the transportation
related activities for alternate locations including the nature of the containers; and the
transportation related risks. Photos and diagrams were used to describe the LLW waste
streams. A diagram describing the effects of the reference plan compared to the activities for
alternative locations was presented. Information on the total incremental packaging and
Ontario Power Generation |
12
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
transportation costs was also presented. An analysis showing conventional and radiological
incremental packaging and transportation risks at the Western Waste Management Facility
(WWMF) was provided. In addition, risks during transportation were also presented.
Transportation risk management findings were provided including a summation of OPG’s record
of safe transportation. Findings of the study of alternative locations with respect to
transportation were also provided. It was concluded that from a transportation perspective, the
Bruce Nuclear site remains the preferred location.
Percent of packages needing to be over packed
Q: Can OPG give a comparison of transportation between the Bruce site and the two
alternate regions. Specifically, what amount of packages would need to be over packed
for the alternate site as compared to existing?
There would be repackaging at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) site. The
process currently proposed would have to take the current waste out of the ground, transfer it to
a transportation container, and then unload at the new location
Q: How has the level of effort changed and how much over packing would be done for
the alternate sites.
At a crystalline site there is the potential, if the site has rock fractures, to do additional work to
remediate the package to ensure that it is safe inside the rock.
Additional barriers
Q: Why would additional barriers be needed on the new site but not for transportation?
While it is known that additional processing or packaging may need to be done for a crystalline
site, it has not been specified whether that work would be done at the WWMF or at the new site.
OPG clarified that it is intended to over pack the containers as necessary at the WWMF. There
will be some effort involved in over packing LLW containers and significant more effort in over
packing ILW containers. The exact effort would have to be determined in more detailed studies.
Q: What extra processing would be needed to repackage on the Bruce site prior to
transportation of materials?
Carbon 14 would be the focus of extra processing. As well, if sending to a crystalline area with
fractures, additional measures would need to be taken to ensure protection.
Packaging facility at mid-point
Q: Could OPG make the decision to keep the waste at Pickering or Darlington long-term.
This cannot be done under the current licence.
Additional comments:
Ontario Power Generation |
13
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
A participant commented that if the alternate site for the DGR would be located in between the
Bruce and Darlington, the waste materials would be better sent to the site for packaging than
having Darlington send it to the Bruce for packaging and then back to the DGR site for storage.
They stated, locating a packaging facility at a mid-point between the two facilities would be an
overall cost savings for transportation to avoid duplicating a repackaging facility.
A participant commented that if OPG is going to consider transportation, the focus needs to be
on the routes to be taken. The participants believes that, if this is a true alternate site analysis,
there needs to be some information available on routes or the full picture of transportation
effects isn’t being seen.
OPG responded that, with respect to existing waste, half of the first 200,000 m3 intended for the
DGR is already at the Bruce site. As well, if the decision is made to construct the DGR at an
alternate location and transport material, the facility would only be operational by 2045 or 2055,
at which point 150,000 m3 will be at the Bruce site.
Q: OPG is selling the APM on the fact that the used fuel can safely be moved off site, but
selling the DGR on the benefit of the L&ILW being able to remain on site. The participant
asked whether this was contradictory.
The more material that is transported the greater the cost. As well, the representative from
NWMO noted that transportation factors are only a small part of the decision to locate the APM
facility and finding a willing host community with appropriate geology is a far more important
factor.
Costs and record keeping
Q: What percentage of the total cost for the project would the additional transportation
represent?
It will cost around $1 billion to get the facility operational under the current proposed plan. The
projected transportation costs of $0.4 to $1.4 billion would be an additional incremental cost.
Q: How it is possible that transportation could cost $1.4 billion while the originally
proposed facility would only cost $1 billion?
This is the estimate developed by Energy Solutions Canada and is being internally reviewed.
Q: Is it being peer reviewed?
Cost data was developed by Energy Solutions Canada and is being reviewed internally at OPG.
Q: Will OPG keep an up-to-date public record of the radionuclides that are be
transported, given that there is a wide diversity of radionuclides that can affect different
plants and animals in different ways?
If OPG was required to look for an alternate location that would involve transportation, it would
uphold the commitment made in the hearings to be transparent and open and put this
information on the website. It was also noted that all commitments made can be found in the
Ontario Power Generation |
14
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Commitments Report. Also, while the waste characterization process is ongoing, the grouping in
transportation packages does not change that characterization.
Q. Does the cost include the cost of additional/new programs to notify communities
along the routes?
There would be a cost associated with amending the emergency response plan to incorporate
new communities and first responders. It was not included in the cost estimate.
Q: Has OPG had the radionuclide data peer reviewed?
There are independent experts looking at the radionuclide material as well and providing
guidance to ensure that everything being done is well referenced and traceable.
Types of transportation packages
Q: How many different types of transportation packages will be required and how many
of those different designs are currently certified?
OPG’s current fleet of transportation packages includes: 8 IP2/Type A freight containers; and 7
smaller Type A containers. Additional IP2/Type A freight containers will be purchased in 2017
and 2018. As well there are multipurpose packages and core component packages to transport
ILW that equal 14 Type B packages. [Updated information provided by OPG].
Q: Does OPG have packaging that has already been certified for all of the waste groups
currently in storage?
There are not currently certified packages for all types of waste.
Q: Which packages still need to be designed and certified?
Packages will need to be designed for ILW originating from Tile Holes and Bruce Power
Refurbishment re-tube waste components.
Q: Could you clarify what you mean by saying the transportation packages on the slide
were “non-accessible”?
OPG clarified that the reference was to “non-processable” materials.
Q: Could the steam generators remain unsegmented for transportation?
Transporting the unsegmented material would require an extremely large transport vehicle that
would be very slow and would require significantly more time to move, in part because of the
weight limits on the roads. Steam generators are considered low level radioactive waste.
Ontario Power Generation |
15
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Modes of Transport
Q: OPG has talked about road transport only and that in 1999 Bruce County approved
rebuilding the deep-water port. Did OPG consider using water transportation for the
crystalline locations?
Water transportation was not considered.
4.4
Presentation 3: Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis
Paul Gierszewski (NWMO) provided an overview of: the NWMO APM process. Alyson Beal
(Golder) presented the CEAA 2012 requirements; the overall approach to analyzing cumulative
effects; and examples of the findings relating to specific effects. Cumulative effects were
described and assessed based on consideration of an APM DGR in Huron-Kinloss, South Bruce
or Central Huron. The examples of surface water and noise cumulative effects were described.
The analysis considered overlap of effects, spatial overlap and temporal overlap. It included
radiological malfunctions and accidents.
Breadth of the Cumulative Effects Analysis and Methodology
Q: Is the Minister’s request clear that OPG is not being asked to look at NWMO sites?
The Minister’s request was to look specifically at cumulative effects of sites within SON’s
traditional territory.
Q: Would it be less risky and less costly with a single combined DGR for both L&ILW and
high level waste?
This question was not within the scope of study for responding to the Minister’s request.
Q: Is this presentation referring to the NWMO’s Step 2 Initial Screening or the Step 3
Phase 1 Preliminary Assessment?
It is from the Step 3 Phase 1 Preliminary Analysis.
Q: Why didn’t OPG consider the costs and risks of the “unnecessary” transportation of
spent fuel having to be transported off site?
The cumulative effects of transporting used fuel off site were captured in the EIS and included in
that analysis.
Q: When will the community have a referendum on locating the DGR within the Bruce
Nuclear Site?
OPG responded that this was not the focus of this meeting.
Q: Will the additional 200,000 m3 of waste be included on this chart?
Ontario Power Generation |
16
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
The additional 200,000 m3 is not included on the chart. Expansion of the DGR to accept the
additional waste was included in the EIS as a reasonably forseeable project and it has been
included in the cumulative effects section of the EIS. This study is only looking at the
incremental effects of what is on record.
Q: Does this analysis consider radiological aspects as well as others?
OPG responded that it does.
Q: Why aren’t animals (wild or farm) aren’t being considered in the noise analysis given
that it is an agricultural area and there are a lot of animals? Will this be added/ included?
The participant added that international studies in recent years have taken an ecosystem
approach looking at more than just the endpoint effects. Another participant expressed a
concern as the Minister said to look at cumulative effects on something that already had a
residual effect.
OPG responded that the methodology for assessing cumulative effects was to look at the
residual effects of the DGR Project on Valued Ecological Components (VECs), but no residual
effects on animals were identified. For that reason it has not been a focus of the presentation
today.
Q: What is OPG’s understanding about how to update cumulative effects analyses when
CEAA or EIS requirements are updated?
OPG is following the current CEAA requirements including their latest draft technical guidance.
Q: Has the approach taken by OPG been grandfathered-in, or will future changes to
CEAA change the approach?
OPG responded that they follow the rules that are in place at the present time.
A participant commented that the geographic boundaries were too restrictive to begin with, and
it should be assumed that any industrial proponent would be doing the most up-to-date
practices. The participant stated, when old assumptions are updated it should be expected that
OPG would keep to the new and improved standards.
A participant stated there is a lot of talk in Europe about the risks of having all nuclear facilities
located in one place. They are moving toward the view that facilities should not be located
closer than 20 km apart for security and safety reasons. The participant observed, in the original
hearings and report from OPG they looked at terrorism, and the participant was wondering
whether security and terrorism threats were examined as a cumulative effect. OPG stated they
have not included malfeasance or terrorism in this analysis.
Q: Does OPG’s conclusion of no adverse effect take into account mitigation measures?
OPG’s conclusion of no residual adverse effect does take into account mitigation measures.
Q: A previous information request had enquired about the possibility of turning off the
back-up alarms on trucks that are dealing with rock waste. OPG had said that they would
Ontario Power Generation |
17
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
look to the Ministry of Labour to see if that was possible, but no response has been
received. Since the alarm sound can be a significant source of noise pollution for a large
area, has this been considered as a possible mitigation measure?
Another participant responded that currently in Ontario it is illegal to not have a back-up alarm
on such vehicles, and that it is common practice in environmental assessment to not consider
those alarms when looking at potential noise impacts.
Q: The EIS does not mention construction explosion noise that could startle people or
cause a loss of hearing. How have you looked at the noise effects of construction
explosions on people?
The noise effect of construction explosions had been considered, and no adverse effects on
human health (such as deafness) were identified.
Q: In a situation in which accidents or malfeasance occurs and situations of combined
errors occur (such as explosions or fire), has OPG considered the cumulative effects of
combined events?
The EIS examined the releases as a result of a fire and an explosion. OPG also looked at how
the environment could impact the project and examined the potential impact of flooding on the
project in the EIS. For this study we looked at common-cause accidents such as glaciation.
Q: Was stigma part of the cumulative effects?
Stigma was not looked at as a cumulative effect in this analysis since it was covered in the EIS
and was not found to be a residual adverse effect.
Q: Does the law state that the two facilities can’t be combined?
OPG is following all law and regulations as required. As well, the specific design for a L&ILW
facility, is different from what will be required for a high-level waste storage facility. There are
different materials, different radionuclides, different safeguards, and different containment
systems. Even if you had the same site and the same rock, you would end up having to build
two distinct facilities on the same site. There is actually very little shared infrastructure between
those two facilities.
Temporal Overlap
Q: Regarding the “Consideration of Temporal Overlap” PPT slide, is OPG intending to
complete the chart (see PowerPoint deck in Appendix A) or is that the way it will be
presented?
The intent of that chart was to be illustrative for this meeting’s purposes.
Consideration of Adjacencies and Watershed Effects
Q: Has OPG looked at the overall cumulative effects on Lake Huron?
Ontario Power Generation |
18
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
No major hydrological changes were anticipated to Lake Huron.
A participant commented that the most obvious place for cumulative effects would be in relation
to transportation because, from the point of view of residents, the biggest annoyance will always
be trucks on the highway.
A participant commented that the JRP did not want to discuss transportation of the used fuel, so
that was off the table at the hearings.
OPG responded that the cumulative effects analysis for the DGR on the Bruce nuclear site had
looked at the potential interaction with other projects. In total, 31 different projects were
examined, including transporting the used fuel off the Bruce nuclear site.
Q: Could OPG provide a map that shows the watershed and how the two facilities would
impact each other cumulatively? [New question was asked before a response could be
provided.]
Q: In impact analysis, how does OPG consider adjacencies in the definition of cumulative
effects?
What is being presented is an example. The scale of cumulative effects is defined for each
individual component. For hydrology for example, the cumulative effects were looked at on a
watershed scale. Other valued components have their own scale.
4.5
Presentation 4: Mitigations Report
Paul Gierszewski provided an overview of the Mitigations Report, explaining how the mitigation
commitments have been tracked and combined thematically to reduce duplications. Examples
of commitments were provided. Participants were provided with an explanation of how the
commitments have been addressed up to this point.
Clarifications about Commitments
Q: Can OPG confirm that commitments and mitigations from both Licensing and the EA
are being included?
As per the Minister’s request, OPG stated it is updating the list of mitigation commitments for
each identified adverse effect, while identifying outdated and redundant commitments. The
2014 report includes all of the commitments and as OPG gets into the licensing process the
commitments will be carried forward for review by the CNSC. There are other commitments
relating to non-environmental regulations such as management and design.
Q: Could you provide an example of non-environmental commitments?
The particular specification for a winch was given as an example of a non-environmental
commitment.
Ontario Power Generation |
19
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Q: The packaging requiring review by the CNSC is being worked on now but they won’t
see it until after the Minister’s decision?
What is being responded to here is the Minister’s request regarding commitments that have an
adverse effect on the environment. If the Minister approves the EA, OPG will subsequently
move forward with the licensing process.
Q: What is the status of the geoscience verification program? Are the commitments in
the mitigation report?
The commitments for the geoscience verification are in the commitments report.
Q: Has OPG completed any commitments since the end of the hearing that will be
reported on in this package or in the CNSC application package?
There were a few commitments that the JRP wanted to see as part of the site preparation and
construction application. Those will be part of the CNSC package.
Q: Will OPG be maintaining a commitments inventory to ensure that they are tracked and
traceable?
This inventory exists and will continue to be maintained.
Q: The new mitigations report is a consolidation of all 900 commitments. Could you
clarify if OPG is only reporting to the Minister on only the CEAA 2012 Adverse Effects
Report?
There is a report which contains all 900 commitments made during the hearing, but not all of
those commitments are related to environmental effects. Those commitments that are not
associated with environmental effects will not be in this update of the Mitigations Report.
A participant stated, hearing about the 900 commitments is concerning because OPG has to do
900 things to perfection for this project to work and this is why their family doubts the project.
Q: Is OPG still committed to doing the commitments from Revision 2 and how this is
being tracked?
Revision 2 is being tracked and is available on the website and OPG will ensure that all
commitments are carried forward.
Q: It is worrisome that if the mitigation measures fail and the follow-up program only
comes after the fact, then wouldn’t there be potential health effects prior to identifying a
failed mitigation measure?
There is certainty based on the ongoing monitoring.
Q: A lot of computer modelling is used in the analysis; will OPG be identifying what
models have been used? Each computer model has various criticisms and benefits that
should be well understood.
Ontario Power Generation |
20
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
In the original EA there was modeling done and all of those models were in the reports in the EA
process and were examined in the hearings.
Additional Comments:
A participant stated that it may be too late to detect potential harm until after mitigation
measures are carried out.
Who Holds Liability?
Q: In the event of major failure with significant health impacts, who would pay the
damages and who is ultimately responsible?
There is an amount of money set aside by waste producers that would cover liability. As well,
there is the Nuclear Liability Act. OPG is aware that the Nuclear Liability Act is currently being
revised by the Federal Government but are not sure whether it had been completed and passed
at this point. [OPG clarification after the meeting – the Act has been revised.]
Q: Who would be liable if there are construction related damages?
The construction site and overall project would have insurance.
Q: Is OPG self-insured under the Province?
OPG is self-insured in certain areas, and acquires additional insurance when needed.
Monitoring Currently in Place
Q: Eight water wells have been dug on the Bruce site to monitor ground water. Has OPG
been looking at the tritium plume on the site?
Those wells are monitored on a regular basis and there has not been an increase in tritium
observed in those wells.
Q: Regarding the questions raised during the hearing about adequately sizing
stormwater ponds to deal with high water level events and climate change, have the
findings been updated?
OPG is still of the opinion that the pond as designed is adequate to even deal with the maximum
level and Environment Canada would be consulted with regards to this issue. A participant
stated that in their recollection the testimony from OPG indicated that the pond would not be
adequate. [OPG clarification after the meeting - OPG committed they would review the design of
the SWMP going forward].
Ontario Power Generation |
21
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
5.0
November 11, 2016
Additional Topics Raised
Q: Is it OPG’s position that there would be no difference between the operational and
decommissioning sites?
This material was already addressed and documented in the JRP hearing.
Q: Is OPG was aware of what is happening with the repository in Sweden? They have
pulled back their design and are now considering whether the facility needs to be 5 miles
deep.
OPG responded that they were not aware of any changes in the Swedish licensing process.
[OPG clarification after the meeting there has been no significant change to the Swedish plans
for their repository.]
6.0
Final Comments from Participants
Dave Hardy asked the participants to share any final thoughts or comments that they might
have, with a focus on how this meeting went and how it could be improved in the future.
The participant’s final comments can be summarized as follows:
•
A participant stated this was a very good meeting and should happen again. The only thing
to change was to hold the session in a less noisy room with microphones to help hear each
other better. This participant also stated that people attending have various concerns and
issues and most comments were not actually related to OPG’s response to the Minister.
Where you (OPG) have comments that are focused on the report to the Minister, OPG
should integrate them. What you (OPG) are hearing is that things are unclear and people
want more information.
•
Another participant stated, this was a valuable exercise. The OPG staff that came to speak
were real and honest. The problem is that unless OPG can address the concern about
moving it away from the Great Lakes that is going to remain as a major concern. This
process has gone far down the road without listening to our input that could have helped
guide this process and more easily reach a better result. The participant said the
transportation issue is not one they can buy into at this point. He/she stated they understood
the information presented, but this has not provided the reasonable answers that we were
looking for. And the fact that OPG is not moving away from the Great Lake does not move
them away from their issue of greatest concern.
•
A participant added, this has been an interesting discussion and they didn’t regret having
spent the time. It was useful in understanding where OPG is going in terms of their
response. However, they stated they feel that it has not been useful or helpful. OPG is
setting aside some commitments. They were concerned that private CNSC and OPG
negotiations were not being discussed openly.
Ontario Power Generation |
22
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
•
A participant stated he/she want to hear from the leaders, including the Minister and others.
The participant stated they never had problems with OPG staff and consider them as
friends, but they stated they wanted to hear from the leaders.
•
Another participant stated, when someone at the meeting today expresses opinions about a
preferable approach, it should not be taken as speaking for all in attendance. The participant
was uncertain that the appropriate answer is simply to move the DGR away from the Great
Lakes and then to conclude everything will be fine. Also, they stated a proper environmental
assessment process was needed and that this has simply not occurred. This is very difficult
to fix now.
•
A participant stated the meeting was dismissive and OPG weren’t really paying attention to
concerns. The participant stated, they know that this is about OPG’s response to the
Minister, but those living there are the ones who will be impacted. He/she stated, if OPG is
serious about wanting to get this project going, you’re going to need to start listening to the
people.
•
From another participant, the participant wants to hear a clear statement from OPG that this
is dangerous stuff to deal with, but they’re doing the best they can. Instead he/she didn’t
hear one bad thing about this process and OPG isn’t acknowledging the problem. In
addition, he/she asked questions about longstanding concerns relating to human health
which is very important. He/she stated, if OPG wants to have support going forward, there
will need to be openness and willingness to address the concerns. If OPG doesn’t want to
address these concerns, then we will keep fighting the DGR.
•
A participant stated that they were thinking about how to bring flexibility and adaptability to a
relatively rigid process. Things are relatively far along, so OPG should keep an eye for how
flexibility of process can be increased going forward.
7.0
Thanking Participants and Next Steps
Donna Pawlowski thanked the participants for attending the information session. She added that
having comments from stakeholders is important as OPG completes the response to the
Minister. OPG will continue to consult with residents and stakeholders in the upcoming weeks
as OPG finalizes the response.
Ontario Power Generation |
23
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Appendix A: Table Summarizing Post-Information Session Clarifications
Will the location would be in the Great Lakes Basin?
Golder responded that both the sedimentary and crystalline locations were in the Great Lakes
Basin. After the meeting OPG clarified that the locations would be in either the Great Lakes or
Arctic/Hudson Bay watersheds.
How many different types of transportation packages will be required and how many of
those different designs are currently certified?
OPG’s current fleet of transportation packages includes: 8 IP2/Type A freight containers; and 7
smaller Type A containers. Additional IP2/Type A freight containers will be purchased in 2017
and 2018. As well there are multipurpose packages and core component packages to transport
ILW that equal 14 Type B packages. Updated information provided by OPG.
In the event of major failure with significant health impacts, who would pay the damages
and who is ultimately responsible?
There is an amount of money set aside by waste producers that would cover liability. As well,
there is the Nuclear Liability Act. OPG is aware that the Nuclear Liability Act is currently being
revised by the Federal Government but are not sure whether it had been completed and passed
at this point. OPG clarified after the meeting that the Act has been revised.
Regarding the questions raised during the hearing about adequately sizing stormwater
ponds to deal with high water level events and climate change, have the findings been
updated?
OPG is still of the opinion that the pond as designed is adequate to even deal with the maximum
level and Environment Canada would be consulted with regards to this issue. A participant
stated that in their recollection the testimony from OPG indicated that the pond would not be
adequate. OPG clarified after the meeting that OPG committed to reviewing the design of the
SWMP going forward.
Is OPG was aware of what is happening with the repository in Sweden? They have pulled
back their design and are now considering whether the facility needs to be 5 miles deep1.
OPG responded that they were not aware of any changes in the Swedish licensing process.
[OPG clarification after the meeting there has been no significant change to the Swedish plans
for their repository.]
Ontario Power Generation |
24
OPG DGR Information Session Notes
November 11, 2016
Appendix B:
Ontario Power Generation |
25
OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository Project –
Response to the Minister’s Requests
November 11, 2016
Stakeholder Information Session
Information Session Details
 Welcome and Introductions
 Safety
• Emergency exit locations
• Evacuation procedures
 Location of bathrooms
 Food and beverages
 Silence cell phones please
 Remembrance Minute of Silence
• 11:00 a.m.
 Overview of materials in folder
2
 Note taking
Agenda
Time
9:00 a.m.
9:05 a.m.
9:10 a.m.
9:20 a.m.
10:10 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
3
Activity
Welcome / Opening Remarks
Introductions
Safety Message
Facilitator’s Remarks
Agenda Review
Meeting Courtesies
Presentation: Alternate Locations
Environmental Effects
Q&A and Discussion
Break
Agenda
Time
11:00 a.m.
11:02 a.m.
11:30 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
1:30 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
4
Activity
Remembrance Moment of Silence
Presentation: Off-site Transportation
Q&A and Discussion
Lunch Break
Presentation: Cumulative Effects and
Mitigation Measures
Q&A and Discussion
Wrap up and Final Comments
Adjournment
Meeting Courtesies
 Respectful discussion, presentation of information and
sharing of ideas.
 Please ask for clarifications if needed for statements by
either OPG or other participants.
 Will ask to clarify jargon.
 May ask to clarify your point to ensure accurate
notetaking.
 Will be checking with Noah from time to time to ensure
that he has correctly noted matters in the minutes.
 Ensuring everyone has a chance to comment.
5
Introduction to the
Deep Geological Repository
6
OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository (DGR)
 OPG’s plan for the long term
management of its nuclear
waste, is a Deep Geologic
Repository at the Bruce Nuclear
site.
 The DGR will safely store all low
and intermediate level waste
from OPG’s nuclear facilities 680
meters underground in an
impermeable geologic formation.
 OPG is currently seeking
Regulatory Approval for the
Project
7
 2011
•
•
Background
Following years of studies, OPG submitted a 15 volume Environmental Assessment report
Federally appointed independent Joint Review Panel established
 Four years of technical reviews and 33 days of extensive public hearings
 2015
•
The Panel concluded “that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental
effects “ and stated that:
 The Bruce Nuclear site is appropriate
 Worker and public health and safety will be protected
 The DGR project will not affect Lake Huron
 2016
•
•
8
Federal request for additional information:
1. Study the effects of alternate locations;
2. Analyze the cumulative effects of locating a used fuel repository close to OPG’s DGR;
and
3. Update the list of OPG’s commitments to mitigate any identified effects.
OPG will complete the work and submit information by December 31, 2016
 2017 - Decision on EA/Construction Licence (TBD)
Today’s Session
 OPG response to the Minister’s Request:
• Package #1:
 #1a Study of Alternate Locations – Environmental Effects and
Transportation
 #1b Study of Alternate Locations – Incremental Transportation
Costs and Risks
• Package #2: Updated Cumulative Effects and
• Package #3 Consolidated Mitigation Commitments
 OPG continues to work on the study requested by the
Minister. Please note that any of the discussion points
offered today are subject to change and may vary for the
purposes of OPG’s final submission.
9
Information Request #1a
Study of Alternate Locations –
Environmental Effects
10
Study of Alternate Locations:
Regional Study Approach
 OPG adopted a regional study
approach, focusing on two geologic
regions in Ontario:
A sedimentary rock formation; and
 A granite rock formation

 Economic and technical feasibility
criteria were developed

Thresholds applied where applicable
 Reference locations were described,
representative of key environmental
features in those regions

11
Consistent with feasibility criteria
Feasibility Criteria:
Technical
Technical
Criteria
Rationale
Evaluation Factors
Is there
suitable
host rock?
Can the host
rock support
long-term
containment
and isolation?
The volume of competent rock is sufficient to host and
enclose the repository.
The hydrogeological, geochemical and geomechanical
characteristics of the host rock promote containment and
isolation of the wastes.
The host rock is geologically stable and resistant to
expected geological and climate change processes.
The geological setting supports site characterization.
The strength and geomechanical properties of the rock
are favourable for construction and operation of
underground facilities.
12
Feasibility Criteria:
Thresholds
 Technical Feasibility
• Sufficient rock volume for a repository holding 200,000 m3 of
as-packaged wastes, and for future doubling of capacity.
• Host rock mass has low hydraulic conductivity such that
contaminant transport in the rock mass is very slow.
• Host rock compressive strength greater than the in-situ rock
stresses.
• Chemically reducing conditions at repository depth.
• Seismically quiet location.
13
The Alternate Project: Phases and
Timelines Sedimentary Location
14
The Alternate Project – Basis for Effects
Assessment
 Same base project works and activities as for DGR
Project at Bruce Nuclear site
 Incremental works and activities associated with:
Design and implementation of a site selection process;
Acquisition of property (240 – 900 ha)
Additional site infrastructure (e.g., security, power, access)
Transport of waste containers to alternate location
Receipt and temporary storage facilities for containers at
alternate locations
• Additional activities at WWMF for extended storage
•
•
•
•
•
 Not included in effects assessment but considered an
incremental cost
15
Key Environmental Features
Sedimentary Alternate
Location
Crystalline Alternate
Location
 Geology is comprised of a layer of glacial drift,
 Geology is defined by a layer of glacial drift,






overlying thick sequences of sedimentary rock,
which sit upon crystalline basement bedrock
Fractures are expected to be sparse
Hydraulic conductivity profile similar to that of
the Bruce site
Area of low seismic hazard
Small rivers or streams in the vicinity.
Repository facilities not located within 120 m
of provincially significant wetland





16
and lake and river sediments (i.e. clay, silt and
sand) overlying the crystalline rock
Typically fractured, the repository design may
require engineered barrier systems
Trend for decreasing hydraulic conductivity
with depth in the Canadian Shield.
Low seismic hazard
Numerous small water bodies in the area as is
typical of the Canadian Shield, defined
wetlands cover a small percentage of the
surface area. Some areas may be transiently
wet in the spring.
Repository facilities not located within 120 m
of provincially significant wetland
Surface water quality generally good with
limited human influence.
Environmental Effects – Valued
Components
Environmental Component
Atmospheric Environment
Air quality
Noise levels
Surface Water
Surface water quality
Surface water quantity and flow
Aquatic Environment
17
Valued Component (VC)
Aquatic habitat
Aquatic biota
Terrestrial Environment
Vegetation communities, including upland and wetland
Wildlife habitat and biota
Geology and Hydrogeology
Soil quality
Groundwater quality
Groundwater flow
Radiation and Radioactivity
Humans
Non-human biota
Land and Resource Use
Use of lands and resources
Screening for Potential Interactions
Aquatic Environment Sedimentary Location
Project Works and Activities
DGR at Alternate Location
Aquatic
Environment
Aquatic Habitat
Aquatic Biota
Site Preparation
●
●
Construction of Surface Facilities
●
●
Excavation and Construction of Underground Facilities
●
●
Site Selection and Licensing
Transportation of Waste Packages to DGR
Above-ground Transfer of Waste
Underground Transfer of Waste
Decommissioning and Closure
Postclosure of the DGR Facility
Presence of the DGR Project
Waste Management
Support and Monitoring of the DGR Life Cycle
Workers, Payroll and Purchasing
18
●
Environmental Effects
Sedimentary Location – Aquatic Effects
 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
• Location is generally well drained. Most watercourses are cool to coldwater
and are considered to be more sensitive to disturbances than warmwater
systems.
• Effects on the aquatic environment are most likely during the site preparation
and construction phase.
• Assumes no encroachment on wetlands or streams, although some supporting
habitat for aquatic species such as burrowing crayfish may be removed.
• Changes to water quality may affect aquatic habitat and biota throughout
construction and operations phases.
 Discharge to a small, local receiving waterbody is assumed.
 Discharges would meet criteria established considering aquatic toxicity thresholds.
19
Environmental Effects
Sedimentary Location – Aquatic Effects
 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
• Blasting activities have the potential to cause an indirect on aquatic VCs
through changes in vibrations levels.
 Blasting management strategies would be employed to minimize predicted levels
at aquatic spawning habitats in the region.
 Blasting management plan would be established to ensure vibrations levels during
blasting are protective of applicable Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
thresholds.
• Mitigation measures for aquatic habitat also expected to be protective of
biota
• Considering mitigation, no significant effects on the aquatic environment are
likely.
 Mitigation requirements may be slightly higher in magnitude discharging to a
smaller waterbody.
20
Environmental Effects:
Sedimentary Location – Aquatic Effects
Valued
Component
Aquatic Habitat
Effects as
Compared to
DGR
↔
Mitigation
Requirements
▲
Comments
Effects on aquatic habitat are likely to be
similar at both sites
The magnitude of effects may be slightly
higher, or additional mitigation may be
required, at the alternate location if
discharged to a smaller watershed.
Aquatic Biota
21
↔
↔
Effects on the aquatic environment are
likely to be similar at both sites
Environmental Effects:
Crystalline Location – Geology and Hydrogeology
Project Works and Activities
DGR at Alternate Location
Geology and Hydrogeology
Soil Quality
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater Flow/
Transport
●
●
●
●
●
Site Selection and Licensing
Site Preparation
Construction of Surface Facilities
Excavation and Construction of Underground
Facilities
●
Transportation of Waste Packages to DGR
Above-ground Transfer of Waste
Underground Transfer of Waste
Decommissioning and Closure
●
●
●
Post-closure of the DGR Facility
●
●
●
Waste Management
●
●
●
Support and Monitoring of the DGR Life Cycle
●
●
●
Presence of the DGR Project
Workers, Payroll and Purchasing
22
Environmental Effects:
Crystalline Location – Geology and Hydrogeology
 Site Preparation and Construction Phase
• Hydrogeology has the potential to be affected by site preparation and
construction activities.
• Potential effects relate to construction dewatering and the resulting zone of
influence due to pumping and management of pumped groundwater, which
will have direct and indirect effects on overburden and shallow bedrock
groundwater quality and solute transport.
• Construction of additional site infrastructure to access the site may also have
an interaction with shallow groundwater flows.
 Taking into consideration the variable bedrock terrain in the region, excavation or
blasting for road cuts may be required.
• Localized dewatering may be required in the vicinity of excavations.
23
Environmental Effects:
Crystalline Location – Geology and Hydrogeology
 Operations and Post-closure phase
• During operations, the project has the potential to continue to affect
groundwater flow from dewatering of underground facilities; however,
volumes of water to be managed are likely to be much smaller during
operations, and therefore, the potential for effects further reduced.
• Active groundwater flow in bedrock is generally confined to shallow localized
fractured systems, and is dependent on the secondary permeability associated
with the fracture networks.
• Groundwater flow at depth at a crystalline rock location may exhibit some
advective flow through a fracture network, in zones where fractures are
present, rather than exhibiting entirely diffusion dominated flow.
 Additional mitigation may be required as part of the crystalline rock location
• Potential effects are also identified during the postclosure phase.
• Given groundwater flow regimes in a crystalline rock environment, unlikely to
result in significant adverse effects on geology and hydrogeology.
24
Environmental Effects:
Crystalline Location – Geology and Hydrogeology
Valued
Component
Soil
Groundwater
Quality
Groundwater Flow
25
Effects as
Compared to
DGR
Mitigation
Requirements
↔
↔
• Effects on soil quality are expected to be similar
▲
• Residual effects on groundwater quality are
expected to be similar between sites; additional
mitigation may be required as part of the
crystalline rock location
▲
• Residual effects on groundwater flow are
expected to be similar between sites; however,
additional mitigation may be required.
↔
↔
Comments
Environmental Effects
Overall Preliminary Findings
 Increased Environmental Effects include:
• Increased effects on air quality, including greenhouse gases, during
waste transportation from the WWMF to the alternate location
• Increased effects on noise levels due to likelihood of quieter
background levels at the alternate locations
• Adverse effects on vegetation communities from increased clearing
during site preparation and construction of surface facilities and
supporting infrastructure, including access roads
• Adverse effects on wildlife communities due to establishment of a
new site with associated indirect effects from vegetation loss and
habitat fragmentation
• Effects on traditional and non-traditional land use due to
establishment of a change in land use, traffic from waste transport
and workers, and indirect nuisance-related effects relative to
background levels
26
Information Request #1b
Incremental Transportation
Costs and Risks
27
Transportation Study:
Scope
 Focus of the Transportation Study
• To determine the incremental costs and risks for
transportation packaging of the entire inventory of
L&ILW and its transport on public roads to alternate
locations
• The complete inventory of waste at 2045/2055 is
stored in approximately 54,000/57,000 containers
• The total volume of LLW is ~ 138,000/146,000 m3
• The total volume of ILW is ~ 10,000/11,000 m3
28
Transportation Study:
Key Planning Assumptions
 All shipments are made by truck transport on public roads
 Transportation schedule aligned with retrieval activities
 Activities considered in this report comply with CNSC,
Transport Canada, and MTO requirements for packaging type
and specifications
 Waste characteristics assumptions aligned with current
L&ILW DGR Safety Case
 This estimate is a Class 5 Estimate according to AACE
classification
 Four distances considered
• 100 km, 500 km (2045 DGR in service date);
• 1000 km, 2000 km (2055 DGR in service date)
29
Transportation Study:
Cost Estimating Methodology
 Costs included in the estimate are limited to the
incremental costs for:
• Packaging for transportation
• Road transportation from WWMF to alternate locations (labour,
tooling, and equipment)
 Waste Stream grouping used to assimilate the common
characteristics to simplify methodology.
• Determine the nature and number of transport packagings
• Re-packaging was added where required to render containers
“road ready”
 Cost estimate developed for each of the 12 waste stream
30
groups (4 LLW and 8 ILW groups)
 Cost adjustment factors are used for each waste stream
to account for uncertainties
Reference Plan vs Incremental
Activities for Alternate Locations
31
LLW Waste Streams
WWMF
LLSB (DGR Ready):
2045
2055
38,287
35,105
containers
containers
6,150 shipments
6,508 shipments
LLSB (Not DGR Ready):
2045
2055
12,227 containers
2,446 shipments
Bruce SG Segments:
2045
2055
416 segments
416 shipments
Trench Waste:
HX Segments:
2045
LLW Volume:
138,000 m3
32
2055
LLW Volume:
146,000 m3
2045
2055
1,926 containers
241 shipments
2045
2055
31 intact HX’s
31 shipments
20 HX segments
20 shipments
ILW Waste Streams - 1
WWMF
IC-2 TH with Fixed Liners:
2045
2055
17 containers
17 shipments
IC-2 TH with Removable Liners:
2045
2055
66 containers
66 shipments
Quadricell Storage Units with Resin
Liners:
2045
2055
115 resin liners
98 shipments
IC-18 with THEL:
IC-12/IC-18 Resin Liners:
2045
ILW Volume:
10,000 m3
33
2055
ILW Volume:
11,000 m3
2045
616 containers
616 shipments
2055
698 containers
698 shipments
2045
2083 resin liners
1770 shipments
2055
2289 resin liners
1945 shipments
ILW Waste Streams - 2
IC-2 Grouted Tile Hole Liners:
2045
2055
43 containers
43 shipments
34
Bruce RWCs
2045
2055
712 containers
712 shipments
Darlington RWCs
2055
2045
474 containers
474 shipments
Transport Packagings
35
Container Outbound Shipments
36
Total Incremental Packaging
and Transportation Costs
37
Transportation Cost Development
Major Cost Categories
38
Transportation Risk Management
 OPG transports over 800 consignments of radioactive
material every year
• Over approximately 500,000 kilometres.
 OPG has been safety doing so for over 40 years and has never
had an accident resulting in a radioactive release or a serious
personal injury.
 Safe performance is due to our Nuclear Management System:
• Radioactive Materials Transportation Program
• Processes and programs to ensure OPG achieves its safety objectives,
continuously monitors its performance against these objectives, and
fosters a health and safety culture.
39
Packaging and Transportation
Incremental Risks
 At WWM and Alternate Locations
• Conventional Risks:
Increased probability for vehicular accidents during:
– Delivery of new transportation containers to WWMF
– Movement of heavy equipment needed to load/unload
waste
– Movement of workers and good
• Radiological Risks:
Increased dose exposure due to:
– Additional waste handling (repackaging more, more steps)
– Additional waste processing
40
Packaging and Transportation
Incremental Risks
 During transportation
• Vehicular related risks
Potential human health affects due to increased levels of
vehicular emissions
Potential for injuries and/or fatalities
• Cargo Related Risks
Exposure of low levels of ionizing radiation (during routine
transportation and during accidents)
– During routine transportation – external dose from packages
– During transportation related accidents – release of
radioactive material via multiple environmental pathways
41
Study of Alternate Locations
Overall Findings
42
Study of Alternate Locations
Findings
 More environmental effects occur at the
Alternate Locations due to:
• Installation of site infrastructure and
equipment for receiving and interim storage
of waste
• Additional waste packaging and
transportation
• Additional GHG emissions during a long
transportation campaign
 Mitigation measures are expected to
eliminate, minimize, or control the
majority of these effects.
• No significant adverse effects are expected
43
Study of Alternate Locations
Findings
 Packaging and transporting waste to an Alternate Location
would result in:
• An increase in transportation risks: 22,000 shipments on public
roadways.
• A cost impact in the range of $0.4 - $1.4B
 Longer distances have highest potential cost
 This doesn’t include additional project costs from re-starting the program
 Overall, the Bruce Nuclear site remains the preferred location
44
Information Request #2
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis
45
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
NWMO APM Process
 APM DGR for used fuel
• Federal approved plan
• Multi-year process
• No sites have been identified
• No community has
volunteered to accept the
project
• No detailed design / safety /
environmental assessment
• NWMO has committed to
working with local
communities, including SON
• Process would include
identifying, assessing and
mitigating effects
46
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Map of Municipalities
 For purpose of responding to




47
Minister, an APM DGR is assumed
located somewhere in HuronKinloss, South Bruce or Central
Huron
Would be at least 20 km from OPG
DGR
Project as per NWMO published
descriptions and safety case studies
Would be sited and designed to be
safe; would meet all discharge
criteria at APM DGR site
boundaries
Potential effects as per NWMO
Phase 1 assessments
CEAA 2012 Requirements
 Cumulative environmental effects described and
assessed based on consideration of an APM DGR in
Huron-Kinloss, South Bruce or Central Huron
 Considered updated guidance since EIS filing:
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Operational
Policy Statement Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects
under CEAA, 2012
• Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Effects under
CEAA, 2012
 Includes consideration of potential cumulative effects of
malfunctions and accidents
48
Overall Approach
IDENTIFY RESIDUAL ADVERSE
EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
Section 3
Is an adverse effect likely on a VEC
from the DGR Project?
DESCRIBE POTENTIAL ADVERSE
EFFECTS OF THE APM PROJECT
 Valued component-focused narrative
c
Section 4
Is the APM project likely to affect
the same VECs?
YES
NO
DESCRIBE SPATIAL AND
TEMPORAL BOUNDARIES
FOR THE VEC
What is the most applicable scale to
assess cumulative effects?
DESCRIBE POTENTIAL
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Are adverse effects likely beyond
those already considered in the EIS?
IDENTIFY MITIGATION AND
MONITORING LIKELY TO BE
REQUIRED
ASSESS SIGNIFICANCE OF
ADVERSE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
(If required)
49
Section 5
(by VEC)
discussion
 Cumulative effects analysis considers
whether in concert with potential
effects of the APM Project these
adverse effects could significantly
affect valued components
 For the purposes of the assessment
have assumed that potential effects
are residual effects
Residual Adverse Effects:
OPG DGR Project
50
Environmental Component
Residual Adverse Effect
Surface water
-
Terrestrial environment
Loss of eastern white cedar due to site clearing
Aquatic environment
Loss of aquatic habitat in ditches due to bridge
construction
Air quality
Increase in some air pollutants due to industrial
activity
Noise
Increase in noise levels
Socio-economic
Reduction in enjoyment of nearby property due to
increased noise level
Human health
Increase in acrolein levels in air (from diesel
equipment)
Radiation and radioactivity
Radiological emissions (although no residual adverse
effect)
Reduction in flow in North Railway Ditch
Increase in flow in Interconnecting Drainage ditch
Consideration of Temporal Overlap
 The two projects overlap temporally, although their site
preparation and construction phases are likely to occur at
different times
51
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Hydrology
 Residual adverse effects of the DGR Project identified in
existing engineered channels (i.e., North Railway Ditch and
drainage ditch at Interconnecting Road)
 Potential effects from the APM DGR identified on surface
water flow
• Site clearing, construction dewatering, and management of surface
water drainage, stormwater, and wastewater
• These activities may contribute to a change in flow in local drainage
areas in the vicinity of the selected site
 Thus, the APM DGR is likely to have both overlap in the type of
effect (i.e., affect the same VC, surface water flow), and
overlap in time with the residual effects of the DGR Project.
52
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Hydrology
 Mitigation measures will be in
place to limit effects
• Compliance with applicable
regulations and permitting
requirements
• Siting and design would seek to
avoid or mitigate effects on
surface water quantity and flow
 The APM DGR would not in any
event be within the same
watershed as the DGR Project
 Cumulative residual effects on
surface water quantity and flow
are unlikely
53
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Noise Levels
 Residual adverse effects identified during site preparation and
construction and decommissioning phases at closest receptors
(approximately 1 km from the DGR Project site)
 Potential effects from the APM DGR identified on noise levels
• Site selection, construction, operation, and decommissioning and
closure all require equipment and activities that generate noise
emissions
• For APM construction-like activities will continue through operations
• Transport of used fuel may also generate noise (~2 trips per day)
 Both projects are therefore likely to affect the same VC
54
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Noise Levels
 Timing of effects are unlikely to overlap
• Construction activities for DGR Project may be complete in advance of
APM Construction
 Mitigation measures included in both projects to limit the
extent of effects to within 1-2 km of Project activities
• Best management measures to ensure both projects they meet
regulatory limits and guidelines (e.g., MOECC guidelines for noise or
equivalent), and municipal bylaws, as applicable at receptor locations
 The APM DGR will be at least 20 km from the OPG DGR
 Cumulative effects on noise levels are unlikely as a result of
the APM DGR
55
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Non-Radiological Malfunctions and Accidents
 EIS considered a bounding non-radiological spill
• From a vehicle accident, failure of on-site storage equipment (i.e., a
storage tank) or operational errors
 Potential effects of a spill would be contained within the DGR
Project or APM DGR site
• Measurable changes to soil and groundwater quality from a spill are
possible
• In the unlikely event a spill would reach a waterbody, it would be
confined to the onsite drainage ditches, where it can be contained in
advance of a release to the environment (e.g., to Lake Huron)
 Spills would be responded to quickly, and remedial actions put
in place to limit effects on the environment
 No adverse cumulative effects likely
56
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Radiological Malfunctions and Accidents
 During the postclosure phase, there were only a few scenarios
where effects could approach or exceed criteria
• For example, inadvertent drilling of a borehole into the repository
horizon or a substantive failure of shaft seals
 If one of the above scenarios occurred at the OPG DGR site
after several hundred years, the main potential radiological
consequence would be the release of gaseous carbon-14
• The effects of this would be of highest magnitude around the OPG DGR
site, as it would rapidly disperse in the atmosphere
• At that time in the future, the APM DGR would also be closed and
sealed and it is expected that there would be no measurable additional
radioactivity at surface due to the APM DGR
 Therefore, there would be no adverse cumulative effects likely
57
Updated Cumulative Effects Analysis:
Findings
 The results of the assessment showed that cumulative
adverse effects are unlikely given the distance and limited
extent of the environmental effects of both projects.
 In addition a cumulative environmental effect as a result
of malfunctions and accidents from both projects is also
unlikely.
 As a result, no new residual adverse cumulative effects
were identified, and an assessment of significance was
not required.
58
Information Request #3
Mitigations Report
59
Mitigations Report:
Commitments
 OPG has tracked all commitment statements made in
its 2011 submission documents and over 3 years of
public review and Hearings (“OPG will …”)
 Documented in the Consolidated Commitment Lists
Report
 Over 900 listed in the 2014 (R2) Report
• Most of these are repeated commitments,
but made in different places and times
• About 3/4 are associated with mitigating and monitoring
environmental effects
60
Mitigations Report
 Mitigations Report includes:
• Mitigation measures included in facility plans,
and identified in the conduct of the EA,
• Monitoring commitments to confirm that
mitigation measures are effective and effects are
as predicted,
• Mitigation and monitoring activities identified in
CEAA’s proposed conditions as accepted by OPG.
 Consolidates into approximately 150 main
commitments
• Supported by about 500 detailed commitments
 Also identifies commitments that have been
completed to date or have been updated
61
Mitigations Report
Mitigations Report:
Structure
 Mitigations are grouped by related Valued Ecosystem Components
Groupings:
Geology
Hydrology and Surface Water Quality
Terrestrial Environment
Aquatic Environment
Radiation and Radioactivity
Atmospheric Environment
Aboriginal Interests
Socio-Economic Environment
Human Health
Ecological Features
62
Mitigations Report:
Example #1
VEC: Hydrology and Surface Water Quality - Surface Water Quality
• Main Commitment: All stormwater runoff from the DGR Project site,
including the WRMA, will be collected into drainage ditches that flow into
the stormwater management pond.
• Detailed Commitments:
• Site will be graded to capture all stormwater collected on site
• Vegetated perimeter ditches will control sediment loading in the pond
• An oil/water separator (i.e. stormceptor) will control hydrocarbon
releases, Total Suspended Solids and metals associated with TSS
• A temporary water treatment plant … will be located in the vicinity of
the shafts to receive water pumped from underground in the event that
there will be abnormally high concentrations of oil, grease and/or grit in
the water.
• …
63
Mitigations Report:
Example #2
VEC: Hydrology and Surface Water Quality - Surface Water Quality
• Main commitment: Water sampling and testing is proposed to confirm that
all water released from the DGR Project site via the stormwater management
pond has concentration levels below certificate of approval discharge criteria
• Detailed commitments:
• Final water quality criteria for the effluent from the pond will be
developed as part of the Ontario Environmental Compliance Approval
• OPG will, prior to construction, submit to the CNSC a plan for treatment
of all water destined for discharge from the stormwater management
pond
• Samples will be collected quarterly at a minimum throughout the site
preparation and construction phase as described in the EA Follow-up
Monitoring Program document
• …
64
Mitigations Report:
Example #3
VEC: Radiation and Radioactivity - Humans
• Main Commitment: Waste Package Receipt, Transfer and Handling
procedures and processes will be implemented
• Detailed Commitments:
• All waste packages sent to the DGR will be checked against the DGR
waste acceptance criteria, which will include measuring the waste
package dose rate to ensure it is within specified limits
• OPG will prepare an inspection protocol for waste containers, beyond
visual inspection, that must be followed before their placement in the
DGR
• At no time will radioactive waste be transferred in the main cage while
personnel are being concurrently transferred in the auxiliary cage under
normal operating conditions
• …
65
Mitigations Report:
Example #4
Examples of Completed Commitments:
66

Shaft pilot programs, which are to be established prior to excavation
and construction.
 Completed in 2011. Pilot boreholes drilled at shaft locations.

Grouting trials to confirm feasibility of surface-based grouting.
 Completed in 2012

Installation of a shallow groundwater monitoring program.
 Completed in 2012 with additional 8 monitoring wells.

Specification of the geoscientific verification to be done in the
ventilation shaft (in addition to the main shaft)
 Completed in 2014
Response to Minister’s Request
Next Steps
67
DGR Next Steps
 OPG is on track to provide the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency the
requested information in December.
• OPG will incorporate feedback/comments
from this round of public/stakeholder review
• OPG will post the final submission
information on our web site
 This new, additional information supports the
current plan for OPG’s DGR at the Bruce Nuclear
site as a safe and cost effective long-term
management solution.
68
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency Next Steps
 The Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency will announce plans for a public
review of OPG’s work prior to a decision on
the Environmental Assessment.
 They have announced public funding is
available to review:
• OPG’s submission,
• the report the Agency will prepare
following its analysis of the additional
information; and
• potential conditions with which OPG must
comply, if the project is allowed to
proceed.
69