Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d’examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes

PMD 13-P1.105A

File / dossier : 8.01.07 Date: 2013-08-27 Edocs: 4190772

Supplementary Information Oral intervention Presentation from Kincardine's Municipal Peer Review Team In the Matter of Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Renseignements supplémentaires Intervention orale Présentation par Kincardine's Municipal Peer Review Team À l’égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Proposed Environmental Impact Statement for OPG’s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste

Étude proposée pour l’énoncé des incidences environnementales pour l’Installation de stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes

Joint Review Panel September 16 to October 12, 2013

Commission d’examen conjoint 16 septembre au 12 octobre 2013

Municipality of KincardineMunicipality of Kincardine’’s s Municipal Peer Review Team SubmissionMunicipal Peer Review Team SubmissionPresented By Dave Hardy, PrincipalPresented By Dave Hardy, PrincipalHardy Stevenson and Associates LimitedHardy Stevenson and Associates LimitedSeptember 16, 2013September 16, 2013

Presentation to the Presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for the Commission for the Deep Geologic Repository Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel HearingJoint Review Panel Hearing

Source: Ontario Parks

IntroductionIntroduction

Dave Hardy, RPP. Dave Hardy, RPP.

–– Principal, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Principal, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited.Limited.

–– Director, Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT).Director, Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT).

On behalf of the Municipality of Kincardine, the On behalf of the Municipality of Kincardine, the MPRT reviewed:MPRT reviewed:

–– SocioSocio--Economic Environment Technical Support Economic Environment Technical Support Document (TSD) and Deep Geologic Repository Document (TSD) and Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) Environmental Assessment (EA) (DGR) Environmental Assessment (EA) FollowFollow--up Monitoring Program.up Monitoring Program.

1

PurposePurpose

To provide the comments and To provide the comments and recommendations of the recommendations of the Municipality of KincardineMunicipality of Kincardine’’s MPRT s MPRT on the DGR EA for the Joint on the DGR EA for the Joint Review Panel Hearing. Review Panel Hearing.

Source: Municipality of Kincardine

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) conducted an EA to Ontario Power Generation (OPG) conducted an EA to assess the DGR projectassess the DGR project’’s potential effects, identify s potential effects, identify mitigation measures and followmitigation measures and follow--up monitoring up monitoring programs.programs.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible EA process on behalf of OPG.(NWMO) is responsible EA process on behalf of OPG.

OPG invited stakeholders to become informed about OPG invited stakeholders to become informed about studies and participate in public consultation.studies and participate in public consultation.

EA Study OverviewEA Study Overview

2

Peer Review MethodologyPeer Review Methodology

Questions central to MPRT methodology are:Questions central to MPRT methodology are:

1.1. Is purpose of the work clearly stated, with all Is purpose of the work clearly stated, with all encompassed issues and impacts?encompassed issues and impacts?

2.2. Is methodology sound enough to permit the MPRTIs methodology sound enough to permit the MPRT’’s s objective review of issues, data and facts?objective review of issues, data and facts?

3.3. Are relevant data and facts clearly and consistently Are relevant data and facts clearly and consistently used in the reports?used in the reports?

4.4. Have cumulative effects been thoroughly understood?Have cumulative effects been thoroughly understood?

5.5. Are certainties and uncertainties of studies openly Are certainties and uncertainties of studies openly and objectively stated?and objectively stated?

6.6. Are there data gaps?Are there data gaps?

Peer Review Methodology Peer Review Methodology (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

7.7. Can the MPRT trust the data?Can the MPRT trust the data?

8.8. Are the conclusions supported by data and Are the conclusions supported by data and research undertaken?research undertaken?

9.9. If the MPRT examined the data, would it reach same If the MPRT examined the data, would it reach same conclusions?conclusions?

10.10. Are realistic mitigation measures proposed?Are realistic mitigation measures proposed?

11.11. Will mitigation measures function to address effects Will mitigation measures function to address effects over the life of the project?over the life of the project?

12.12. Are gaps arising from the MPRTAre gaps arising from the MPRT’’s examination of issues?s examination of issues?

13.13. Are there areas where MPRT and OPG Are there areas where MPRT and OPG consultants completely disagree?consultants completely disagree?

3

Peer Review Methodology Peer Review Methodology (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

14.14. Have significant issues been overlooked during the Have significant issues been overlooked during the EA?EA?

15.15. Are gaps addressed to the point where the project Are gaps addressed to the point where the project can move forward?can move forward?

16.16. Are there Federal, Provincial and local standards, Are there Federal, Provincial and local standards, regulations and guidelines overlooked?regulations and guidelines overlooked?

17.17. Does the DGR EA FollowDoes the DGR EA Follow--up Monitoring Program up Monitoring Program adequately address the effects identified in the EA?adequately address the effects identified in the EA?

18.18. What are conclusions of the MPRT?What are conclusions of the MPRT?

19.19. What is the MPRTWhat is the MPRT’’s recommendations to s recommendations to the Municipality of Kincardine?the Municipality of Kincardine?

Municipality of Kincardine Municipality of Kincardine ObjectivesObjectives

To have the MPRT address the following To have the MPRT address the following questions:questions:

1.1.Have the study authors chosen an acceptable Have the study authors chosen an acceptable methodology and applied it successfully?methodology and applied it successfully?

2.2.Given the chosen methodology, type, volume and Given the chosen methodology, type, volume and quality of data, are the conclusions valid?quality of data, are the conclusions valid?

3.3.Are the monitoring actions of the DGR EA FollowAre the monitoring actions of the DGR EA Follow--Up Up Monitoring Program adequate?Monitoring Program adequate?

4

Source: Municipality of Kincardine

SocioSocio--Economic Impact Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA)Assessment (SEIA)

SocioSocio--Economic Impact Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) Assessment (SEIA)

SEIA: SEIA: Systematic advanced appraisal of Systematic advanced appraisal of impacts of the dayimpacts of the day--toto--day quality of life of day quality of life of people and communities when environment people and communities when environment is affected by development or policy change.is affected by development or policy change.

Provides Provides ‘‘people aspectspeople aspects’’ of proposed project of proposed project –– brings brings social science into the evaluation.social science into the evaluation.

Use of Use of ‘‘standardstandard’’ or or ‘‘specialspecial’’ SEIA.SEIA.

MPRT reviewed the SocioMPRT reviewed the Socio--economic Environment TSD economic Environment TSD for consistency with SEIA methodology. for consistency with SEIA methodology.

5

SEIA Methodology StepsSEIA Methodology Steps

1.1. Scoping the socioScoping the socio--economic impact to be studied.economic impact to be studied.

2.2. Profiling existing socioProfiling existing socio--economic conditions.economic conditions.

3.3. Projecting changes that are likely to occur Projecting changes that are likely to occur due to the undertaking.due to the undertaking.

4.4. Assessing the effects of relative importance.Assessing the effects of relative importance.

5.5. Evaluating overall socioEvaluating overall socio--economic impacts.economic impacts.

6.6. Drawing conclusions and recommending how Drawing conclusions and recommending how to proceed with the proposed undertaking.to proceed with the proposed undertaking.

Valued Ecosystem Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)Components (VECs)

NWMO’s consultants (AECOM) grouped VECs into 4 Asset Areas:

6

SEIA asks: SEIA asks: Will the DGR affect any aspects Will the DGR affect any aspects of the socioof the socio--economic environment as economic environment as described in each asset area?described in each asset area?

Human Assets•Population & Demographics

•Skills & Labour Supply

•Education•Health & Safety Facilities & Services

•Social Services

Financial Assets•Employment•Business Activity• Tourism•Residential Property Values

•Municipal Finance & Administration

• Income•Resource Use: Non‐renewable & Renewable

•Agriculture•Economic Development Services

Physical Assets• Housing • MunicipalInfrastructure &Services

• Land Use• TransportationInfrastructure

• CommunityCharacter

Social Assets• InverhuronProvincial Park

• Cultural & Heritage

• Community &RecreationalFacilities &Programs

• Use & Enjoymentof Private Property

• CommunityCohesion

Sources: Ontario Parks, HSAL and Morgue Photos

SocioSocio--Economic Environment Economic Environment VECs Analysis ProcessVECs Analysis Process

AECOM used a matrix to identify DGR projectAECOM used a matrix to identify DGR project--environment interactions likely to cause measurable environment interactions likely to cause measurable change in sociochange in socio--economic environment VECs.economic environment VECs.

AECOM data collection used:AECOM data collection used:–– Secondary source dataSecondary source data–– Field studiesField studies–– Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge

Use of special and standard SEIA.Use of special and standard SEIA.

7

DGR EA FollowDGR EA Follow--Up Up Monitoring ProgramMonitoring Program

The MPRT reviewed the DGR EA FollowThe MPRT reviewed the DGR EA Follow--up up Monitoring Program to verify commitments Monitoring Program to verify commitments made in the EA and the monitoring of made in the EA and the monitoring of followfollow--up actions.up actions.

Findings & ConclusionsFindings & Conclusions

Source: Municipality of Kincardine

8

Initial Peer Review FindingsInitial Peer Review Findings

80 specific comments submitted by the MPRT 80 specific comments submitted by the MPRT on the Socioon the Socio--Economic Environment TSD and Economic Environment TSD and DGR EA FollowDGR EA Follow--up Monitoring Program.up Monitoring Program.

Overall findings:Overall findings:–– Reached same conclusions as AECOM and NWMO: Reached same conclusions as AECOM and NWMO:

sociosocio--economic effects will not be significant.economic effects will not be significant.

–– Study was well done.Study was well done.

–– Several comments pointed to additional Several comments pointed to additional sociosocio--economic effects and followeconomic effects and follow--upupmeasures to consider.measures to consider.

Detailed Analysis Detailed Analysis & Findings Summary& Findings Summary

1.1. Need endNeed end--use plan for rock pile, including landscaping use plan for rock pile, including landscaping and screening, with public consulted.and screening, with public consulted.

2.2. Effects on property values need further discussion Effects on property values need further discussion and Property Value Protection (PVP) Plan.and Property Value Protection (PVP) Plan.

3.3. Potential stigma effects must be managed.Potential stigma effects must be managed.

4.4. Traffic pressure on country roads/intersections Traffic pressure on country roads/intersections needs to be addressed.needs to be addressed.

5.5. Plans needed to obtain regional nonPlans needed to obtain regional non--OPG OPG mine rescue workersmine rescue workers’’ support for training support for training local EMS workers.local EMS workers.

9

Detailed Analysis Detailed Analysis & Findings Summary & Findings Summary (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

6.6. OPG must further define and implement provisions to OPG must further define and implement provisions to support Municipality monitoring sociosupport Municipality monitoring socio--economic effects.economic effects.

7.7. Public attitude research should not be used as a Public attitude research should not be used as a tool for measuring noise and dust effects.tool for measuring noise and dust effects.

8.8. DGR projectDGR project’’s economic development role needs s economic development role needs to be strengthened.to be strengthened.

9.9. SocioSocio--economic mitigation measures must be defined economic mitigation measures must be defined in Followin Follow--up Monitoring Program to facilitate CNSC up Monitoring Program to facilitate CNSC implementation recommendations.implementation recommendations.

Disposition ProcessDisposition Process

Proponent responds to comments by:Proponent responds to comments by:

1.1. Agreeing with the peer review comment; orAgreeing with the peer review comment; or

2.2. Pointing to other reports and studies that Pointing to other reports and studies that may have adequately addressed the peer may have adequately addressed the peer review comment; orreview comment; or

3.3. Satisfactorily explaining to the peer reviewer Satisfactorily explaining to the peer reviewer ‘‘whywhy’’the proponentthe proponent’’s findings should stand; ors findings should stand; or

4.4. Disagreeing with the peer review comment.Disagreeing with the peer review comment.

10

Disposition Process Disposition Process (cont`d.)(cont`d.)

Following the MPRT presentation to Following the MPRT presentation to Council: Council: –– OPG, NWMO and AECOM provided comments, met OPG, NWMO and AECOM provided comments, met

with MPRT to discuss, then reviewed several with MPRT to discuss, then reviewed several disposition responses. disposition responses.

–– MPRT received followMPRT received follow--up dispositions.up dispositions.

–– MPRT`s overall findings remain as: MPRT`s overall findings remain as: Construction and operation of DGR will not result Construction and operation of DGR will not result in significant socioin significant socio--economic effects.economic effects.

–– Many original MPRT comments Many original MPRT comments satisfactorily disposed.satisfactorily disposed.

Final DispositionFinal Disposition

1.1. Trees will be used as a visual barrier for Trees will be used as a visual barrier for rock pile and berm will not be at full height. rock pile and berm will not be at full height. Municipality to have input on landscape Municipality to have input on landscape design.design.

2.2. OPG is prepared to address and monitor OPG is prepared to address and monitor potential stigma effects. Monitoring potential stigma effects. Monitoring program for socioprogram for socio--economic effects economic effects currently in place.currently in place.

11

Final Disposition Final Disposition (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

3.3. PVP Program to be created.PVP Program to be created.

4.4. Plans to address traffic pressure.Plans to address traffic pressure.

5.5. Municipality assured OPG and NWMO will Municipality assured OPG and NWMO will adequately consider Centre of Excellence.adequately consider Centre of Excellence.

6.6. Mutual aid agreement for mine rescue Mutual aid agreement for mine rescue not required not required –– but OPG to have reciprocal but OPG to have reciprocal agreement and training program for agreement and training program for mining rescue workers.mining rescue workers.

Final Disposition Final Disposition (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

7.7. Public attitude research to only be used as Public attitude research to only be used as a qualitative measure for nuisance effects.a qualitative measure for nuisance effects.

12

ConclusionsConclusions

The MPRT is satisfied with The MPRT is satisfied with SocioSocio--Economic Environment Economic Environment TSD and DGR EA FollowTSD and DGR EA Follow--Up Up Monitoring Program.Monitoring Program.–– Methodology, type, volume and Methodology, type, volume and

quality of data collected and quality of data collected and AECOM report conclusions are valid.AECOM report conclusions are valid.

Conclusions Conclusions (cont(cont’’d.)d.)

The MPRT believes: The MPRT believes:

–– With appropriate impact avoidance, mitigation With appropriate impact avoidance, mitigation measures and followmeasures and follow--up monitoring, the project is up monitoring, the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse sociounlikely to cause significant adverse socio--economic effects.economic effects.

–– FollowFollow--up monitoring actions in DGR up monitoring actions in DGR EA FollowEA Follow--up Monitoring Program are adequate.up Monitoring Program are adequate.

As peer reviewers, HSAL supports As peer reviewers, HSAL supports these conclusions.these conclusions.

13