Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

Attachment CNL Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups' Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft EIS (Note: comments in this table are in the official language chosen by the commenter) Tableau pour les LNC: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l'ébauche de l'EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (Note: les commentaires dans ce tableau sont dans la langue officielle choisie par l'intervenant)

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 101
• Submitted: 2018-04-20
• CNL Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups' Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft EIS (Note: comments in this table are in the official language chosen by the commenter)
• Attachment included
• CNL Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups’ Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project Draft EIS Tableau pour les LNC: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l’ébauche de l’EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) e-Doc: 5461958 Page 1 No. Source Section, Table or Figure (Page No.) Section, tableau ou figure (no. de page) Comment Summary (all original submissions can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, reference #80121) Synthèse des commentaires (toutes les soumissions originales se trouvent sur le Registre canadien d’évaluation environnementale, référence #80121) Response (to be completed by CNL) Réponse (à remplir par les LNC) Note: Please provide detailed responses to the following comments and questions in the official language chosen by the commenter (French or bilingual comments are highlighted in light green). If any do not fall within the scope of the project, please provide justification. Comments submitted of general support or opposition to the project have been noted, but are not reflected below. Note: Veuillez fournir des réponses détaillées aux commentaires et aux questions ci-dessous dans la langue officielle choisie par l’intervenant (les commentaires en français ou bilingues sont soulignés en vert pâle). Si un commentaire est considéré hors de la portée du projet, veuillez fournir une justification. Les commentaires généraux de soutien ou d’opposition au projet ont été constatés, mais ne se reflètent pas ci-dessous. Executive Summary / Sommaire exécutif 1. Northwatch (Feb. 19, 2018) Section 2.1 (2-1) Also applicable to ...
• Attachment included
• CNL Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups’ Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project Draft EIS Tableau pour les LNC: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l’ébauche de l’EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) e-Doc: 5461958 Page 1 No. Source Section, Table or Figure (Page No.) Section, tableau ou figure (no. de page) Comment Summary (all original submissions can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, reference #80121) Synthèse des commentaires (toutes les soumissions originales se trouvent sur le Registre canadien d’évaluation environnementale, référence #80121) Response (to be completed by CNL) Réponse (à remplir par les LNC) Note: Please provide detailed responses to the following comments and questions in the official language chosen by the commenter (French or bilingual comments are highlighted in light green). If any do not fall within the scope of the project, please provide justification. Comments submitted of general support or opposition to the project have been noted, but are not reflected below. Note: Veuillez fournir des réponses détaillées aux commentaires et aux questions ci-dessous dans la langue officielle choisie par l’intervenant (les commentaires en français ou bilingues sont soulignés en vert pâle). Si un commentaire est considéré hors de la portée du projet, veuillez fournir une justification. Les commentaires généraux de soutien ou d’opposition au projet ont été constatés, mais ne se reflètent pas ci-dessous. Executive Summary / Sommaire exécutif 1. Northwatch (Feb. 19, 2018) Section 2.1 (2-1) Also applicable to ...

Attachment Revised to Include Comments from the Government of Quebec - Consolidated Table of Federal and Provincial Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the NPD Closure Project Révisé pour inclure les commentaires du Gouvernement du Québec - Tableau des commentaires fédéraux et provinciaux consolidés sur l'ébauche d'Étude d'impact environnemental pour le Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (Note: le tableau est maintenant disponible en français)

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 103
• Submitted: 2018-04-20
• Revised to Include Comments from the Government of Quebec - Consolidated Table of Federal and Provincial Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the NPD Closure Project
• Attachment included
• e-doc 5497841 1 Federal and Provincial Technical Review Comment Table on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project No. Department / Ministry Section, Table or Figure Pg. # Information Request or Summary of Comment Response (to be completed by CNL) General 1. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) General N/A Comment: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should reference the title of the current version of CNSC’s REGDOC-2.9.1, which is “REGDOC-2.9.1, Environmental Protection: Environmental Principles, Assessments and Protection Measures”. Expectation to Address Comment: Please revise accordingly. 2. CNSC, ECCC, Health Canada General N/A Comment: While the EIS makes reference to technical supporting documentation and other detailed studies to support the analysis, and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is encouraged through cross-referencing to make use of existing information, a brief summary or narrative which explains the purpose of referencing each supporting document, as well as any relevant information it contains (e.g., data, methodology, conclusions drawn) should be provided in the EIS. It is not always clear which sections of a referenced document (e.g., Athuada-Arachchige 2015, Seto 2014) are relevant to the discussion in the EIS, especially given that some of these documents are quite lengthy. Expectation to Address Comment: The EIS should explain at a high-level how the information is organized in the document, as well as how it is supported by referenced documentation. Consistent with Section 3.3.3 of CNSC’s Generic EIS Guidelines (p.6), where existing documents are referenced, ...
• Attachment included
• e-Doc: 5349584 1 Examen technique fédéral et provincial Tableau des commentaires sur l’ébauche de l’énoncé des incidences environnementales du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration No Ministère / Organisme Section, tableau ou figure No de page Demande d’information ou synthèse des commentaires Réponse (à remplir par les LNC) Général 1. Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN) Général S.O. Commentaire: L’énoncé des incidences environnementales (EIE) devrait citer en référence le titre de la version actuelle du REGDOC-2.9.1 de la CCSN, soit « REGDOC-2.9.1, Protection de l’environnement: Principes, évaluations environnementales et mesures de protection de l’environnement. » Attentes concernant la réponse au commentaire: Veuillez modifier en conséquence. 2. CCSN, Environnement et Changement climatique Canada (ECCC), Santé Canada Général S.O. Commentaire: Bien que l’EIE cite en référence les documents techniques complémentaires (DTC) et d’autres études approfondies à l’appui de l’analyse et que les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC) sont encouragés, par renvoi, à utiliser l’information existante, ils devraient également inclure dans l’EIE un résumé ou un compte rendu justifiant la référence à chaque document complémentaire ainsi que tout renseignement pertinent (par ex., données, méthodes, conclusions tirées). L’EIE n’établit pas toujours clairement les sections d’un document cité en référence (par ex., Athuada-Arachchige 2015, Seto 2014) qui sont pertinentes dans le cadre de la discussion, particulièrement en raison de la longueur de certains de ces documents. Attentes concernant la réponse au commentaire: L’EIE ...

Attachment CNSC Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups' Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft EIS (Note: comments in this table are in the official language chosen by the commenter) Tableau pour la CCSN: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l'ébauche de l'EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (Note: les commentaires dans ce tableau sont dans la langue officielle choisie par l'intervenant)

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 102
• Submitted: 2018-04-20
• CNSC Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups' Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft EIS (Note: comments in this table are in the official language chosen by the commenter)
• Attachment included
• CNSC Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups’ Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project Draft EIS Tableau pour la CCSN: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l’ébauche de l’EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) e-Doc: 5462824 Page 1 No. Theme Thème Source Section, Table or Figure (Page) Section, tableau ou figure (no. de page) Comment Summary (all original submissions can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, reference #80121) Synthèse des commentaires (toutes les soumissions originales se trouvent sur le Registre canadien d’évaluation environnementale, référence #80121) Response (to be completed by CNSC) Réponse (à remplir par la CCSN) Note: The following comments and questions are presented in the official language chosen by the commenter. The CNSC will respond in that same language. Note: Les commentaires ci-dessous sont présentés dans la langue officielle choisie par l’intervenant. La CCSN répondra dans cette même langue. 1. Environmental Assessment (EA) Process / Processus d’évaluation environnementale (EE) Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) (Feb. 13, 2018 / 13 février 2018) General / Général The commenter believes this is a disservice to Canadians, whose taxes are funding this project and other very expensive radioactive waste management schemes. The commenter finds it unacceptable that federal authorities, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, collude with the nuclear industry to foreshorten the time allotted for sober deliberation. ...
• Attachment included
• CNSC Table: Consolidated Public and Indigenous Groups’ Comments on the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project Draft EIS Tableau pour la CCSN: Commentaires consolidés du public et des groupes autochtones sur l’ébauche de l’EIE du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) e-Doc: 5462824 Page 1 No. Theme Thème Source Section, Table or Figure (Page) Section, tableau ou figure (no. de page) Comment Summary (all original submissions can be found on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry, reference #80121) Synthèse des commentaires (toutes les soumissions originales se trouvent sur le Registre canadien d’évaluation environnementale, référence #80121) Response (to be completed by CNSC) Réponse (à remplir par la CCSN) Note: The following comments and questions are presented in the official language chosen by the commenter. The CNSC will respond in that same language. Note: Les commentaires ci-dessous sont présentés dans la langue officielle choisie par l’intervenant. La CCSN répondra dans cette même langue. 1. Environmental Assessment (EA) Process / Processus d’évaluation environnementale (EE) Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) (Feb. 13, 2018 / 13 février 2018) General / Général The commenter believes this is a disservice to Canadians, whose taxes are funding this project and other very expensive radioactive waste management schemes. The commenter finds it unacceptable that federal authorities, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, collude with the nuclear industry to foreshorten the time allotted for sober deliberation. ...

Attachment From the Algonquins of Ontario to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 98
• Submitted: 2018-02-26
• From the Algonquins of Ontario to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: February 26, 2018 From: Algonquins of Ontario To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF ROBERT J. POTTS, PRINCIPAL NEGOTIATOR AND SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL, ALGONQUINS OF ONTARIO Please see the attached correspondence and submission of written comments on the review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project. Janet Stavinga Executive Director _____________________________________________ Algonquins of Ontario Consultation Office Algonquins of Ontario _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 31 Riverside Drive, Suite 101, Pembroke, Ontario K8A 8R6 Telephone: (613) 735-3759 Fax: (613) 735-6307 Website: www.tanakiwin.com E-Mail: algonquins@tanakiwin.com February 26, 2018 Louise Levert Senior Tribunal Officer, Secretariat Division Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Government of Canada 280 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 BY E-MAIL ONLY cnsc.interventions.ccsn@canada.ca Dear Ms. Levert, Subject: Submission of Written Comments on the Review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project (NPD) (Our File CF 48-2) On behalf of the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ (CNL) Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project as part of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) ...

Attachment From Northwatch to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 30
• Submitted: 2018-02-19
• From Northwatch to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 19, 2018 From: Northwatch To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Northwatch Submission on CNL's Draft EIS for proposed Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: CEAA Reference No. 80121 Please find attached Northwatch's submission and information requests, further to our review of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories proposed decommissioning project for the Nuclear Power Demonstration facility at Rolphton. Thank you for your consideration. Brennain Lloyd Northwatch Project Coordinator -- Northwatch www.northwatch.org http://www.northwatch.org/ N Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Proposed In Situ Decommissioning of the Nuclear Power Demonstration Project at Rolphton, Ontario Northwatch Comments CNL’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2017 February 2018 CEAA Reference No. 80121 Comments prepared and provided by Northwatch 13 February 2018 Box 282, North Bay, Ontario, P1B 8H2 www.northwatch.org E:northwatch@northwatch.org T: 705 497 0373 1 Northwatch | Comment on Draft EIS | CNL’s Proposed In Situ Decommissioning of NPD at Rolphton, ON 1. Introduction Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is proposing to decommission the Nuclear Power Demonstration project (now being referred to as the “Nuclear Power Demonstration Waste Facility”), a former nuclear generating station that was owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) (operating at the time as Ontario Hydro) from 1962 until 1987. The facility is located in Renfrew ...

Attachment From the Métis Nation of Ontario to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 96
• Submitted: 2018-02-14
• From the Métis Nation of Ontario to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 14, 2018 From: Métis Nation of Ontario, Regional Councillor Boulard and Regional Councillor Thompson To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: MNO Comments re. CNL Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft EIS CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia, On behalf of the Métis Nation of Ontario, Regional Councillor Boulard and Regional Councillor Thompson, please accept the attached cover letter and comments pertaining to the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Métis Nation of Ontario looks forward to discussing these comments with you and with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in order to establish a path forward by way of a Consultation Workplan/Memorandum of Understanding that will ensure meaningful and effective consultation with the rights-bearing Métis community on this project and the other projects that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is proposing. James Wagar Manager of Natural Resources and Consultation Métis Nation of Ontario <Signature Redacted> 1 February 8, 2018 James Wagar Manager of Natural Resources and Consultation Métis Nation of Ontario 311-75 Sherbourne St. Toronto, ON M5A 2P9 RE: Métis Nation of Ontario Comments on the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dear Mr. Wagar, As per our identified Statement of Work for a Technical Review of the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (“CNL”) Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, ...

Attachment From Kathy Eisner to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 97
• Submitted: 2018-02-14
• From Kathy Eisner to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 14, 2018 From: Kathy Eisner To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Dear Ms. Abellan, I am dismayed to hear that the proposal for decommissioning the Nuclear Power Demonstration plant involves entombing the plant and the high level nuclear wastes at the site. As a resident of Renfrew County, I am very disturbed at the prospect of using such a method at this site which is near the Ottawa River (an important water source for millions of people downstream) and prone to earthquakes. Indeed, this method does not appear to be safe in any circumstances. I am further alarmed when I read that the International Atomic Energy Agency defines safe decommissioning in very different terms and indeed says that entombment is NOT recommended: " Entombment, in which all or part of the facility is encased in a structurally long lived material, is not considered a decommissioning strategy. and is not an option in the case of planned permanent shutdown. It may be considered a solution only under exceptional circumstances." What a burden and threat to future generations this plan is! The materials in question include radioactive materials that will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years. That is far longer than the entombment materials are expected to last. In terms of the intermediate or high level wastes involved another solution must be found - one that will not put our children and ...

Attachment From Juan Pedro Unger to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 92
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Juan Pedro Unger to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Juan Pedro Unger To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Re: Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project - Reference number 80121 CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Att: Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario Re: Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Reference number: 80121 Dear Madams, Sirs, The draft Environmental Impact Statement is an extensive document with so many shortcomings, it would be a waste of everyone's time to address them or even list them here -and it would also be repetitive, since others' submissions have already indicated and demonstrated many of the unsbstantiated, inconclusive, and at times outright unbelievable statements it contains. So the points I will stress in this submission are only three: 1.- The CNSC should feel insulted with the presentation of this EIS, reject it outright, and demand from whoever seeks to undertake the decommissioning of the NPD that both a credible decommissioning proposal that meets international standards and a credible EIS be submitted. 2. - Canada -and therefore the CNSC and its licencees- must adhere to the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, both ratified by Canada. They must be adhered to, and the latter Convention defines decommissioning as follows: "decommissioning" means all steps leading to the release of a nuclear facility, other than a disposal facility, from regulatory control. These steps ...

Attachment From Sonia Cirka to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 91
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Sonia Cirka to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Sonia Cirka To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: To our decision makers, They just replaced the 20 yr old concrete entombment around the Chernobyl reactor that blew in 1986, because it was falling into ruin, as predicted. It cost $2B or so, and since Soviet Russia is no longer there to pay for it, every body else in eastern Europe had to, somewhat reluctantly. Concrete is no solution. Concrete is not impermeable to water, as everyone with a basement knows, and leaching can be guaranteed. The plan to entomb this nuclear reactor not 400 meters from the Ottawa River should be scrapped. Listen to the concerns of the people who live there. Sonia Cirka Balderson Ontario.

Attachment From Protection de l'environnement du Pontiac, Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, Amis de la Terre (Canada), Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive & STOP Oléoduc Outaouais to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project (Bilingual submission) De Protection de l'environnement du Pontiac, Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, A...

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 85
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Protection de l'environnement du Pontiac, Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, Amis de la Terre (Canada), Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive & STOP Oléoduc Outaouais to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project (Bilingual submission)
• Attachment included
• Date : 13 février 2017 De : Protection de l’environnement du Pontiac (PEP), Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, Amis de la Terre (Canada), Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (RCPR), STOP Oléoduc Outaouais (SOO) À : Lucia Abellan, Agente d'évaluation environnementale Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire Par couriel : cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Ligne d’objet: Commentaires Numéro de référence : 80121 Commentaires : Bonsoir Mme Lucia Abelian, Vous trouverez ci-joint une soumission bilingue présentée au nom des organismes suivants: — Protection de l’environnement du Pontiac (PEP) — Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada — Écologie Ottawa — Amis de la Terre (Canada) — Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (RCPR) — STOP Oléoduc Outaouais (SOO) Réal Lalande Coordonnateur STOP Oléoduc Outaouais mailto:cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Commentaires à la Commission de sûreté nucléaire concernant le document Étude d'impact environnemental (EIE) du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration tel que proposé par les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC)) Numéro d'enregistrement CEA 80121 Les commentaires suivants sont soumis conjointement par : Protection de l'environnement du Pontiac, Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, STOP Oléoduc Outaouais, Ralliement Contre la Pollution Radioactive et Amis de la Terre (Canada). Nous sommes très préoccupés par le Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) à Rolphton, en Ontario, à 100 mètres de la rive de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d'Ottawa- Gatineau et de Montréal. ...
• Attachment included
• Date : 13 février 2017 De : Protection de l’environnement du Pontiac (PEP), Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, Amis de la Terre (Canada), Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (RCPR), STOP Oléoduc Outaouais (SOO) À : Lucia Abellan, Agente d'évaluation environnementale Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire Par couriel : cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Ligne d’objet: Commentaires Numéro de référence : 80121 Commentaires : Bonsoir Mme Lucia Abelian, Vous trouverez ci-joint une soumission bilingue présentée au nom des organismes suivants: — Protection de l’environnement du Pontiac (PEP) — Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada — Écologie Ottawa — Amis de la Terre (Canada) — Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (RCPR) — STOP Oléoduc Outaouais (SOO) Réal Lalande Coordonnateur STOP Oléoduc Outaouais mailto:cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Commentaires à la Commission de sûreté nucléaire concernant le document Étude d'impact environnemental (EIE) du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration tel que proposé par les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC)) Numéro d'enregistrement CEA 80121 Les commentaires suivants sont soumis conjointement par : Protection de l'environnement du Pontiac, Alliance des espaces verts de la capitale du Canada, Écologie Ottawa, STOP Oléoduc Outaouais, Ralliement Contre la Pollution Radioactive et Amis de la Terre (Canada). Nous sommes très préoccupés par le Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (RND) à Rolphton, en Ontario, à 100 mètres de la rive de la rivière des Outaouais, en amont d'Ottawa- Gatineau et de Montréal. ...

Attachment From Angela Keller-Herzog to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 74
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Angela Keller-Herzog to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Angela Keller-Herzog To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O. Box 1046 Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 Dear Ms. Abellan, Please find my comments regarding the adequacy of information presented in the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Consultation and Public Awareness The draft EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Project in Rolphton, Renfrew County, has come to the attention of the some environmental networks only last week when a local resident in Renfrew sent a message to Ottawa's Greenspace Alliance and Riverkeeper. While there has been some awareness recently regarding the proposed ground-level waste storage at Chalk River, there is basically no awareness in our community of this proposed nuclear decommissioning upstream from us. To the best of my knowledge there have been no public meetings in Ottawa-Gatineau and the Ottawa Citizen has not carried any news of this important undertaking. Given that the deadline for submission of comments is today, I am sending you this letter but I feel that consultation with the public has not been adequate. This is also reflected by the very few comments you have received. Entombment methodology does not meet international safety guidelines I am concerned that the proponents are proposing decomissioning using a methodology that is not recommended by the ...

Attachment From Herbert Fitzroy to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 90
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Herbert Fitzroy to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Herbert Fitzroy To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on CNL's EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project at Rolphton, Ontario CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Lucia Abellan: On behalf of my sister and friends, some of which include former Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory employees, and a current one who has been most helpful, and some who have already commented on this project, I must strongly oppose the plan to entomb the NPD reactor in Rolphton by this entity contracted to run CNL led by Mr. Mark Lesinski, who apparently cannot keep a management team together at CNL as was pointed out by Bill Turner last month in Pembroke, much less manage the financial aspects of a greatly reduced funded liability to taxpayers at Chalk River. I do not want to see a repeat in Canada of the cost overruns and the public investigations into misuse of taxpayer funds that plagued the United Kingdom Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as seen on social media where Mr. Lesinski worked for 3 years until 2013, and the negative headlines impacting the Ottawa Valley's perception as a place of outdoor fun and entertainment. Cheaper is not always best I would remind the CNSC, not when the perception of the Ottawa Valley is at stake and tour outfitters and marina operators will feel the impact of the perception that Chalk River is taking some serious gambles with these decommissioning projects, such as this plan to entomb NPD Rolphton pretty much wholesale, and other proposals now being referred to on social media as 'Dollar Store Decommissioning'. ...

Attachment From Rita Redner to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 88
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Rita Redner to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Rita Redner To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the NPD closure project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Lucia Abellan, I do not agree with the proposed entombment at the Rolphton NPD site. The Rolphton NPD site is located in unceded Algonquin territory, less than 400 meters from the Ottawa River, a heritage river that flows past the Houses of Parliament and provides drinking water to millions of Canadians downstream in Ontario and Quebec. The area is seismically active; the Ottawa River is a major fault line. It is a highly unsuitable location for permanent disposal of long-lived and hazardous radioactive waste. Retired nuclear scientists are raising very serious concerns about the proposal. They note that the proposal lacks credibility, employs inadequate technology, and would result in radiation doses higher than acceptable to future Canadians, and fails to address Canada’s international obligations under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. According to retired nuclear scientist J.R.Walker, “NPD will remain a radiological hazard for tens of thousands of years …It is absurd to conclude that cement grout, a reinforced concrete cap above the reactor vessel, and an engineered barrier…over the building footprint will protect the public for that period of time.” According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “entombment” is not a decommissioning strategy. IAEA guidance clearly states that “entombment”, whereby waste is encased ...

Attachment From Sharon Odell to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 77
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Sharon Odell to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Sharon Odell To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comment on Inadequate information presented in the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Ms. Abellan, I am an Ottawa Resident representing myself, family and 31 additional neighbours, as part of my community in the Byward Market/ Lowertown. We are very concerned about the entombment of nuclear waste near or within the river upstream from Canada's capital (Ottawa). I agree with others who have commented previously, that there is an inadequacy of information presented in the draft Environmental Impact Statement -- that would allow better consultation and public knowledge. The draft EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Project in Rolphton, Renfrew County, has come to the attention of the some environmental networks only last week!! While there has been some awareness recently regarding the proposed ground-level waste storage at Chalk River, there is basically no awareness in our community of Ottawa that this proposed nuclear decommissioning will be upstream from us. To the best of my knowledge there have been no public meetings in Ottawa-Gatineau and the Ottawa Citizen has not carried any news of this important undertaking. Given that the deadline for submission of comments is today, I am sending you this letter but I feel that consultation with the public has not been adequate, as reflected by the very few comments you have received. Entombment methodology does not meet international safety guidelines I am concerned that the proponents are ...

Attachment From Craig Robinson to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 87
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Craig Robinson to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Craig Robinson To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Attn: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety CommissionComments on CNL’s EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project at Rolphton, Ontario I am submitting this on the last day after reading through all the comments that have already been submitted. I agree with most of concerns in the public submissions that have already been sent to you, especially those that have been expressed regarding low cost versus integrity. I also seriously question why CNL would consider a so called solution that does not live up to international standards. My trust in CNL is low considering the way CNL staff promoted the technology for the proposed NSDF as "proven technology" and that it would "mostly be just demolition waste" without explaining the specifics such as Intermediate Level Waste which is not appropriate in such a facility. How can we trust CNL with this proposal? Craig Robinson Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Attachment From Anita Payne to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 84
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Anita Payne to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Anita Payne To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Ms. Abellan Here are my concerns about the Proposal for a Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project on the shore of the Ottawa River. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “entombment” is not a decommissioning strategy. IAEA guidance clearly states that “entombment”, whereby waste is encased in concrete and grout, should only be used in exceptional circumstances (e.g., following a severe accident). Therefore the proposed containment structure must be replaced with a structure that meets international standards or redesigned and moved to another location. To be relatively certain that there are no environmental risks, the decommissioning plan and containment structure must be better than those that have failed in other countries. This is particularly important since some members of the coalition owning CNL have been involved in sites that have not yielded satisfactory results. The EIS must adequately address concerns about the long-term maintenance of a concrete tomb. Cement ages and cracks. It will not necessarily last a century let alone for the thousands of years that will be required. The EIS must address the burden on future generations arising from the abandonment of significant quantities of long-lived radionuclides and non-radioactive wastes such as lead, asbestos, PCBs and in a near-surface facility 120 meters from the ...

Attachment From Ottawa Raging Grannies to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 81
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Ottawa Raging Grannies to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Ottawa Raging Grannies To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street, Ottawa ON cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project Please accept this submission "O CNSC" on behalf of the Ottawa Raging Grannies. Sung to the tune of 'O Canada', it highlights some of our concerns about the proposed entombment rather than safe decommissioning of the defunct nuclear reactor located in Renfrew County at Rolphton, Ontario. The Ottawa Raging Grannies are worried about the stability and longevity of a cement and grout 'tomb', especially given winter/spring 'thaw and freeze' cycles in the Valley and the site's proximity to the Ottawa River. (Our research suggests this current proposal does not meet Canada's international obligations under the "Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management") Our grandchildren's future depends on wise decision-making now, so we ask that you seek out and heed informed opinion on ethical disposal, with a focus on implementing people-centred health and safety standards. The price of 'quick-fix entombment' may be low, but the potential cost to Ontario's health is much too high. We require state-of-the-art procedures and facilities to confront the toxic legacy of radioactive wastes across our country, beginning in our own backyard! The ...

Attachment From Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 70
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council (Wilf Ruland) To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Jessica, Attached please find the report prepared for the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council by myself. I am a Professional Geoscientist retained by the AANTC to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed NPD Closure Project. The AANTC are aware of the contents of my report, which was prepared on their behalf. Sincerely, Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.) Initial Independent Review of Hydrogeological Issues Pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Decommissioning of the Rolphton Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Reactor Prepared for: the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council Prepared by Wilf Ruland (P. Geo.) February 13th, 2018 page ���1 <Personal Information Redacted> 1) Introduction I am a hydrogeologist, and I have worked as an environmental consultant for 32 years (2 years for a larger firm in Germany, and 30 years independently in Canada). I am a specialist in groundwater and surface water contamination issues, and have dealt with many such issues over the course of my consulting career. I have given testimony as an expert witness on hydrogeological issues before various boards, including the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Environmental Assessment Board, the Joint Board, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. A copy of my ...

Attachment From Judith Fox Lee and Ormond Lee to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 95
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Judith Fox Lee and Ormond Lee to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• 1 Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Judith Fox Lee and Ormond Lee To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Final Comments on the EIS for the NPD closure project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Lucia Abellan, Please find attached our family's comments on the Environmental Impact Statement on the NPD closure project. We look forward to finding this submission posted on the website soon. Yours truly Judith Fox Lee Ormond Lee 2 RE: Nuclear Wastes and Natural Rights To the Attention of The Public Record and Ms. Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Dear Ms. Abellan, Please add this letter to the Environmental Impact Statement of the Rolphton NPD Closure Project. The disposal of radioactive substances in a manner that anticipates their eventual partial release into the human environment imposes a health burden upon future generations that cannot be justified by any moral or legal rationale. Microphysics: In nature, energy is regularly cast off from unstable atomic structures. When these particles or energies leave their previous orbits or shells and radiate outward, they are capable of imparting an electrical charge to other matter they encounter, and so are called "ionizing radiation." Such radiation can be, and is, quite damaging to biological structures.0F1 As physicist John Gofman describes it: With ionizing radiation, electrons are removed from their atoms, and endowed with energies huge compared to those in ordinary chemical reactions. Such electrons maraud for great distances (compared ...

Attachment From Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 94
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia Abellan Environmental Evaluation CNSC Dear Ms. Abellan: Here is the written submission from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility on CNL’s EIS regarding the Nuclesar Power Demonstration Reactor Closure. Gordon Edwards, PhD, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility www.ccnr.org (514) 489 5118 ccnr@web.ca Supplementary Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Nuclear Power Demonstration Reactor Closure Project (CEA Registry Number 80121) To: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) From: Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) Date: February 13, 2018 This project, advanced by CNL, is in effect a proposal to make the NPD site a permanent repository for a host of radioactive materials created during the fission process, including fission products (such as strontium-90, iodine-129 and cesium-137), transuranic actinides (such as neptunium, plutonium and americium), and activation products (like cobalt-60, iron-59 and nickel-63). It would also include persistent non-radioactive toxic contaminants such as lead, asbestos, mercury and PCBs, The draft EIS is inadequate in its attempt to address the long-term implications of abandoning long-lived radionuclides that will remain a potential hazard for periods of time that ...

Attachment From Eva Schacherl to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 79
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Eva Schacherl to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Eva Schacherl To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: February 13, 2018 Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project - CEAA Reference number: 80121 Dear Ms. Abellan: I object strongly to the in situ decommissioning plan for the Rolphton Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) reactor and associated structures, which are contaminated with large amounts of post-fission radioactive materials and other hazardous wastes. The site is located only 400 m from the Ottawa River, which provides drinking water to millions of Canadians. Many Canadians do not realize that the Ottawa River is the second largest river in Eastern Canada and flows into the St. Lawrence River – the largest. The Ottawa River’s watershed is over 145,000 square kilometres – larger than Switzerland, and the river system contains as much water as all of the freshwater in western Europe. Its significance to Canada cannot be overstated. In situ decommissioning of the NPD reactor site endangers the health and safety of the Ottawa River watershed, its millions of human residents and many species. This danger will be increased by seismic events and by extreme weather events related to climate change, which may cause unprecedented, unpredictable and long-lasting flooding. Since the Government of Canada has no ...

Attachment From Diane Beckett to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 78
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Diane Beckett to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Diane Beckett To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission P.O. Box 1046 Station B 280 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 Dear Ms. Abellan, My comments regarding the inadequacy of the draft Environmental Impact Statement are below. Consultation and Public Awareness Inadequate and Flawed The draft EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Project in Rolphton, Renfrew County, has only come to my attention today. I have been following the proposed ground-level waste storage proposal at Chalk River and thus am surprised I had not been informed of this project. I live in the Ottawa River watershed and have been concerned for many years about the management or the nuclear facilities in the Ottawa River watershed and thus follow these issues. There appears to have been very little publicity, information or outreach on this significant project. It does not appear that there have been any public meetings in Ottawa. No Ottawa media outlets have had news about this important project according to a very thorough internet search. Thus, the public have not been given the proper opportunity to provide input, concerns and questions about this project. You should be concerned that there have been so few comments on this project as it reflects poorly on how you have handled the environmental assessment process. As you know, the concerns about the waste storage ...

Attachment Du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire re: Commentaires sur l'énoncé d'impact environnemental pour la projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 75
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• Du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire re: Commentaires sur l'énoncé d'impact environnemental pour la projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (French Only)
• Attachment included
• Date : 13 février 2017 De : Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive À : Lucia Abellan, Agente d'évaluation environnementale Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire Par couriel : cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Ligne d’objet: Commentaires de Ginette Charbonneau concernant le projet n° 80121 Numéro de référence : 80121 Commentaires : Voici mes commentaires concernant l'IEI du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration. SVP confirmez la réception de ce courriel Merci Ginette Charbonneau mailto:cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Madame Lucia Abellan Agente en évaluation environnementale Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire Courriel: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Commentaires de Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne et porte-parole du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive concernant le document Étude d’impact environnemental (EIE) du Projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration tel que proposé par les Laboratoires Nucléaires Canadiens (LNC), projet n° 80121. Le 13 février 2018 C’est vraiment désolant, mais cette Étude d’impact environnemental manque de rigueur et de preuves. Ce n’est pas rassurant pour les citoyens car au fil des ans, l’air et l’eau de la rivière seront probablement fortement contaminés. Dans plus de 2000 ans, n’y aurait-il pas de gros risques de fuites de substances radioactives et de polluants dangereux? Évidemment, puisqu’il n’y a pas encore au Canada de site d’enfouissement en couches géologiques profondes pour les déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité et de forte activité, les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens sont coincés avec une solution risquée à long terme. On tourne en rond car il n’y a pas de volonté ferme d’agir en ...

Attachment From the Bonnechere River Watershed Project to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 80
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From the Bonnechere River Watershed Project to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Bonnechere River Watershed Project (Kathy Lindsay) To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the draft EIS for NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Attn: Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Attached is our submission. Please acknowledge receipt. Kathy Lindsay Bonnechere River Watershed Project P.O. Box 234, Renfrew, ON K7V 4A3 Website: www.BonnechereRiver.ca Facebook : www.facebook.com/bonnechereriver Email: info@BonnechereRiver.ca http://www.bonnechereriver.ca/ http://www.facebook.com/bonnechereriver mailto:info@BonnechereRiver.ca Bonnechere River Watershed Project PO Box 234, Renfrew, ON K7V 4A3 Email: info@BonnechereRiver.ca Website: www.BonnechereRiver.ca Facebook : www.facebook.com/bonnechereriver Celebrating 20 years “Helping Ourselves to a Healthy Environment” Lucia Abellan Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca 13 February 2018 Re: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration (NPD) Closure Project It is our understanding that the purpose of the NPD Closure Project is the safe decommissioning of the Rolphton NPD Reactor (which was shut down in 1987 and about to become the first power reactor in Canada to be decommissioned), using an “in-situ” decommissioning approach involving grout/concrete entombment within its existing location, a few hundred metres of the Ottawa River. We are surprised ...

Attachment From Barry Stemshorn to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 71
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Barry Stemshorn to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• 1 Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Barry Stemshorn To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Comments on the EIS for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Ms Abellan, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project. My comments are attached. Yours sincerely, Barry Stemshorn Gatineau, Quebec 2 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Environmental Impact Statement: Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project, 64-509200-ENA-004, Revision 0, 2017 September 28 (CEA Registry Number 80121) Distinguished members of the panel, I am a resident of Gatineau and Clarendon Quebec who relies on the Ottawa River for potable water and recreational activities such as swimming, boating and fishing. Briefings from knowledgeable scientists and fellow residents in the watershed leave me with worrisome questions about the proposed “entombment” of the Nuclear Power Demonstration Reactor at Rolphton, Ontario, some 100-200 Km upstream of sections of the river that I frequent. My core question is whether sufficient caution has been incorporated into the design of the proposed closure project in the face of what appear to me, as a non-expert, to be high risks of very serious consequences should a failure occur. I will not repeat the technical concerns that have been set out by experts in the field, other than to recall that they include: • proximity to the Ottawa River (100 metres), • presence of a major geological fault line, • presence ...

Attachment De Elssa Martinez à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire re: Commentaires sur l'énoncé d'impact environnemental pour la projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 83
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• De Elssa Martinez à la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire re: Commentaires sur l'énoncé d'impact environnemental pour la projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration (French Only)
• Attachment included
• Date : 13 février 2017 De : Elssa Martinez À : Lucia Abellan, Agente d'évaluation environnementale Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire Par couriel : cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Ligne d’objet: Commentaires sur l'énoncé d'incidences environnementales pour la fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de Rolphton Numéro de référence : 80121 Commentaires : Bonjour, Vous trouverez ci-joint mes commentaires concernant l’énoncé d’incidences environementales pour la fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration de Rolphton. Elssa Martinez, M.Sc, mailto:cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca À la Commission Canadienne de Sûreté nucléaire, Objet: Commentaires publiques concernant l’énoncé d’incidences environnementales pour le projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de Rolphton. Par la présente, je tiens à remercier la Commission Canadienne de Sûreté Nucléaire d’accepter et de prendre en compte les commentaires du publique concernant l’énoncé des incidences environnementales déposé par les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (LNC) pour le projet de fermeture du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration de Rolphton. Le but du projet mis de l’avant par les LNC est de procéder au déclassement de réacteur de façon sécuritaire, afin de réduire les responsabilités nucléaires canadiennes héritées à long terme et d’éliminer le stockage temporaire des déchets. Cependant, il nous apparait que l’approche proposée par le promoteur, la mise en tombeau, ou le déclassement in situ du réacteur nucléaire de démonstration contrevient aux normes de sûreté établies par l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA). L’AIEA recommande la mise au tombeau seulement dans le cas d’un accident grave ou majeur. Selon ...

Attachment From Christina Anderman to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 72
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Christina Anderman to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Christina Anderman To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Hello CNSC, Here (attached and below) are my comments Re: the proposed Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project at Rolphton, ON. I am strongly against this way of de-commissioning the defunct nuclear reactor containing large amounts of post-fission, long-lived radioactive materials in a cement and grout container below grade, less than 400 meters from the Ottawa River, in a seismically active zone and in a freeze-thaw winter- summer climate. As stated by J.R. Walker, a retired nuclear scientist: ‘NPD will remain a radiological hazard for tens of thousands of years… It is absurd to conclude that cement grout, a reinforced concrete cap above the reactor vessel, and an engineered barrier…over the building footprint will protect the public for that period of time.” There are much better alternatives, as recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): they strongly recommend that long-lived radioactive wastes be put in stable geological repositories/caverns far away from any water bodies. Canada must manage its nuclear waste responsibly in state-of-the-art facilities that keep radioactive substances out of the biosphere! We need a reform of nuclear governance to ensure parliamentary oversight of nuclear waste disposal decisions! And finally these decisions should always include meaningful consultation with the Algonquin First Nations people on whose unceded territory this nuclear facility exists. For the Earth, All ...

Attachment From the Canadian Environmental Law Association to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 73
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From the Canadian Environmental Law Association to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Canadian Environmental Law Association (Kerrie Blaise) To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: NPD Closure Project CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Ms. Abellan, In response to the CNSC's updated invite for comments (dated Nov 28, 2017), please find attached the Canadian Environmental Law Association's submission regarding the draft environmental impact statement for the in-situ decommissioning of the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project, located in Rolphton Ontario. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you for this comment opportunity. Regards, Kerrie -- Kerrie Blaise, Counsel Canadian Environmental Law Association Canadian Environmental Law Association T 416 960-2284 • F 416 960-9392 • 55 University Ave, Suite 1500 Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2H7 • cela.ca Submission to the CNSC on CNL’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement Re: Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project (Ref No. 80121) Submitted by: Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel Rizwan Khan, Counsel Kerrie Blaise, Counsel Dr. Tanya Markvart Dr. Ian Fairlie February 13, 2018 CELA Publication No: 1170 ISBN: 978-1-77189-876-8 Contents SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 3 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION REQUESTS AND DEFICIENCIES 5 INTRODUCTION 9 Scope of Review 9 I. SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS 11 1. Introduction 11 2. CNL’s Consideration of Sustainability 11 2.1 CNL’s Evaluation Criteria and Process 12 3. CNL’s Consideration of the Precautionary Principle 13 4. CNL’s ...

Attachment From Darlene Buckingham to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project

• Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 76
• Submitted: 2018-02-13
• From Darlene Buckingham to The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission re: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project
• Attachment included
• Date: Feb 13, 2018 From: Darlene Buckingham To: Lucia Abellan, Environmental Assessment Officer Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission By email: cnsc.ea-ee.ccsn@canada.ca Subject line: Lucia Abellan - Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Nuclear Power Demonstration Closure Project (CEA Registry Number 80121) CEAA Reference number: 80121 CEAA Reference number: 80121 Comments: Dear Ms. Abellan: The public deserves to know exactly what radioactive elements are going to be buried at this site? I have attempted to find an inventory of what is going to be buried at this site and have been unable to find anything that is complete. Full disclosure must take place before any nuclear waste is left on the banks of the Ottawa River and a full accounting of what are the risks of permanently leaving this nuclear waste where it is so close to drinking water. When the original Chalk River site was built it required the displacement of First Nations people who historically have been marginalized by big industry. In the past 60 years look at the development in this area. How many people will be calling this part of the world home and living with dangerous nuclear waste that cannot be detected through the senses but can only be tested? What habitats will be placed in jeopardy by the decision to bury radioactive waste here? There is a responsibility to the people living in this area as well as to the animals, birds and fish to make sure that all other options are looked at including to move this waste to a more isolated spot are taken. The public has to know that calling the waste that will be buried at this site "low-level" is misleading as ALL radioactive elements are included in ...