Comments on Draft Tailored Impact Assessment Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository Project

Comments on the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for the Deep Geological Repository Project

Prepared by Anne Lindsey on behalf of Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition, No Nukes MB Campaign

We are pleased that there will be a full Impact Assessment with a Review Panel for this major project. At the same time, we are concerned about the “iterative” nature of development of the post-closure safety case during each licensing period. This assessment must be a complete and comprehensive review of the long term multi-barrier concept for deep geological burial of nuclear waste. We believe a fully independent Technical Advisory Committee with necessary expertise on all areas should be established, as there was for the FEARO review of the AECL Deep Burial Concept. 

In terms of Public Participation: 30 days is inadequate for volunteer-based organizations to fully review, understand and comment on the Draft Guidelines. Therefore, the comments provided below are a sample of issues that have come to our attention, not a comprehensive analysis of the Draft Guidelines and associated documents. Rushing through this process does a grave disservice to the aim of meaningful public participation in a thorough and complete impact assessment of an extremely consequential project.

Alternatives 

We note that Section 22 of the Impact Assessment Act requires the consideration of Alternatives to the Project and Alternatives to the Means of carrying out the project. In this case, the review is depending on the findings of a 20-year-old document – Choosing A Way Forward - to determine that alternatives have been considered. This is not current information and therefore, the Guidelines should be more prescriptive about how alternatives such as hardened, secure long-term storage at reactor stations have been assessed. Also, we note that there are recommendations within Choosing A Way Forward that these draft Guidelines do not address that are related to Alternative Means of carrying out the project: for example a recommendation for “retrievability of the used fuel for an extended period, until such time as a future society makes a determination on the final closure, and the appropriate form and duration of postclosure monitoring”; maintaining access to the facility for an extended period to assess performance and facilitate retrievability; consideration of an interim shallow burial option; and, that a future generation would decide when to decommission the site. The Guidelines should direct NWMO to provide explanations for why these recommendations or options are not being considered in this project. We believe the proponent must justify why drilling and blasting for excavation are chosen over tunneling, since drilling and blasting are more likely to increase rock fracturing. 

Transportation

It is also worth noting that Choosing A Way Forward speaks to the need for demonstrating the safety of any transportation system to the satisfaction of citizens. The majority of citizens’ comments that were provided on NWMO’s Initial Project Description called for an assessment of the transportation impacts along the entirety of the planned transportation routes, yet the Guidelines do not clearly require such assessment.

We have concerns about the Transportation scope of this Assessment. Beginning at line 369, transportation impacts are to be described within very proscribed geographic boundaries (at minimum) - considering the junctions of Hwy 17 leading into the site, and boundaries defined by the railway spur. Impacts on Valued Components between Ignace and Dryden are to be considered. And at line 2172: Limits the consideration of impacts to VCs by transportation to the geographically bounded areas around the immediate site. This is inadequate and does not satisfy the comments and concerns expressed by hundreds of citizens along the transportation routes. 

Section 10.2 states that roads and highways along which the waste would need to be transported are in provincial jurisdiction and therefore outside of IAAC’s federal mandate. However, we point out the provision of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act:

71 Any work or undertaking constructed for the development, production or use of nuclear energy or for the mining, production, refinement, conversion, enrichment, processing, reprocessing, possession or use of a nuclear substance or for the production, possession or use of prescribed equipment or prescribed information is declared to be a work or undertaking for the general advantage of Canada. 

Constitutionally, (Sec. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, the Federal government is allowed to assume jurisdiction over projects that would normally be under Provincial jurisdiction if they are considered to be to the “general advantage of Canada”. 

 Therefore, all aspects  of the transportation of nuclear materials, including the entire transportation routes (not just the areas usually considered to be under federal jurisdiction), can fall under Federal jurisdiction and possible adverse impacts of the movement of nuclear materials must be evaluated as an integral part of this review. 

At line 2141 it is stated that specifics on transportation are only supposed to come later during the licensing phases of the project. This plan is to use info that is currently available and update at later stages. Updating is fine, but citizens along the transportation route deserve full and complete information including possible radiation exposures, design and safety testing of the transport containers, emergency response and mitigation of any impacts, and support for first responders and communities impacted, route selection and how communities will be notified. Only then can they determine their willingness and whether they consent to the transportation plan.

Also on this topic, it is not sufficient to rely on the CNSC’s Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations, 2015 and Transport Canada’s Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations to determine safety of the nuclear materials transportation. These regulations are not subject to full public review and assessment to the degree required of this project. Further, other aspects of this proposed project are also subject to other regulations but are not exempted from the review.

Leveraging existing information 

We note that the information contained within the Initial Project Description was vague at best. Greater detail must be provided on any existing information that is included, especially regarding the issue of informed consent and willing host communities. We have noted that several non-indigenous settlements and communities that are in closest proximity to the site have indicated that they were not properly consulted. This oversight needs to be rectified. Much greater detail is also needed on the description of the complete project itself. In particular, we note that there was almost no detail in the IPD regarding the necessary “Used Fuel Packaging Plant”. Given that in the short term, this is the part of the project on site most likely to experience adverse impacts, emissions, worker exposures and so on, excellent detail of the plans for construction and operations of the plant must be provided. 

Geological Environment: at line 475: “provide a systematic geochemical characterization of excavated materials and its weathering process in the stockpile or disposal facility, as well as the wall of the underground openings”; Does this include characterization of any naturally occurring radionuclides that may be present in the excavated rock? Do “contaminants of potential concern” include radioactive contaminants? 

Changes in the Radiological Environment: at line 568, What may be the radiological impact on workers underground as placement of nuclear waste begins? The proponent should be describing how this will be monitored, and how any radioactive contamination of workers will be mitigated.

Groundwater and Surface Water 

Baseline Conditions: What are the geographic boundaries for the watercourses, watersheds, wells, springs, groundwater producing strata and so on that must be described and characterized?  The Generic Guidelines suggest that spatial and temporal boundaries must be established for each of the “valued Components”. How will the proponent establish these boundaries?

The same questions can be asked for the Biological Environment sections of the Draft Guidelines.

Human Health

At line1259 – “groups to consider” speaks to people who live in the area but does not include workers. However, radiological impacts to workers is included in line 1415. Workers as a distinct group, whether from the immediate area or relocating to the project site for work must be named and included in all considerations of holistic health impacts. 

A complete Human Health Risk Assessment should be mandatory, not based on a “formulation exercise and/or preliminary model predictions to determine whether a complete HHRA is required”. It also must incorporate the Guidance for Radiological Impacts. (This is noted at line 547, but not in the prescriptive section at line 1378. Perhaps this is a mistake and should be rectified). Gender and age-based differentials in impacts of radiation exposures must be taken into account. 

At line1399 – Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality – the assessment must be based on the strictest guidelines available, whether they be federal or provincial.

Line 1410: – An assessment of the potential for contamination of country foods must be required. 

Emergency management: With regard to emergency notification and communications, line 2102 –suggests the proponent “should consider” a number of possible actions. This should be changed to a requirement.

Effects of the Environment on the Project

2215 Considering the massive alterations to the environment that this project contemplates (including deep rock excavation, unloading and repackaging thousands of containers of highly radioactive waste, emplacement of radioactive and heat generating materials underground – the potentially “induced” natural hazards), it would seem more reasonable that the induced hazards form the basis of the safety case, not, as noted at line 2215, the impacts of the environment on the project, as critical as they may be.

Climate Change

Our other major concern that we raised in our comments on the Initial Project Description is climate change and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with this project. In our view, the transportation of waste from reactor sites to the proposed repository site is incidental to the project, and must be considered as within scope. It follows that all the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation must be calculated, following the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SACC) p. 6. This is consistent with the IPD summary document at p. 84 which includes nuclear waste transport in the list of greenhouse gas emission sources.

The SACC also requires discussion of the potential impacts of alternatives to the project on GHG emissions and how GHG emissions were considered as a criterion in the alternatives selection. The proponent should show the GHG emissions associated with hardened, secure long-term storage at reactor stations.

We reiterate our statement from our comments on the IPD that NWMO’s assertion that this project will assist in meeting climate change commitments by facilitating the continued use of nuclear power is false and misleading. If the proponent continues to make this claim in response to the directive at Line 2329, they must be responsible for comparing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emission of other alternative energy sources to fossil fuels, including on- and offshore wind, energy efficiency measures, solar and battery storage. 

Finally, we echo these concerns expressed by We The Nuclear Free North:

The examination of social factors must include psychological and emotional impacts of the project, including those related to social division and to the methods of seeking consent for the project, including the consent of communities along the transportation route and in proximity to and downstream from the Revell site and the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous people.

The guidelines must direct the production of an impact statement based on scientific evidence and sustainability principles and the impact assessment process must be structured to provide a rigorous assessment process rather than an approval process with the objective of preventing and avoiding impacts rather attempting to mitigate them.