Panel Report

This appendix summarizes pages 149 to 163 of the EIS.

Abbreviations used:

• IO: implementing organization
• EC: exclusion criteria
• ORT: organization(s) responsible for transportation
• PHC: potential host community

Overall Siting Stage Considerations

• The IO and ORT would be committed to the principles of safety, environmental protection, voluntarism, shared decision-making, openness and fairness.
• At some point during the siting stage, the IO would require a binding commitment from the PHC that it was willing to be a host; negotiations would determine the conditions for the PHC's commitment.
• EC could be applied more than once as information was obtained from progressively more detailed investigations.

Site Screening Substage

1. Governments and waste owners would define siting territories consisting of areas of plutonic rock, which would not necessarily be contiguous.
2. The IO would specify its EC, which would include seismically active zones.
3. The IO would consult with regulators and provincial governments to develop EC that reflect their concerns.
4. Using available data, the IO would screen out unacceptable areas using EC, to identify siting regions within siting territories.
5. The IO would offer information, including EC, and consult with governments and the public throughout each siting region.
6. The IO would encourage the involvement of the PHCs.
7. The IO and PHCs would jointly define their interaction framework(s).
8. The IO would negotiate with the PHCs to determine conditions for their participation.
9. The PHCs could develop additional EC for their areas.
10. The IO would seek potential candidate areas of approximately 25 square kilometres. It would need access to a surrounding area of at least 400 square kilometres to characterize the hydrogeological setting.
11. The IO would conduct reconnaissance studies.
12. The IO would determine the technical suitability of potential candidate areas by considering favourable characteristics (pp. 154-155 of the EIS). It would establish the relative importance of these characteristics in consultation with the PHCs.
13. A potential candidate area would also have to meet any previously negotiated conditions for the participation or commitment of the PHC.
14. The IO would identify two or three candidate areas, using a ranking process mutually acceptable to the PHCs and the IO, if necessary.

Site Evaluation Substage

1. The IO and any other potentially affected community would jointly establish a procedure to seek and address community views.
2. To identify potential vault locations, the IO would undertake detailed and costly characterization of each candidate area and a surrounding area of at least 400 square kilometres.
3. The IO would determine the technical suitability of potential vault locations by considering favourable characteristics (pp. 158-159 of the EIS); it would determine the relative importance of these characteristics in consultation with the PHCs.
4. A potential vault location would also have to meet any previously negotiated conditions for the participation or commitment of the PHC.
5. If more than one potential vault location was identified, the IO would select the preferred one using preliminary safety assessments, technical characteristics it considers favourable and the preferences of the PHCs.
6. The candidate site(s) would include 25 square kilometres surrounding the preferred vault location in each candidate area.
7. For each candidate site, the IO would undertake surface and borehole studies, develop engineering conceptual designs of facilities and system models, and prepare a preclosure and postclosure environmental assessment.
8. A candidate site could be excluded on the basis of the assessment results, available site information, unfavourable technical characteristics, any applicable EC, and any previously negotiated conditions for the participation or commitment of the PHC.
9. If more than one candidate site remains, the IO would identify a preferred candidate site using a ranking process mutually acceptable to the PHCs and the IO.
10. The ORT would identify potential transportation routes.
11. The ORT would consult with potentially affected communities along the potential transportation routes to establish a procedure to seek and address their views.
12. The ORT would characterize and select a preferred transportation route and mode.
13. The ORT would prepare detailed transportation system designs.
14. The ORT would conduct an environmental assessment of the transportation system.
15. The IO would conduct detailed studies in exploratory shafts and tunnels at the preferred vault location within the preferred candidate site.
16. If the technical suitability of the site is confirmed, the IO would prepare detailed designs and continue the environmental assessment, addressing the views of the PHC and other potentially affected communities.
17. If the preferred candidate site is still considered technically suitable and if the previously negotiated conditions for the participation or commitment of the PHC have been met, the IO would consider that site to be the preferred site.
18. If the IO decides the preferred candidate site is unsuitable, the IO would undertake exploratory excavation at the candidate site that had ranked second when the preferred candidate site was identified.