A. Updated Analysis of Cumulative Environmental Effects

Transcription

1 To: Deep Geologic Repository Project Project Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 From: Eugene Bourgeois Anna Tilman March 1, 2017 Re: Our comments on Ontario Power Generation (OPG) s Responses to Information Requested from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with respect to OPG's Deep Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Project Introduction In February 2016, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change requested OPG to provide further information and/or studies before making decisions regarding OPG s request for approval of Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for storing Low and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste at the Bruce Nuclear Station. Three components of the Minister s request included: a study of the environmental effects of alternative locations for the DGR Project; an updated analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the Project, specifically with respect to three sites identified for a DGR for storing high-level radioactive waste; and an updated list of mitigation commitments for each identified adverse effects under CEAA This work was completed December 28, This submission addresses two of these studies, namely the updated analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the Project and mitigation measure commitments. The following is a very brief overview of OPG s conclusions of these studies. 1 A. Updated Analysis of Cumulative Environmental Effects OPG s updated analysis of the cumulative effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site in conjunction with the Adaptive Phased Management Deep Geological Repository (APM DGR) Project at any one of the three nearby locations has concluded that there is no potential for likely adverse cumulative effects and thus reaffirms the validity of the conclusions in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the DGR Project. Furthermore, this study found that cumulative effects as a result of malfunctions, accidents, and malevolent acts related to both projects are unlikely. 1 OPG Covering Letter E December 28, 2016 CD#: CORR

2 B. Mitigation Measures Commitments OPG provided an updated list of mitigation and monitoring commitments for each identified adverse effect for the DGR project identified in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency s (CEAA s) proposed conditions. OPG has concluded that the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site remains the preferred location based on a relative consideration of environmental effects, transportation risks, transportation and other project-related costs and uncertainties; and the absence of any guarantee of improved safety or environmental quality at an alternate location. Our review of OPG s reports does not support these conclusions. The following sections provide the rationale for our continuing concern of the adverse effects of the proposed DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site, specifically and especially in context of these two studies, namely, OPG s updated analysis of the cumulative effects and mitigation measures commitments. ii

3 Executive Summary OPG s updated analysis on cumulative effects with respect to the proposed DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site and a DGR for storing used nuclear fuel at three nearby locations is extremely limited in scope and does not constitute a thorough exploration of cumulative environmental effects of the proposed DGR project at the Bruce Nuclear site. Considering the level of activity that would be involved in the preparation and construction of both repositories, the nature of the radioactive waste material to be emplaced in these repositories, the transportation of these wastes to both sites for several decades, the potential for accidents, malfunctions, and malevolent acts at every stage of these projects, regardless of whether OPG considers such events unlikely, the consequences are not. In considering the proximity and overlapping periods of construction and operations of both of these major and unprecedented projects, as well as other factors that could arise in decommissioning, closure, and post-closure, the potential for adverse cumulative effects does exist and will span over a very long period. The assertion that there are no adverse effects has no scientific merit. In particular, with respect to health effects, no baseline health study has been done with respect to the proposed DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site, nor has any such study been proposed or carried out for any potential DGR for high level radioactive waste. No evidence has been presented to show that these facilities will not cause or have not caused harm to human health. No consideration has been given to the cumulative effects of the proposed DGR at the Bruce site with respect to the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) on the same site, and OPG s proposed expansion of this facility over the next decade, or the eight nuclear reactors operating as well as other ancillary facilities at that site. OPG s expressed confidence that mitigation measures can address any and all of such effects, if such would occur, is also unfounded, and in practice, has not been effective. In fact, OPG s confidence is in contrast to its own experience in its attempts to mitigate the adverse environmental radiological effects both to the Inverhuron Provincial Park wetlands and, later, to the Middle Sand Aquifer as given by the results of the monitoring well WSH 231 at WWMF when tritium escaped from containment into these watersheds. There are serious limitations to what monitoring and mitigation can accomplish and what models can predict. So far, the best evidence available as to the safety of these repositories is based on actual experience, which is the failure of three DGRs. These failures were not predicted. Could they have been prevented? Considering the expected longevity of DGRs, and the nature of the wastes they contain, the essential question is whether DGRs are a safe or even safest means of storing and isolating radioactive waste for thousands of years. Because used fuel wastes will remain on the surface at this site until approximately 2161, or 100 years after the Bruce reactors are expected to stop production, there is no urgency at the present time to build a DGR for these L&ILW. OPG asserts and CNSC confirms that the current operations are safe now and could be maintained for the foreseeable future, bringing into question the need to do so now. iii

4

5 Comments on: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) s Updated Analysis of Cumulative Environmental Effects Report REP

6

7 Introduction Updated Analysis of Cumulative Environmental Effects Report In February 2016, the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change requested OPG to provide further information and/or studies before making decisions regarding OPG s request for approval of a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for storing Low and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste (L&ILW) at the Bruce Nuclear Station. One of the studies requested was an updated analysis of the cumulative environmental effects of the DGR Project, specifically with respect to three neighbouring communities, namely the municipalities of Huron-Kinloss, South Bruce, and Central Huron that fall within the territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, as potential host communities for an Adaptive Phased Management Deep Geological Repository (APM DGR) for storing high-level radioactive waste produced by Canadian nuclear reactors. 1 OPG s updated assessment report in response to the Minster s request [hereinafter referred to as the Report ] identified no likely adverse cumulative effects, given the location of the potential site for the APM DGR and the limited extent of the environmental effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site and the APM DGR. OPG also concluded that cumulative effects as a result of malfunctions, accidents and malevolent acts from both projects are unlikely. As no adverse cumulative effects were identified, OPG concluded that an assessment of the significance of cumulative effects is not required, and the original conclusions of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding cumulative effects of the DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site and other projects and activities remain valid when considering the APM DGR. We do not support the findings and conclusions of this Report. In considering the proximity and overlapping periods of construction and operations of both of these major and unprecedented projects, as well as other factors that could arise in in decommissioning and closure, the potential for adverse cumulative effects does exist and will span over a very long period. This updated analysis has not conducted a fulsome study of cumulative impacts. Firstly, the assertion that there are no adverse effects is virtually impossible. Secondly, in direct contradiction to this finding, OPG is confident that mitigation measures can address any and all such effects, if such were to occur. This defies logic. Considering the level of activity that would be involved in the preparation and construction of both repositories, the nature of the radioactive waste material to be emplaced in these repositories, the operations and re-packaging operations of WWMF, the transportation of these wastes to both sites for several decades, the potential for accidents, malfunctions, and malevolent acts at every stage of these projects, regardless of whether OPG considers such events unlikely, the consequences are not. The unique nature of these projects warrants the highest level of scrutiny. Thus it is imperative that the potential for adverse cumulative effects be considered in depth, and not be treated as unlikely, as is the conclusion of this updated study. 1 OPG s Updated Analysis Report: Reference number REP p.1 1

8 The limited scope of cumulative effects in this updated Report has resulted in an inadequate coverage of a topic that, by its very nature, must be broad in scope. Otherwise, it is not a serious exploration of cumulative environmental effects of the proposed DGR project. Our comments will address specific elements of this updated analysis report that support our contention that adverse cumulative effects are likely and that mitigation cannot be assumed capable of addressing them, given the complexity of these projects and their uniqueness. Overview of OPG s Updated Analysis of Cumulative Effects The request by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change with respect to an updated analysis of cumulative effects was focussed specifically on the proposed DGR for storing Low and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste (L&ILW) at the Bruce Nuclear Station with respect to the three potential host sites for an APM DGR. This focus has placed severe limits on an analysis of cumulative effects. For example, not taking into consideration the activities at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) located at the Bruce Nuclear site which has stored Low and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste produced by Ontario s nuclear power reactors for decades (since 1974), is a very serious omission in an examination of cumulative environmental effects. An examination of the nature of the activities at the WWMF, including transportation of radioactive waste material to this facility, the packaging and storing of these wastes and their processing, especially incineration, are critical factors to consider in conjunction with the proposed APM DGR at any one of the nearby sites in a study on cumulative effects. While a study of cumulative effects is not an exact science, it must nevertheless be broadlybased in scope, so that it can lead to predictions of the potential adverse effects of an activity, such as a project in conjunction with other projects over the same time period and space on an ecosystem, e.g., air quality, noise, human health. It is indeed very possible that the combination of various factors or stressors resulting from these activities, cumulatively, could be acting synergistically or additively in some manner, making them far more detrimental than the sum of their individual effects taken as singular concerns, as the Report does. For example, a study of the cumulative impacts on human health from certain activities, specific pollutants, etc., is multi-dimensional. It is not limited to the actual physical exposure to excessive noise, air pollution, groundwater contamination, etc., but must also consider vulnerable populations in the affected communities, as well as factors such as anxiety and stress brought on by the ongoing activities that these projects entail and the overall well-being of a community in the long-term. Even if each effect may be considered insignificant or unlikely to cause a potential adverse effect, it is precisely the cumulative impact of some and possibly all of these adverse effects occurring at the same time, or even over a period of time, that is the essence of cumulative effects, and not each one on its own in an isolated or segregated fashion. OPG s updated analysis has found that most potentially adverse cumulative effects as a result of the location of the APM DGR in the three communities cited and the proposed DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site were unlikely, and that any likely adverse effects could be mitigated. 2

9 This analysis is fundamentally flawed for many reasons, at least one being its very limited scope and segregated approach to the examination of cumulative effects. It examines each Valued Ecosystem Component (VEC) singularly when it is precisely the potential cumulative adverse effects that must be addressed. This is not a study of cumulative impacts. Rather, it is a study based on the completely unsubstantiated assumption that nothing can seriously go wrong, and that anything that does go wrong significant problem can be fixed, i.e., mitigated. The conclusion that there are no adverse or residual cumulative effects that cannot be mitigated, given the extent of both projects, is not only overly simplistic, it is a highly subjective, and without scientific foundation, especially when all the experiences to date has been that containment has failed in a very short time. In summary, OPG s Report is based on an improper and incomplete interpretation of cumulative effects, and has no scientific validity. Comments on Specific Sections of OPG s Updated Report Methodology The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) directed OPG to take a Valued Component (or VEC) approach to the updated cumulative effects assessment. OPG was also requested to consider the environmental effects of accidents and malfunctions as to whether they are likely to result from the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out. As noted in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS 2011) for the proposed DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site, the cumulative effects assessment considered residual effects identified for the DGR Project on each valued ecosystem component (VEC) and the potential for effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities to affect the same VECs. The EIS focused on those projects and activities with environmental effects that overlap in time and space with the residual effects of the DGR Project. As stated in OPG s updated analysis, A potential cumulative effect is only identified when the same VEC is affected within the same spatial and temporal boundaries. If an overlap of effects on a VEC is identified, the potential cumulative effect is identified and described to determine if additional mitigation measures are warranted, and taking into account the mitigation, whether residual adverse cumulative effects are likely to occur, and their significance. [Report p. 3] Comments An assessment of cumulative effects of a project can and should take many variables into account, but this updated assessment has taken a very limited approach identifying what constitutes a cumulative effect, whether adverse effects are likely to occur, and in assuming that mitigation measures would be able address adverse effects. The Report fails to consider the impacts to the environment and people of Inverhuron as a result of WWMF activities that will process and repackage radioactive material; nor does it consider the expansion activities proposed for the WWMF and the impacts these activities may have both to the environment and people. Instead, it dismisses any such concerns by stating 3

10 without supporting evidence that these will lead to a small, fractional increase to the resident population of radioactivity because the amounts will be lower than the regulatory limit, as if this was a health limit as well. The underlying thread in this study is that any potential adverse cumulative effects on any or all VECs can be managed through mitigation. Thus, this study is subjective, rather than objective. Determination of Spatial and Temporal Boundaries As stated in the Report, in order to identify the overlap of effects in time and frame the duration of residual effects of the DGR Project, the temporal boundaries are based on the different phases of the Project and are intended to frame the duration of the residual effects of the DGR Project. However, if the DGR Project were to be expanded to accept decommissioning waste, the effects from additional construction and operations could extend the facility approximately thirty years beyond the estimated timelines. [Report p.7 Figure 2-2] Where potential effects from both the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site and the APM DGR are identified on the same VEC, the effects of both are described in the context of the spatial and temporal boundaries. Where an effect may overlap, the effect is described further. Potential effects are considered in the context of whether they are likely to be measurable and adverse. A measurable change in the environment is defined as a change that is real, observable or detectable compared with existing conditions. 2 Comments 1) The updated analysis Report states that it does not address the potential expansion of the proposed DGR to store decommissioning waste as it is not part of the proposed DGR Project and prior to such an expansion, OPG states that a separate environmental assessment process would be completed in the future and would take into account OPG s DGR and the APM DGR, as required. Decommissioning waste will have a higher percentage of ILW compared to operational ILW and that alone, combined with the extensive activities involved in expanding the capacity of the proposed DGR to accept decommissioning waste would surely represent a significant cumulative activity that would overlap in time and space with the activities involved in an APM DGR. Thus the potential for expanding the DGR to accept this waste must be addressed in an examination of cumulative effects. 2) The definitions for measureable change and the thresholds established for each VEC may very well be subject to change in the future. How will OPG review and account for these thresholds at later stages in these proposed projects? Have these thresholds taken into account this particular study of a proposed APM DGR in one of these three communities? Can OPG describe precisely how they determine the significance of residual adverse cumulative effects? 2 Updated Report p.5. The thresholds for measurable change and adverse effects were defined in the EIS [EIS 2011a] for each VEC. 4

11 Likelihood and Probability This Report states that Likelihood is the probability of an effect occurring. Likelihood may be influenced by a variety of factors, such as the likelihood of disturbance occurring, or the likelihood of mitigation being successful. Likelihood is typically described using four categories: unlikely, possible, likely and highly likely. The likelihood of a cumulative effect occurring is determined in this document using professional judgement in combination with the thresholds described above for what would be considered measurable, adverse and/or significant for a VEC. [Report p.6] No valid science or mathematics uses likelihood as a synonym for probability. Probability is a precise mathematical term that can only be scientifically defined in two ways: by logic or by experience. To define probability by logic, one must have a precise number n of logically possible outcomes, each of which can occur in r1,r2,..,rn different, but equally likely ways, for a total of r1+ r 2+ + rn = N equally likely outcomes. Then the probability, p i of the i th outcome is simply p i = r i N. Clearly, the number of cumulative effects that could occur, and the number of ways they could occur, cannot be determined by logical considerations alone, so this method cannot be applied to assessing cumulative effects. To define the probability of cumulative effects by experience, one must look at past experiences of cumulative effects to determine how many instances, ri, of the i th cumulative effect have occurred among the N outcomes observed in the past to determine its probability p i = r i. (Both ways give the same formula, but with different ways of determining ri and N.) N Since we have no past experience of the cumulative effects of two DGRs, one for L&ILW at the Bruce Nuclear Station, and the other for used fuel, in close proximity to each other, there is no valid scientific way to determine the probability of cumulative effects from experience. However, the mathematical theory of probability does have scientific applications to this case. Unless a harmful effect is scientifically impossible, which is clearly not the case, then it is certain to occur over a long enough time span, no matter how low its probability may be. This is simply the common sense principle that if you keep taking chances, however small, eventually you are certain to lose. Since the material to be stored in the DGRs, and especially the DGR for used fuel, will remain harmful for hundreds of thousands of years, it is a certainty that they will cause harm, including cumulative harm, unless it is scientifically impossible for them to escape containment, a claim that no one is making. On the contrary, abandoning wastes in a DGR is a scientific guarantee that they will escape, and the corollary is that they will cause harm. Based on past experience at WIPP and the two failed repositories in Germany (Asse II and Morsleben), the escape of radioactive waste can be expected to happen, and very soon. The only possible way we can keep the waste from causing harm is to keep it in containers which 5

12 can be constantly monitored, so that any leaks or breach in containment can be immediately repaired. And even that does not guarantee absolute safety. Project Description of the APM DGR [Report p. 11] The facilities associated with the APM DGR include underground access and ventilation buildings, a used fuel packaging plant, facilities for the preparation of sealing materials, various infrastructure and support services and facilities, and a waste rock management area. The underground facilities would include access-ways (shafts and tunnels), emplacement rooms, and underground service areas and installations for containing and isolating used nuclear fuel over the long term. Following the operational phase of the APM DGR, the facility would be maintained for an extended monitoring period and then sealed and closed as part of decommissioning. Nuclear fuel waste will be transported by road from interim storage facilities to the APM DGR. 3 Preliminary estimated timelines identified by NWMO for the APM DGR and OPG s estimated timelines for the various phases for the proposed DGR at Bruce are indicated in the following table. [Report p. 7, 13] Comments Estimated Timelines for both Projects: Activity APM DGR DGR at Bruce Site preparation and construction Operations* Monitoring (~ years) Decommissioning 2183 (~ 30 years) Closure Indefinite * assuming a used fuel inventory of about 4.6 million used fuel bundles As this table shows, there are clearly overlaps in time for site preparation and construction, and operations and these overlaps are substantial. Given the uniqueness and work involved in each project, along with other issues, such as refurbishment operations and wastes, decommissioning wastes, etc., likely to arise, these estimated timelines may be overly optimistic and unrealistic. Nuclear projects of any kind have typically taken much longer and cost far more than estimated. Why would these projects be any different? That means that time overlaps would extend far longer than estimated. Even the 3 The main storage sites for used nuclear fuel are Pickering, Darlington, Bruce (including Douglas Point), Gentilly, Point Lepreau, Chalk River and Whiteshell. 6

13 estimated closure period, which is indefinite and for the two projects, signify that the potential for adverse cumulative effects exists for eons. OPG has indicated that actual timelines will depend on a variety of factors, including the time it takes to identify a suitable site with an informed and willing host for the APM DGR; the time required to assess technical safety; and the time required to obtain regulatory approvals. However, many more factors need to be considered. For example: Will there be a sufficient, trained workforce on hand for each phase of these projects? Will emergency measures be in place? What is entailed in assessing technical safety? Shouldn t such an assessment precede approval of the DGR? Will the estimated radioactive waste inventory for the proposed DGR at the Bruce Nuclear site be updated? Will an inventory for decommissioning wastes be forthcoming, prior to plans as to how and where this waste will be stored? Residual Adverse Effects of the DGR Project Table 3.1, pp. 8, 9 in the Report identifies Residual Adverse Effects of the DGR Project on the various environmental components and valued ecosystem component. The Report notes that While a residual adverse effect on the radiation and radioactivity VECs was not identified in the EIS [OPG 2011a], this updated analysis has included radiation and radioactivity in its consideration of potential cumulative effects (consistent with direction in the EIS Guidelines). [Report p. 10] It is inconceivable that this component was not identified as having a residual adverse effect in the first place. The inclusion of radiation and radioactivity as a component in the updated analysis is obviously a necessity. This leads us to question what other issues that were identified as not having a residual adverse effect are not being re-examined or addressed in the update. Furthermore, by considering effects as residual, the implication is that they are unimportant or insignificant, and thus no further action or studies on these effects are warranted. As noted in the Report, all phases of the APM DGR have potential interactions with the atmospheric environment, the aquatic and terrestrial environment, and radiation and radioactivity, as well as the post-closure phase (except for the atmospheric environment). [Report p. 14 Table 4-1] Preliminary Assessment reports by the NWMO state that the management and mitigation of all potential environmental interactions identified for the APM DGR at the three communities are possible and no significant residual effects are anticipated. OPG s updated Report has assumed that all potential environmental interactions identified for the APM DGR have the potential to result in residual effects after the implementation of mitigation for its analysis. 7

14 An overriding issue of the methodology of this Report is its failure to examine the cumulative effects of all of these effects simultaneously. For example, a cumulative study of the effects on human health would include the combination of the impacts of these projects on air quality, noise, radiation, etc. While we are commenting on the findings of the Report with respect to specific Environmental Components and VECs, we recognize the importance of aggregating these effects, not segregating them, as this Report has done, with emphasis on cumulative health effects. 1) Radiological Emissions [Report p. 15] The radiological emissions from the APM DGR will consist of natural radioactivity, notably radon and uranium released from the rocks due to the underground excavation, as well as air or water discharges primarily from the surface facilities (i.e., the used fuel packaging plant). The report states that With the implementation of mitigation, such as handling the used fuel dry, minimal storage of used fuel on the surface, using corrosion-resistant containers to package the used fuel, welding and sealing the used fuel containers, and using appropriate ventilation systems, it is anticipated that no residual effects of radioactivity on humans and non-human biota will be predicted for the APM DGR. The Report assumes that the siting process for the APM DGR will take into consideration environmental constraints to avoid or reduce potential environmental effects. These effects include in-design mitigation measures, an environmental management program, a radiation monitoring program, and good management practices and that conditions and additional mitigation measures would be identified through the permitting process. Comments Handling and moving this radioactive material can very well lead to exposure to radiation for a number of reasons, including accidents via handling, ventilation, and actual sealing of the used fuel containers, which are highly radioactive. Therefore, it cannot be anticipated, as the Report does, that there will be no residual or adverse effects radioactivity on humans and non-human biota. There is no basis or evidence for the assumption that potential environmental effects of radiation doses to human and non-human can be or would be reduced and avoided. How can it be assumed that all possible environmental constraints are considered? This is a contradiction in terms, especially since all constraints are not known. What is the assurance that permits and approvals will or even can account for conditions and mitigation measures? How does one know what to expect and what mitigation measures would be needed, or even if these measures will actually be able mitigate a problem? 8

15 2) Surface Water [Report p. 17] Residual adverse effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site identified with respect to the hydrology (i.e., change in flow) of existing engineered channels (i.e., North Railway Ditch and drainage ditch at Interconnecting Road) were assessed as not significant as they were predicted to be restricted to a small portion of the local watershed area, and not extend into Stream C or Lake Huron beyond the point of discharge. Potential residual effects from the APM DGR were identified on surface water flow during site selection, construction, operation, and decommissioning and closure of the APM DGR. Decommissioning and closure activities are expected to be similar to those encountered during site preparation and construction, and may also contribute to a change in surface water quantity and flow. Thus, while the APM DGR is likely to have both an overlap in effect on the VEC (i.e., effects on surface water flow) and in time with the residual effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site on surface water quantity and flow, OPG concludes that potential cumulative residual effects on surface water quantity and flow are unlikely. [Report p. 19]. Its rationale for this is that the APM DGR will not drain into any local watercourse that flows through or within a subsurface watershed in the vicinity of the DGR. The Report also indicates that potential mitigation measures have been identified for the APM DGR to minimize effects on surface water quantity and flow and that these measures could be designed and implemented in compliance with applicable regulations and permitting requirements as required. 4 Both the APM DGR and the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site would be located in watersheds that ultimately discharge into Lake Huron. The report notes that the changes in contributing flow from the watersheds of either project are small compared to the total flow in Lake Huron. Citing a reference in the EIS [OPG 2011a, Section 7.3.2] that states that adverse effects are considered to be those where there is a predicted change in flow >±15% in the affected receiving waterbody, OPG concludes that no adverse cumulative effects on surface water quantity and flow in Lake Huron itself are likely. OPG further concludes that there are no likely adverse cumulative effect on surface water quantity and flow, and the conclusion in the EIS [OPG 2011a] that the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site will not act cumulatively with other projects/activities on surface quantity and flow remains valid in consideration of the APM DGR. [Report p.19] 4 Permitting requirements cited as examples: Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change [MOECC] Environmental Compliance Approval [ECA], Permit to Take Water). 9

16 Comments If both projects are approved, there is no doubt there will be both a temporal and spatial overlap, despite what the Report states. Reliance on unknown mitigation measures cannot be taken seriously. There is no evidence available on measures which are not even known. Furthermore, reliance on permitting requirements that may not necessarily be able to limit the effects on surface water because the actual effects are not known, and these requirements tend to set allowable limits and are not necessarily precautionary as required. In that the extent of in-water work cannot be evaluated until the selected site for the APM DGR is known, how can OPG rely on unknown measures that would avoid or mitigate effects on surface water quantity and flow around the APM DGR site? With respect to the reference cited, i.e., adverse effects are considered to be those where there is a predicted change in flow >±15% in the affected receiving waterbody, what is the basis for this prediction? How precise is this 15%? What is the evidence that this is even valid to serve as a criterion for OPG s conclusion that no adverse cumulative effects on surface water quantity and flow in Lake Huron itself are likely and then conclude that there will be no cumulative effects as a result of both projects overlapping in time and space on surface quantity and flow? 3) Air Quality [Report p. 24] Potential Cumulative Effects A residual adverse effect of the DGR Project on air quality was identified and was predicted to extend just beyond the Site Study Area (i.e., just beyond the fence line of the Bruce Nuclear site) into the Atmospheric Environment Local Study Area. The effect is assumed to occur throughout the site preparation and construction, operation, and decommissioning phases at different magnitudes. The Report made particular mention of maximum ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM), PM10, and PM2.5, as these concentrations are predicted to be greater than the 24-hour federal and provincial ambient air quality criteria during the site preparation and construction phase. During the operation phase, while maximum ambient concentrations of air quality indicators (the threshold for an adverse effect) are predicted to increase, as none of these increases is predicted to be greater than its relevant ambient air quality criteria, these effects had been assessed as not significant [OPG 2011a]. With respect to the APM DGR, potential residual effects were identified during site selection, construction, operation, decommissioning and closure. The work involved in each of these phases, would definitely impact air quality. In addition to the impact of all the construction work involved, is the impact of a sizeable increase in transportation. This would include, for example, the transportation of used fuel from nuclear sites to the APM DGR; vehicle and 10

17 equipment use for placement of used fuel in the repository during operations as well as decommissioning and closure activities. In addition, construction activities would continue throughout the operations phase of the APM DGR, as additional placement rooms would be continuously excavated for both projects. 5 Both projects occur within the Atmospheric Environment Regional Study Area, and thus their effects on air quality are likely to overlap and spatially, and therefore are cumulative. Comments The Report states that the effects on air quality during site preparation and construction may be lower than for the DGR Project at the Bruce nuclear site, but would be higher in magnitude during the operation phase of the APM DGR relative to the DGR Project. It is not known to what degree the effects on air quality will differ for the two projects or whether in one case the effects would be lower for one phase or higher than for the other. This is mere supposition. The degree of excavation activities and the approximated volumes of rock excavated may well be an underestimation. The effects on air quality and for that matter, groundwater, could be far more detrimental than has been considered. Radon-222 is of particular concern for DGRs, because any build-up of radon gas in an enclosed space results in a build-up of radon progeny, which increases the radioactive hazard enormously. Furthermore, when radon gas escapes into the atmosphere, the solid radon progeny are deposited on the soil and water below, entering into the food chain. Mitigation As stated in the Report, The potential residual effects of the APM DGR are likely to occur at infrequent intervals similar to the residual effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site, due to the variability of hourly meteorological conditions. Good management practices and environmental management plans could be implemented to mitigate air emissions of the APM DGR, which would minimize the emissions of air quality indicator compounds throughout all phases. [Report p. 26] Comments There are several unknowns in these statements, such as the variability in hourly meteorological conditions, an assumption that the potential residual effects are likely to occur at infrequent intervals, or that good management practices, whatever this means, could be implemented. This level of uncertainty demonstrates that OPG s assumption or confidence as to whether mitigation efforts would or even could be effective in minimizing air emissions is illfounded. OPG cannot assume that mitigation can be effective or even possible, especially to a degree that would reduce emissions of air toxins by any meaningful degree. Furthermore, the reliance on current air standards for projects that span well into the future is unsound. Typically, standards tend to become more robust over time, as more is learned about the detrimental effects of these pollutants on health, especially when considering the 5 Estimated amounts of rock to be excavated are in the order of 1,580,000 m 3 for the APM DGR and approximately 645,000 m 3 for the DGR Project. 11

18 cumulative impacts of exposure to these pollutants as well as other pollutants and vulnerable populations. For example, in the case of PM2.5, it is now acknowledged that there is no threshold at which there will be no adverse effect. According to the Report, The residual effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site occur within its Atmospheric Environment Local Study Area, which extends approximately 10 km around the Bruce Nuclear site. The effects of the APM DGR are unlikely to extend into the Atmospheric Environment Local Study Area as it will be at least 20 km distant and possibly as far as 86 km, depending on the location of the selected site. While the Report does recognize that a cumulative effect on air emissions could occur, at the same time, it finds that: The potential residual effects of the APM DGR on air quality are likely to occur at infrequent intervals that are unlikely to coincide with the effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site. They are also not likely to act cumulatively on air quality at the same receptors. It is unlikely that activities that generate air emissions associated with each project will occur at the exact same time due to the anticipated infrequent nature of air emissions across the phases of both projects, and it is also unlikely that they will persist in the atmosphere for the same duration, due to the likely variable timing of specific equipment operation and project activities. [Report p. 26] It further states that considering the nature of the potential effects on air quality (i.e., immediately reversible), the anticipated mitigations that would be implemented at the APM DGR to meet local air quality requirements, the distance of the APM DGR from the OPG DGR Atmospheric Environment Local Study Area, the contribution of the APM DGR to cumulative effects on air quality would not be measurable. It concludes that adverse cumulative effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site, in combination with the APM DGR on air quality, are not likely and that the assessment of cumulative effects in the EIS [OPG 2011a] for air quality remains valid in consideration of the APM DGR. [Report p.27] Comments What is the basis for assuming that air emissions would be infrequent and not necessarily persist in the atmosphere for some duration? The assumption that potential effects on air quality are immediately reversible has absolutely no scientific basis, and even if that were the case, why would mitigation even be necessary and what kind of mitigation would be required? What is the basis for assuming that cumulative effects on air quality would not be measureable? The cumulative impacts of the transportation of used fuel from the Bruce Nuclear site to the APM DGR in conjunction with the transportation of used fuel from other nuclear sites to the APM DGR, would overlap in time, but this has not been properly or adequately addressed. 12

19 Considering the many unknowns and assumptions made, that are questionable, there is absolutely no basis or evidence to formulate the conclusion made by OPG. 4) Noise levels - Potential Cumulative Effects [Report p ] A residual adverse effect of the proposed DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site on noise levels had been assessed as not significant. 6. OPG had predicted that any residual effect on noise levels would extend over a short distance (approximately 400 m) beyond the Site Study Area and be limited to the residences located in the vicinity of Baie du Doré. Based on its proposed mitigation measures, OPG has predicted that the maximum increase in noise levels would be 5 decibels (db) at receptor locations in the Baie du Doré during the quietest hour (primarily during late night/early morning hours) throughout the site preparation, construction, and decommissioning phases for the APM DGR. This would infer that the APM DGR is likely to have both an overlap in the effect on the VEC (i.e., effects on noise levels) and an overlap in time with the residual effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site on noise levels. Comments How does OPG arrive at a maximum predicted increase in noise levels of 5 decibels (db)? While this decibel level in itself is very low, it is in addition to the noise levels currently at the Bruce Nuclear site and by extrapolation, would occur at the APM DGR site. Furthermore, this increase is for receptor locations in the Baie du Doré during the quietest hour (primarily during late night/early morning hours). What noise levels are predicted during the heaviest hours of work that is being done? In addition to noise levels from these activities, the increase in transportation, especially large vehicles transporting used fuel from the nuclear power stations to the APM DGR, in addition to the transport of LLW and ILW from Darlington and Pickering to the Bruce Nuclear station, will add to the noise levels. In light of refurbishment plans planned or already underway, there will be additional shipments of this waste, and especially of large items, such as steam generators, with a higher proportion of LLW. Construction activities, blasting of rocks, etc., will be ongoing throughout the APM DGR construction and operating phases as well as for the proposed DGR at Bruce for many years. These are very intensive and noisy activities and will definitely overlap in time and space. While OPG finds that no adverse cumulative effects are likely with respect to noise, and that the anticipated mitigation measures, i.e., good management practices would attenuate and control noise levels and ensure they met current standards, confidence that such measures would protect people and wildlife from the effects of additional noise resulting from such massive operations is unwarranted. Furthermore, response to excessive noise is very dependent on an individual, and affects people and wildlife in various ways that can be very detrimental. 6 OPG 2011a; OPG s response to IR-EIS (OPG 2014) 13

20 5) Human Health [Report p. 29] A residual effect of the proposed DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site was identified on the overall health of local residents and members of Indigenous communities with respect to the exposure to acrolein in air during the site preparation and construction phases (acrolein is generated by combustion sources including vehicles). The resulting health risks were considered low and the residual effect was assessed to be not significant and predicted to be restricted to the Human Health Local study area (i.e., the 10 km emergency planning zone). The cumulative effects assessment for human health in this updated analysis uses the Local Study Area since it assumes that the residual adverse effect of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site on human health is limited to that geographic extent. A spatial overlap of effects between the APM DGR and the proposed DGR Project was considered unlikely as the residual effects of that project on human health of local residents and members of Indigenous communities associated with acrolein emissions occur within its Local Study Area. This Report assumes that the effects of the APM DGR on overall air quality are likely to be similar in scale to those identified for the DGR Project, except that repository construction activities of the APM DGR would occur longer throughout its operation phase. Thus, the effects on overall air quality, including acrolein emissions, may be higher in magnitude than for the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site during its operation. Accordingly, in-design mitigation measures, good management practices and environmental management plans could be used to mitigate air emissions of the APM DGR, which would minimize air emissions from motor vehicles throughout all phases of the project. While there is a potential for regional spatial overlap of effects between these two projects, the Report finds that potential residual effects of air emissions would be intermittent and occur at infrequent intervals that would not likely coincide. Furthermore, acrolein would degrade and evaporate in a short timeframe and not likely be transported over long distances. Comments There are very serious problems with these assumptions, not only in terms of the signature element acrolein (i.e., from combustion sources- diesel engines) considered but also other air pollutants that have not been considered. Other air contaminants would be Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) which are also associated with some of the activities at both sites, as well as Particulate Matter, especially fine (respirable) PM, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. These contaminants can travel far from their source and thus there is the potential that the air quality of an area much greater than the Local Study Area would be compromised and be harmful to human health. No mention is made of these pollutants in this section. There is an inherent assumption that air emissions would occur infrequently and intermittently. What precisely is meant by intermittent or frequency? Is this even known? This rationale feeds into the assertions that there are no likely adverse effects, cumulative or otherwise as a result of each or these combined projects. There is no evidence that this is the case. 14

21 6) Radiation and Radioactivity [Report p. 32] The assessment of potential exposure to workers from the normal operation of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site concluded that Nuclear Energy Worker radiation exposure as a result of the DGR Project is predicted to be much lower than OPG s occupational dose target of 10 millisieverts per year (msv/a), which is below the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) worker dose limit of effectively 20 msv/a (maximum 50 msv in one year). Doses to members of the public due to external radiation from the site and from airborne and waterborne emissions from the DGR Project are predicted to be well below the regulatory limit for members of the public of 1 msv/a, including in the long-term after the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site has been closed and sealed. OPG expects that incremental doses to workers and members of the public would remain well below regulatory limits, and are not considered to be adverse. Aquatic and terrestrial biota are also exposed to radioactivity in the atmosphere, surface water and from other media into which it transfers. The effects of the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site of radioactivity emissions would be an increment to the baseline concentrations around the site. The report notes that over 50% of the waste inventory intended for the DGR is already in storage at the Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF), and will increase to 70% by the time the operations phase begins. It further states that as wastes are transferred into the DGR, the corresponding emissions from the WWMF would decrease, offsetting any increases in emissions of radioactivity as a result of the DGR project on site. As emissions from the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site will be less than the current total Bruce Nuclear site emissions, it is assumed that an adverse effect on non-human biota is not expected. Comments What is the evidence for assuming that emissions of radioactivity as a result of the DGR project would be offset by a decrease in emissions from the WWMF? What is the likelihood that the WWMF would be operating far longer than anticipated and perhaps in conjunction with the proposed DGR? The Report notes that The APM DGR has the potential for radiological emissions during construction (primarily radon emitted by the host rock), operations (radon arising from transportation of used fuel from nuclear sites, and repository operation), decommissioning and closure (radon and infrastructure removal), and post-closure (release of radioactivity from underground if containers fail), and therefore may create an additive effect (emphasis added) with the proposed DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site. Mitigation measures and monitoring would ensure that all regulatory and environmental requirements would be met, in particular, at the APM DGR site fence line. With respect to the assessment of cumulative effects: [Report p. 34] Radiological releases from both the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site and the APM DGR are expected to be much less than the regulatory limits at the respective facility fence lines, and these limits (e.g., 1 msv/a public dose) are conservative values where no effects will be 15