Comment on EIS guidelines (From Ron Mattmer to CEAA)

2227 4 th Ave. West
June 17, 2008
Deep Geologic Repository Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
160 Elgin Street, Place Bell Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3
RE: Deep Geologic Repository Project proposed by Ontario Power Generation.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The attached comments are to be considered in the drafting of the EIS Guidelines and in the determination of
the joint panel and terms of reference for the panel review for the proposed DGR by OPG.
Given the bias the CNSC has demonstrated in favour of this specific proposal to date, I have serious
reservations over this panel being stacked by the CNSC.
I vigorously disagree with the contention by the CNSC that an “adequate” public consultation has been
completed to date. The CNSC has not given consideration to social, ethical and economic issues raised by
the public.
The proponent is obligated to address concerns raised by the public in the EIS. Therefore, the issues must be
presented in an open, honest and ethical manner to the public if the public is to be provided an opportunity for
meaningful comment based on the principle of “informed consent”.
Public consultation is compromised by a hosting agreement that makes payment to municipalities conditional
on the mayors standing in front of the hearing panels and nodding their heads in agreement with OPG and the
CNSC.
A stake is the credibility of the process and trust of the public. The anecdotal evidence should give cause for
concern to the Minister of the Environment over having these proceedings presided over by the CNSC.
I would also like to register as a party and be kept informed of activities relating to the panel-review process.
Yours truly,
Ron Mattmer

Attachment- submission by R. Mattmer re. Draft EIS Guidelines and JPR Agreement for the Deep Geologic
Repository Project proposed by Ontario Power Generation.
Background
In the absence of an over-all policy and co-ordinated plan for the disposal of Canada’s low level and
intermediate level nuclear waste, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) proposes to spend close to $1 billion on a
Deep Ground Repository (DGR). For its advocacy on behalf of the project, the municipality Kincardine will be
paid over $20 million
In 2002, the municipal corporation of Kincardine made its support for the license renewal of OPG’s waste
facility at the Bruce site conditional on OPG entering into an agreement with the municipal corporation.
“On the understanding that the above memorandum of understanding is in place by the hearing date, we
will support a non-transferable five-year license renewal, with a review in two years to evaluate the
progress of the negotiations.
It is from this important symbiotic relationship that the needs of both industry and the public interest can
work together to forge a strong relationship that is both healthy and safe for the Canadian public.”
Mayor of Kincardine - oral submission to the Commission WWMF license renewal hearing -2002
OPG appears to have been a willing participant in this scheme to force the hand of the Federal and Provincial
governments.
“We have had discussions [with municipality] over the last six, seven, eight months which have dovetailed
in some respects with the relicensing of the Western Waste Management Facility. I say dovetailed,
because it could be in part a coincidence; it could be in another part a nice coincidence of mutual
interests coming together.
We have always wanted to address the issue of low and intermediate waste in a more systematic basis.
We have a reference plan for financial purposes. We have always wanted to move to the next step in
terms of what do we do once the high level waste has been dealt with, which we believe from a process
perspective, as a result of C-27, is on the way. It was good timing for us and the municipality”.
Richard Dicerni, Ontario Power Generation- WWMF license renewal hearing -2002
OPG, the municipal corporation of Kincardine and the CNSC have developed an intimate working relationship
to further the proposal for their mutual benefit. The Municipal Corporation of Kincardine passed a motion
“expressing its concerns about political interference in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission” by the
federal government. The motion, which passed unanimously, urges the federal government not to meddle in
the independence of the commission.
Council "urges the Federal Minister of Natural Resources and the Government of Canada to assess and
consider the role of the CNSC in protecting the citizens of Kincardine and confirm that the Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission is an independent body and it's only through this independence can the
CNSC ensure the public's safety," the resolution says.
The recent demotion of CNSC president Linda Keen by federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn
"may alter the perception of the role of the CNSC" and its independence in exercising its activities.

OPG's proposed deep geologic repository projects will require a licence from the CNSC and "the
confidence of the community regarding these proposed developments will be based, in part, on the fact
the CNSC is responsible for ensuring the safety of these facilities regardless of political climate or will," the
motion says.
Mayor Larry Kraemer said he will bring the motion to Bruce County council to ask for its endorsement
and to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities meeting at the end of February.”
A councillor also suggested it also be forwarded to Huron-Bruce MPP Carol Mitchell (Lib) and MP Paul
Steckle (Lib).
Owen Sound Sun Times, January 29, 2008 -Council concerned about Ottawa meddling in nuclear safety
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
The proposed project is subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The CEAA provides
for the public to be consulted when determining the factors that are to be included in the assessment and how
the assessment is to be conducted, i.e., as a comprehensive study under the purview of the CNSC or as an
independent panel review.
The criteria for referring the proposal to an independent review panel are:
• the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects,
• it is uncertain whether the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, or
• public concerns warrant referral.
The CNSC had performed a preliminary assessment and concluded that the project is not likely to cause
significant adverse environmental effects, that it is also unlikely that such a conclusion would be uncertain and
that public concerns do not warrant a referral to a review panel.
Policy Framework
The federal government has responsibility to develop overall policy and strategy for radioactive waste
management.
“Canada does not have an approved disposal technology or any disposal sites for its LLW. It has not yet
determined what will be needed in the way of disposal services and facilities. In addition, there is no coordinated
plan or timetable for disposing of Canada's operational LLW.
-Auditor General Report 1995
The “AECL concept” for the disposal of nuclear fuel waste had been reviewed by the Seaborn panel. The
panel emphasized the need for a comprehensive plan for consulting Canadians broadly. The federal
government responded to the Seaborn Panel Report with the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and the creation of the
Nuclear Waste Management Organization.
Perhaps the most fundamental element of a strategy for long-term management of nuclear waste is a
national policy that assigns appropriate accountabilities. Here in Canada, that was done in 1996 when the
Minister of Natural Resource established a policy framework for radioactive waste management. This
clearly states the Federal government will be responsible for policy, oversight and regulation and the
waste owners responsible for funding and management of wastes, including permanent disposal.”
-Ken Nash, Vice Pres. OPG & Chair NW M O, Canadian Nuclear Association Seminar February 2006

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization was created to develop an approach for dealing with Canada’s
used reactor fuel. After years of study and public consultations, the NWMO decided on an adaptive phased
management approach to managing the used fuel. Under this approach, a centralized DGR would NOT be
sited for another 60 years.
Guiding Values and Principles
The NWMO acknowledged that public engagement should be based on principles of openness, transparency,
integrity and mutual respect. Engagement should ensure that those who most directly could be exposed to
harm or risk of harm are informed of the potential risks and equipped with resources to participate in
discussions and decision-making, by the best available knowledge about the project. (NWMO).
“The draft Nuclear Fuel Waste Act currently before Parliament requires three nuclear energy corporations
to form a waste management organization initially to review alternatives for the long-term management of
used fuel. Socioeconomic impacts, costs, risks, benefits and compensation will be considered and
extensive stakeholder consultation will be carried out as part of that review.
The NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) will then submit a report to government and the
federal cabinet will make a policy decision on which options need to be adopted in Canada.
OPG expects to follow a similar process on low-level waste. A study has already been completed on lowlevel
waste disposal technology and we expect to complete a similar study on prolonged above-ground
storage by June 20 this year”.
-Ken Nash -2002 WWMF Licensing Hearing
Auditor General Report
The federal government issued a policy in 1986 on the management of LLW. This policy defines the
responsibilities of the federal government, including its residual responsibility to develop LLW disposal
facilities for small producers, such as hospitals, which are not in a position to develop their own facility.
The federal share, over the next 70 years, for implementation of disposal solutions for Canada's
radioactive waste is approximately $850 million (in 1995).
Ontario Hydro, a major producer of LLW, published a plan that outlines possible approaches for disposal
of its own LLW. These approaches include developing an independent Ontario Hydro LLW disposal
facility, or working with other waste producers to develop a joint multi-user disposal facility.
A commercial LLW storage facility is currently available for small producers to transfer their radioactive
waste to AECL. However, AECL will eventually have to dispose of this waste. For all operational LLW that
it possesses, AECL has developed a draft strategic plan to make the transition from interim storage to
long-term solutions.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office wishes to avoid establishing a facility dedicated
solely to the needs of the small producers. Thus, collaboration with major producers will be required to
develop such a facility.
The 1992 federal inventory of LLW indicates that Canada is currently storing small volumes of LLW from
decommissioning activities. As future nuclear facilities are retired, the volume of LLW from

decommissioning will increase. Appropriate long-term solutions for this LLW are expected to be similar to
those for operational waste.
Natural Resources Canada needs to develop federal policies to cover all classes of radioactive waste.
Natural Resources Canada should obtain agreement with the major stakeholders on roles and
responsibilities, a plan, a timetable and funding arrangements for disposing of Canada's operational lowlevel
waste. This plan should be co-ordinated with the approach for high-level waste.
Natural Resources Canada response: Agreed. As highlighted in our response to the first recommendation,
Natural Resources Canada is proceeding to develop a policy framework, including institutional and
financial options, for a comprehensive approach to the disposal of radioactive waste in Canada, including
operational low-level waste. Consultation with the major stakeholders is an important step in the
development of an agreed-upon strategy and timetable for the disposal of all low-level radioactive waste.
Waste Management
Radioactive waste management involves the handling and treating of radioactive waste, as well as its
transportation, storage and disposal. Activities are licensed by the CNSC.
Members of the public had requested that the transport to the Bruce site and the existing incineration of the
waste at the Bruce site be considered in the assessment.
Because environmental assessment is a planning tool used by the federal government to assess
proposed projects it was staff’s opinion that the scope should NOT include those activities currently
authorized under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.. CNSC
CNSC policy exempts the CNSC from considering social and ethical factors. The Draft Regulatory Guide G-
320, Assessing the Long-Term Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, does not address the social
acceptability nor the economic feasibility of proposals.
At a future date the CNSC intends to apply some discretion in determining which economic and social
factors are to be considered for the purpose of performing evaluations. These factors have not been
categorically identified for inclusion in the EA. CNSC
On account of the limited scope of its mandate, the CNSC has failed to determine, define and evaluate
social and economic concerns in its licensing of current facilities.
Recommendation 1: Current waste management activities are to be included in the evaluation of the DGR
proposal vs. other alternatives. Social and economic factors are to be included in the assessment.
Incineration
Incineration is an integral part of the process. The fact that 60% of the waste is to be incinerated was obscured
from the public during the consultations. The CNSC website gives the impression that rags, gloves, plastics –
other incinerable materials will be stored in the repository when in fact they will be incinerated. Meanwhile
OPG doesn’t segregate long lived waste.
The impacts on the environment and human health of incineration were not considered in the preliminary
assessment.

Super-compaction is an option to incineration.
Recommendation 2: The relative merits of the various options or combinations of options for volume reduction
should be evaluated.
Waste segregation
Other nations have characterized their low level waste (LLW) and intermediate level waste (ILW) in terms of
life span and level of radioactivity. The waste is segregated and managed accordingly. Long-lived waste is
managed in a manner that is consistent with HL fuel waste.
The different types of LLW also require different technological approaches to their long-term management.
Most operational LLW decays to non-hazardous levels in 500 years…However, some radioactive
elements in LLW are long-lived and may have to be segregated and managed in a manner consistent with
HLW. Therefore, a complete solution for all operational LLW may depend on finding a solution for HLW.
Sweden, Finland and France have characterized their LLW in terms of life span and level of radioactivity
and have moved from storage to disposal for shorter-lived (up to 500 years) waste.
1995 Auditor General Report
OPG does not segregate radioactive elements with regard to their different decay periods.
Recommendation 3: International approaches for segregation of waste and packaging are to assessed.
Requirements for waste packages, e.g. activity limits for specific nuclides, are to be determined.
Recommendation 4. The study should determine if the management of long lived IL waste is to be coordinated
with disposal of HL Waste.
The OPG Proposal
OPG and the CNSC have proposed that the project be approved without having in place polices and an overall
plan for disposing of the various classes of waste and waste streams.
This rationale for a panel review may be more appropriate for a strategic environmental assessment that
would be required for policy decisions on waste management…. It was, therefore, the opinion of staff …
federal policy on the management of low and intermediate level waste would be beyond the scope
of an environmental assessment for a specific project… Similarly, it is unlikely that a review panel
dealing with low and intermediate level waste would include policies on waste or energy production in the
scope of assessment for OPG’s proposed DGR. CNSC
… the proposal does NOT represent a precedent that would be used for management of waste at other
locations. CNSC
This DGR proposal is for the first permanent LL an IL waste depository in Canada. Presently, Canada does
NOT have an approved disposal technology for radioactive waste.
No comprehensive study as was performed by the NWMO for high level waste has been completed by OPG to
support the DGR approach for disposing of low and intermediate level waste.

The proposed repository is not intended to take waste from new nuclear stations now being planned.
The proposed repository is not intended to take refurbishing wastes.
The proposed repository is not intended to take decommissioning wastes.
Another facility will need to be sited to dispose of refurbishing, decommissioning and operational waste from
new nuclear stations.
Other waste storage options were discounted because they could not contain large refurbishing and
decommissioning waste objects. The DGR was selected as the preferred alternative option, yet the DGR is
also not capable of containing such large objects.
Recommendation 5: Before deciding on any proposal that will cost future generations close to $1billion, we
should determine the best option for managing the various LL & IL waste streams, long lived waste and
wastes from ALL producers incl. AECL, hospitals, etc. A comprehensive study and consultation similar to
that completed by the NWMO for HL waste should be completed for LL and IL waste. Options for
management should be evaluated.
Recommendation 6: Alternative site locations are to be considered.
The rationale for locating the DGR at the Bruce site vs. another location should be provided..
International Repositories
CNSC staff based their assessments on their “international experience” looking at international repositories in
sedimentary rock formations.
The public were told that the repository was to remain dry. This would provide for increased safety margin.
Without brine liquid in the hole, containers would not degrade as readily and contaminants could not be
transported into Lake Huron.
At the CNSC hearing it was said that the international repositories have in-leakage and some require pump
out. It now appears that the repository will be allowed to fill with a brine solution.
Germany's only final repository for low-and medium-level radioactive waste has a serious safety problem. In
two of the storage chambers, there is a danger that salt blocks weighing up to 1,000 tonnes may fall from the
roof. This could lead to radioactive dust spreading through other parts of the repository, and possibly escaping
into the air via the ventilation shafts. The state of Sachsen-Anhalt considers it unsafe and wants it closed, but
it was kept open thanks to a directive made by the former environment minister, Angela Merkel.
Recommendation 7: Additional information on international experience with DGR’s is to be provided.
Waste Management Practices
CNSC staff based their preliminary assessment s on staff experience with existing waste management
practices in Canada. The CNSC assures us that waste facilities in Canada are being managed safely and
pose no undue risks.

Ontario Power Generation
Ontario Power Generation maintains the low-level/intermediate level radioactive waste storage facilities at the
Bruce Nuclear site. The waste facilities are licensed by the CNSC.
Radioactive Waste Operations Site 1 was closed in 1976 and has since been maintained in a caretaking mode
by Ontario Hydro and its successor Ontario Power Generation.
In 1999, Ontario Hydro completed a preliminary assessment of Radioactive Waste Operations Site 1. Per the
report, groundwater monitoring data indicates that there has been leachate releases from RWOS1
containment structures.
A revised groundwater detection monitoring program was implemented in 1991. New monitoring wells were
installed because the older monitoring wells had failed to detect the release of radionuclide “primarily because
of design restrictions”. The wells were installed too deep to detect releases and were constructed of
incompatible materials.
The leakage from the containment structures is thought to be occurring through cracks in the in seals at the
base of the structures. Ground water level data suggests that containment structures are in contact with
groundwater. The nature of the material used to seal the base of the structures is unknown.
Contaminated liquid at the base of some structures has been attributed to rainwater and snowmelt as a result
of leaky trench lids. Historic water level data and analysis data from a reference well was not accessible
during the time frame of the assessment. “It is very unlikely that this information would alter the conclusions
drawn in this report rather, it is expected that this information will support the conceptual model of the site”.
Waste removal from RWOS1 was started in 1992-3. The containment structures that are the most likely
source of the releases “have still to be remediated and potentially continue to degrade the groundwater
system” (per the 1999 report).
We are assured by OPG spokesperson Earl that the “commission, which issues nuclear operating licenses,
would soon make trouble for OPG if it weren't operating its nuclear facilities safely”.
"And what is more disturbing about this situation is the fact that whenever questions arise about alleged
contamination or questions of safety, the answer is always the same - we are operating within the confines and
regulatory limits of our CNSC license. The assertion being that if there were problems, we wouldn't have a
license. Hence, the implication of course is that all fears should be allayed by the mere presence of a CNSC
license." Credibility key in regulatory process by Marie Wilson Kincardine News Wednesday February 02,
2005
OPG’s predecessor, Ontario Hydro, had been “plagued by operating problems and safety concerns”.
Ontario Hydro’s CEO at the time stated that “Hydro has endemic problems with management culture”.
“More than 1,000 tonnes of zinc and copper emissions flowed from Ontario power-producing facilities [into
Lake Ontario] over a 10-year period without notification of environmental agencies.”
“Ontario Hydro admitted last month that tritium-laced heavy water has been leaking out of a heavy water
enrichment plant at the Pickering nuclear plant for 18 years without the proper authorities being notified.”
Toronto Star – August 13, 1997

Atomic Energy Canada Limited
Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), a crown corporation, operates the NRU reactor at Chalk River. The
NRU produces 75% of the worlds isotope supply. For years, AECL had dumped radioactive waste at Chalk
River. AECL has downplayed the significance of the illegal dumping. “We are talking about low-level waste”.
We are assured that AECL is also committed to protecting the health and safety of the public. The President
of AECL assures us that Chalk River has maintained a stellar health and safety track record over the last
several decades.
CNSC staff concurs and defends the action. "An investigation by the safety commission's staff concluded that
waste dumping hadn't created a public health or safety hazard." Meanwhile the dumping had been going on
for years. "Officials at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission admitted "losing track" of the problem for the
last seven years because of staff turnover and poor record keeping."
<strong>Comment</strong>: The CNSC and their licensees are of the opinion that as long as unplanned releases are a
fraction of the regulatory limit, the public are safe, i.e., not exposed to unreasonable risk and therefore
the illegal dumping of radioactive waste in Canada is deemed to be a reasonable activity. These
transgressions are not the result of some operator error. They are by policy and a reflection of the
prevailing culture of the nuclear industry and the regulator.
CNSC Licensing
The NRU is a 50 + year old reactor that was re- licensed in August 1st, 2006 by the CNSC. The license
called for an emergency power supply to be connected to two reactor coolant pumps to ensure cooling of the
reactor in the event of an earthquake to prevent a melt down.
While reviewing some documentation on Nov. 19, 2007, CNSC inspectors discovered that the connection to
the emergency power supply had not been completed. The CNSC brought matter to the attention of AECL
who under advisement maintained the reactor in a shutdown state.
The prolonged shutdown prompted a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes for medical diagnosis and
treatment. Hundreds of cancer patients and others awaiting treatment had their procedures and tests delayed.
Prime Minister Harper's government was forced to make “an unpalatable choice between the immediate health
concerns of Canadians who can't get life-saving medical tests and the potential health concerns that could
arise in the event of a nuclear accident.”
The government decided to over-rule the CNSC and pass emergency legislation to restart the reactor to
resume the production of isotopes. The legislation was “criticized by the nuclear safety watchdog, which says
the reactor, its employees and local communities are all at risk.”
Prime Minister Harper's government should never have been put into this position.
How is it that the CNSC had not realized that the reactor had been running for almost two years without the
safety upgrades as required by the license?
AECL “went to on say that between June 2005 and July 2007 it has found nine instances of documented
correspondence between the two bodies, which clearly show both parties knew the pumps were not connected
to a backup power supply.”

“The commissioner has made several comments both at the CNSC hearings and here tonight that we
violated the licence. We do not believe that is true and we do not believe that right now if we were to
restart the reactor we would be in violation. We can demonstrate through factual evidence that we can
make available to everyone, both CNSC correspondence documentation and our own, that shows that
CNSC staff knew at the time of licensing that these upgrades were not complete and we can make that
information available to this House. Our safety report that we submit at the end of every year, so most
recently 2005 and 2006, both identify that these upgrades were not complete.” AECL Chief Nuclear
Officer.
“In terms of the difference in perception between AECL’s view of the licensing basis and ours, I can’t give
you an answer why that's not the case because we always considered this connection to be part of the
upgrades package as opposed to enhancement. But we’d like to be able to see the root cause because it
will probably explain sort of the management processes that AECL has followed to reach this
point in time.” CNSC director general Barclay Howden.
<strong>Comment</strong>: Given that there were nine instances of documented correspondence between AECL and the
CNSC, which clearly show both parties knew the pumps were not connected to a backup power supply and
then without warning the CNSC decided to pull the plug on the production of the medical isotopes, of greater
import to the public is an explanation of the management processes that the nuclear safety regulator
has been following in the fulfilment of its mandate.
Assessment of Adverse Impacts
The Precautionary Approach
The precautionary approach seeks to avoid harm and risk of harm.
The CNSC relies on regulatory dose limits as the primary measure for determining the significance of radiation
hazards. As long as exposures to radiation are below the regulatory dose limits, the CNSC deems the
exposures are “safe”. According to the CNSC, the current regulatory limit of about one milliSievert per year for
members of the public is still reasonable and still based on good science.
The report- ECRR 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk The Health Effects
of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes claims that the ICRP has
discounted evidence of harm following exposure. The report recommends that the total maximum permissible
dose to members of the public arising from all human practices should not be more than 0.1mSv.
An ethical engagement calls for an objective discussion of the contradictory science that supports the “safe”
levels of exposure to ionizing radiation.
Recommendation 8: The EIS is to provide an objective review of the contradictory science that supports the
“safe” levels of exposure to ionizing radiation.
Certainty of Likelihood of Adverse Impacts
The public had expressed concern “that the sedimentary rock is either not suitable or not proven to be suitable
for this type of project. There is concern that groundwater movement is not predictable and that the
environmental effects would therefore not be predictable with certainty. There is concern that the facility would
leak and therefore not perform as anticipated.”

Yet somehow the CNSC concluded that there was NO likelihood of possible escape of radio-activity from the
repository.
“Preliminary studies indicate that there will be no measurable impacts over the long term. The migration of
constituents from the repository is expected to be very slow such that radio-nuclides would decay before
being released to the environment.” CNSC Draft Report.
The public were assured that shaft would remain dry for the 100,000’s of years needed for decay of the radionuclides
contained in the waste. In the preamble to the question used to poll public support, the public are
assured:
“Council’s decision was based on the following key points: it provides the highest level of safety of any
option…”
At a depth of 660 meters, groundwater at the proposed DGR site moves about one millimetre a year. Studies
by geoscientists show that water found at this depth has up to six times the salt content of sea water and has
been trapped in this rock for millions of years. This indicates the waste can be isolated from local water
sources and the lake.”
advertisement in the Kincardine News December 29, 2004 –
“Based on my experience as a doctor, a specialist in radiological health and a public health officer, I
believe the proposed Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) currently before the community for approval is a
safe, long-term solution for the storage of low and intermediate nuclear waste. The isolation and great
depth of this facility, located 660 metres below the surface, means that there is virtually no possibility of
radiation leaks.
The proposed DGR will also bring tangible economic benefits to our community. As a doctor and public
health officer, I know the important role that economic prosperity plays in advancing the health of both
communities and individuals. By contributing to the local economy, the proposed DGR will contribute
directly and indirectly to a healthy Kincardine and surrounding communities.
While I’m very satisfied that the existing nuclear waste storage facilities at the Bruce site are safe and
secure from a public health perspective, I believe that the proposed DGR is an even safer and more
secure option.”
Medical Officer of Health for Grey Bruce Health Unit.
These assurances were made based on a “conceptual model” that was put forward by the proponent’s
consultant and are based on the assumption that there are no fractures in the area bedrock and the bedrock is
impermeable.
Recommendation 9: To determine if the site could contain and isolate the waste from humans and the
environment in the long term, more data on the site geology is to be provided.
Assessment of Trans-border Effects
The stakeholder consultation and communication program focused on the local municipalities. No effects
outside of Bruce County were anticipated. Despite concerns of our American neighbours, the CNSC
concluded that it is unlikely that the proposal poses a threat across international borders.

The management of waste on surface (at the WWMF) has demonstrated that, even with surface facilities
that are exposed to ambient conditions, transborder effects are not occurring. The proposed DGR would
likely further reduce the possibility of trans-border effects. CNSC.
CNSC staff also noted that a detailed and rigorous assessment of effects was not conducted due to it
being at a very early stage in the EA. CNSC staff added that the analysis is based on how the DGR would
be expected to perform and does not consider abnormal events such as malfunctions or accidents or
unexpected findings that would result from a more rigorous assessment of geologic and hydrogeologic
conditions at the site. CNSC
Having considered scenarios including container collapse/failure, seismic events, glaciations, lake recession
and various degrees of loss of barrier including total loss of barrier, the CNSC had concluded from the
information at hand that there is no likely possibility whereby contaminants would be released into Lake
Huron. Yet insufficient scientific evidence has been collected and technical assessments have not been
completed to support such a conclusion.
Certain natural occurring events could lead to trans-border effects.
Recommendation 10: Criteria used to exclude or include natural events and accident scenarios should be
documented.
Recommendation 11: The assessment is to cover the timeframe over which the DGR posses a potential risk
considering the hazardous lifetime of the waste; the frequency of seismic occurrences, floods, droughts,
glaciations, climate change, etc.
Recommendation 12: The assessment should provide a rationale for the determination of the time frame to be
covered by the assessment. The assessment is to determine what constitutes a reasonable time to terminate
institutional control of the site.
Recommendation 13: Given the possibility of leakage into the Great Lakes over the next 500,000 years, the
study area should be expanded to include downstream communities on the American sides of Lakes Huron,
Erie and Ontario and the St. Clair and St. Lawrence Rivers. Potentially affected communities are to be
consulted on both sides of the border.
Contingency Planning
The CNSC had proposed that the project undergo an EA under the CEAA and then a three phased licensing
process. The EA will be based largely on “technical assumptions”. More detailed design and data collection
was to be performed latter during the licensing process to confirm the technical assumptions that the EA will
be based on.
“Prior to doing the final shaft sealing, we would go through an environmental assessment on the
decommissioning, the license for decommissioning and at that point of course, the whole process would
have to be open on what we’re going to do and there would have to be acceptability on that plan, at that
time. And any need for post-closure retrievability would be addressed at that time.” CNSC
“It’s difficult at this point to know, since we do not know what part of the assessment is going to be based
on data and which part of the assessment is going to be based on assumptions, to start describing exactly
how those assumptions would be monitored. So there is a requirement to develop the program but to
develop it now is premature.” CNSC

The NWMO sanctioned process calls for adequately detailed design and technical specifications to be
completed during the siting phase to provide assurance that commitments made will be met and that
contingency plans are known and feasible should the project result in unplanned consequences.
There is NO plan for monitoring the waste POST CLOSURE. No contingency plan is being proposed at this
time.
The public has no assurance that unplanned effects can be managed. Given the past performance and
prevailing culture, can the CNSC and OPG be trusted to stop an escape of radio-active contaminants into Lake
Huron if an accident were to occur over the next 100,000 years?
Recommendation 14: Details of a program to monitor for release of contaminants from the repository into Lake
Huron POST CLOSURE are to be developed to support the EIS.
Recommendation 15: Plans for waste retrieval post-closure are to be assessed for the drafting of the EIS.
Social-Economic-Ethical Concerns
CNSC policy exempts the CNSC from considering social and ethical factors. The Draft Regulatory Guide G-
320, Assessing the Long-Term Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, does not address the social
acceptability nor the economic feasibility of proposals.
At a future date the CNSC intends to apply some discretion in determining which economic and social
factors are to be considered for the purpose of performing evaluations. These factors have not been
categorically identified for inclusion in the EA. CNSC
On account of the limited scope of its mandate, the CNSC has failed to determine, define and evaluate
social and environmental concerns as expressed by the public.
The wording of the Act states that the social effects of the project are a constant concern for the
government - and, through the government, for Canadian society - and one of the key components of its
proper implementation.
In this regard, the Act is innovative in that it compels, on the one hand, the NWMO to determine the social
and ethical consequences of each management proposal even before the beginning of the environmental
effects assessments…
These issues will be addressed on the same footing as technical matters both throughout the
development and also the implementation of a solution for the long-term management of nuclear fuel
waste. Addressing these concerns is front and central in the Act.
In addition, the NFW Act specifically requires "taking into account ethical considerations" for each of the
options proposed by the NWMO.
Dr. P. A. BROWN, Natural Resources Canada
Public Consultation
The guiding principles (e.g., informed consent, ethical consultations free from personal gain and bias) for siting
waste repositories was derived after 25 years of public consultations.

Public involvement is a central objective of the overall review process. Meaningful public participation
requires the proponent to address concerns of the general public regarding the anticipated or potential
environmental effects of the project. . Draft EIS Guidelines- GUIDING PRINCIPLES
“Confidence in the technical aspects of a site alone is unlikely to be sufficient to provide the
assurances that people seek in order to implement the project successfully. A dynamic process,
implementation must unfold in an ethical way that continues to respect the social, cultural and
economic aspirations of the affected community.” NWMO
“We are pleased that this new Bill (NFW Act) recognizes the public as a stakeholder in this important
societal issue and fully endorses the concepts contained in the Bill.” Mayor Kincardine oral presentation to
Commission
“Rigorous Consultation” Under CNSC Purview
We were assured that “CNSC staff intends to conduct a rigorous consultation program throughout the progress
of the EA. It is therefore the opinion of CNSC staff that public concerns do not warrant referral to a panel
review.”
A number of groups, organizations, public officials and elected representatives had made submissions in
support of the proposal. The proponents presented assumptions as facts. The geological studies had not
been completed. Public support was solicited by offering tax cuts paid out of the $35 million hosting
agreement that tied payment to support. The supporters submitted that OPG had done a good job
communicating with and informing the public and the public have not expressed any significant concerns.
“As you know, OPG has been responsible for an aggressive and ongoing public outreach campaign on
the subject. They have undertaken an extensive and open communications effort on the DGR proposal
over the last four years and, in my opinion, the people are aware of the project and it is frankly not an
issue of significance in my riding. In the interests of absolute clarity, please note that I support your staff’s
recommendation to move forward with a comprehensive environmental assessment for this project. I do
not see any environmental issues that cannot be mitigated at this point and I believe there is substantial
public support in this area. Paul Steckle Member of (Parliament Federal)Huron-Bruce
“We believe that OPG has done an excellent job of communicating the DGR proposal to our residents
over the last four years.” Local Mayor
The CNSC took into consideration such comments in its recommendation NOT to proceed with a panel
review.
Meanwhile comments by the public were ignored by OPG, the CNSC and elected representatives:
• there are inherent dangers associated with the proposal to store radioactive waste along a Great Lake
• the proposal poses a threat across international borders
• there is no public policy for disposing of existing and future waste streams (non HLW).
• an EA completed under the purview of the CNSC will not have regard for values, principles re.
environmental, social, cultural and economic concerns as established by Seaborn and NWMO
Applying its own definition for “significance” of impacts on public health and the environment, the CNSC
concluded that public concerns amount to no more than “subjective worries and or preoccupations”.
“Public concerns include those that are of interest or importance to the public, and would include
consideration of subjective worries and or preoccupations of the public.” CNSC

After having dispositioned the public comments, the CNSC arrived at the conclusion that the project did not
warrant referral to an independent panel.
At a future date the CNSC intended to apply some discretion in determining IF economic, social and cultural
factors are to be considered during the EA process. As such these factors had not been identified for inclusion
in the EA.
Recommendation 16: In keeping with the guiding values and principles that were established by
Seaborn and the NWMO, the EIS is to determine, define and evaluate social, economic, ethical and
environmental concerns as determined by the public. Alternative approaches to the DGR at Bruce are
to be assessed considering these factors.
Conflict of Interest
Those making the decision and/or formulating recommendations should be free from conflict of interest,
personal gain or bias. (NWMO)
“If accepted, the proposal to locate the DGR in Kincardine may create opportunities for tax
reductions in 2005.” Mayor of Kincardine Advertisement – Kincardine Independent Wednesday
December 15, 2004.
A hosting agreement between OPG and surrounding municipalities pays the municipalities $35 million.
Payment by OPG to the municipalities is conditional on the municipalities “exercising their best efforts” to
achieve the various steps for the final approval of waste repository.
“The Parties shall ….provide their cooperation in support of the environmental approvals and licensing
applications sought as well as any other approvals or licenses required to construct or operate the DGR.”
Hosting Agreement
“Kincardine shall also respond in a timely fashion to all requests by the CNSC or other competent
authority, for information and make appearances at all the CNSC hearings relating to the DGR.” Hosting
Agreement
“At OPG’s sole discretion should any such municipalities have failed to exercise best efforts to support
the construction of DGR in which case the affected municipality will not have any right to receive or
recover payment.”. Hosting Agreement
Others have questioned the ethics of tying payments to municipalities to the condition that the municipalities
support the proposal through the various steps of the EA and licensing process.
Some intervenors questioned the methods used to solicit public support, such as the host community
agreement between OPG and the Municipality of Kincardine. The Commission inquired concerning this
agreement, but maintained that this issue was beyond the purview of the CNSC. Reasons for Decision:
December 21, 2006
<strong>Comment</strong>: The hosting agreement prejudices the completion of an ethical and principled assessment
under the CEAA..

Conclusion
The CNSC, OPG and elected representatives all came to the conclusion that the proposal did NOT meet the
criteria established by the CEAA for conducting an independent panel review.
The guiding principles e.g., informed consent, ethical consultations free from personal gain and bias for siting
waste repositories were derived by the NWMO.
OPG had reassured the public that the proposal was to undergo a full review as had been completed by the
NWMO for high level waste.
Instead, OPG proposed to proceed with the DGR without having an over-all policy and co-ordinated plan for
disposing of the various waste streams. OPG then testified before the commission that an independent panel
review were social, ethical and economic issues were to be considered was not warranted!
During the consultation that was conducted by OPG for siting the DGR,
• assumptions were presented as facts (no site characterizations had been completed)
• a one sided assessment of adverse consequence was provided
• public support was solicited by offering tax cuts paid for by a $35 million hosting agreement.
Given that Ken Nash, a VP of OPG was President of the NWMO when the blueprint for siting a DGR was
drawn up, OPG knew the prescribed process. Nash himself stood before the commissioners of the CNSC.
The actions of the CNSC and OPG speak louder than the volumes of written assurances by the NWMO.
Is the NWMO also a deception intended to defraud the Canadian public of a meaningful say in the decision
making process on Canada’s nuclear waste?
What accounts for the subjective bias displayed by municipal representatives? A $35 million payoff conditional
on representatives standing before hearing panels and nodding their heads in agreement with OPG?
The hosting agreement prejudices the completion of an ethical and principled assessment under the CEAA.
How can municipal corporations sign an agreement that makes payment conditional on support of a proposal
before an assessment of the proposal has even been commenced?
<strong>Comment</strong>: From the onset, the objective of the CNSC, OPG and municipal advocates has been to
circumvent a panel review with the intent to deny the public a meaningful say on the social, ethical
and economic issues relating to the project.

References
Letter to Editor Susan Franks (KN Dec 8, 2004) - Seasonal residents had no way of knowing the proposal was
being voted on.
Hush money?- Letter to Editor Jennifer Heisz (KN Noov 24, 2004)
Tempest at county over nuclear waste host agreement- “As late as November 10, 2004 Northern Bruce
Penninsula mayor was angry that the county had no input on the facility. Is this the best way for nuclear waste
to be stored? I don’t know”. KN Nov 10/2004
OPG hosting agreement for nuclear waste facility worth over $40 million- KN October 20, 2004
The Kincardine Independent Jan 12, 2005 -Safety is only concern-“As for referring citizens to the OPG office
(which with more guile than candour, the mayor calls the Community Consultation Centre), it is akin to asking
a political party whom you should vote for in an upcoming election. It is not OPG’s role to dispense balanced
information; it’s the mayor’s moral responsibility to do so. He serves us all; he fails us all.”
Kincardine Independent December 8, 2004 -Advertisement – A Geoscientist’s Perspective.
Interim Site Assessment Report-Radioactive Waste Operations Site 1 March 3, 1999.
http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0412nn/041224nn.txt
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/pdf/per4.pdf
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/pdf/per2.pdf
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/539/brief.html
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/IASdocs/Agreement3_4.pdf
http://www.kincardinenews.com/story.php?id=140684
Owen Sound Sun Times -Council concerned about Ottawa meddling in nuclear safety; Motion states public
needs confidence CNSC can do its work free from political interference
http://www.waterkeeper.ca/content/drink/council_concerned_about_ottawa.php
Transcript-hearing for renewal of the operating licence for the Western Waste Management Facility
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/commission/pdf/trans02-H8.pdf
CANADA'S NATIONAL POLICY ON THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE
http://www.nfwbureau.gc.ca/english/View.asp?pf=1&x=647&oid=27
Auditor General Report Federal Radioactive Waste Management
http://209.71.218.213/internet/English/aud_ch_oag_199505_3_e_5004.html#0.2.NJDBJ2.9FBMWI.J4RLQE.C
6
Ontario Hydro Plagued by Rash of Nuclear-Related Problems Toronto Star August 13, 1997 -
http://www.ccnr.org/news/news_briefs_1.html