Renseignements supplémentaires Intervention orale. Supplementary Information Oral intervention

Transcription

1 Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint du projet de stockage dans des couches géologiques profondes PMD 13-P1.105A File / dossier : Date: Edocs: Supplementary Information Oral intervention Presentation from Kincardine's Municipal Peer Review Team Renseignements supplémentaires Intervention orale Présentation par Kincardine's Municipal Peer Review Team In the Matter of À l égard de Ontario Power Generation Inc. Ontario Power Generation Inc. Proposed Environmental Impact Statement for OPG s Deep Geological Repository (DGR) Project for Low and Intermediate Level Waste Étude proposée pour l énoncé des incidences environnementales pour l Installation de stockage de déchets radioactifs à faible et moyenne activité dans des couches géologiques profondes Joint Review Panel Commission d examen conjoint September 16 to October 12, septembre au 12 octobre 2013

2 Presentation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for the Deep Geologic Repository Joint Review Panel Hearing Municipality of Kincardine s Municipal Peer Review Team Submission Presented By Dave Hardy, Principal Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited September 16, 2013 Source: Ontario Parks Introduction Dave Hardy, RPP. Principal, Hardy Stevenson and Associates Limited. Director, Municipal Peer Review Team (MPRT). On behalf of the Municipality of Kincardine, the MPRT reviewed: Socio-Economic Environment Technical Support Document (TSD) and Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) Environmental Assessment (EA) Follow-up Monitoring Program. 1

3 Purpose To provide the comments and recommendations of the Municipality of Kincardine s s MPRT on the DGR EA for the Joint Review Panel Hearing. Source: Municipality of Kincardine EA Study Overview Ontario Power Generation (OPG) conducted an EA to assess the DGR project s s potential effects, identify mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring programs. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible EA process on behalf of OPG. OPG invited stakeholders to become informed about studies and participate in public consultation. 2

4 Peer Review Methodology Questions central to MPRT methodology are: 1. Is purpose of the work clearly stated, with all encompassed issues and impacts? 2. Is methodology sound enough to permit the MPRT s objective review of issues, data and facts? 3. Are relevant data and facts clearly and consistently used in the reports? 4. Have cumulative effects been thoroughly understood? 5. Are certainties and uncertainties of studies openly and objectively stated? 6. Are there data gaps? Peer Review Methodology (cont d.) 7. Can the MPRT trust the data? 8. Are the conclusions supported by data and research undertaken? 9. If the MPRT examined the data, would it reach same conclusions? 10. Are realistic mitigation measures proposed? 11. Will mitigation measures function to address effects over the life of the project? 12. Are gaps arising from the MPRT s s examination of issues? 13. Are there areas where MPRT and OPG consultants completely disagree? 3

5 Peer Review Methodology (cont d.) 14. Have significant issues been overlooked during the EA? 15. Are gaps addressed to the point where the project can move forward? 16. Are there Federal, Provincial and local standards, regulations and guidelines overlooked? 17. Does the DGR EA Follow-up Monitoring Program adequately address the effects identified in the EA? 18. What are conclusions of the MPRT? 19. What is the MPRT s s recommendations to the Municipality of Kincardine? Municipality of Kincardine Objectives To have the MPRT address the following questions: 1.Have the study authors chosen an acceptable methodology and applied it successfully? 2.Given the chosen methodology, type, volume and quality of data, are the conclusions valid? 3.Are the monitoring actions of the DGR EA Follow-Up Monitoring Program adequate? 4

6 Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) Source: Municipality of Kincardine Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) SEIA: Systematic advanced appraisal of impacts of the day-to to-day quality of life of people and communities when environment is affected by development or policy change. Provides people aspects of proposed project brings social science into the evaluation. Use of standard or special SEIA. MPRT reviewed the Socio-economic Environment TSD for consistency with SEIA methodology. 5

7 SEIA Methodology Steps 1. Scoping the socio-economic impact to be studied. 2. Profiling existing socio-economic conditions. 3. Projecting changes that are likely to occur due to the undertaking. 4. Assessing the effects of relative importance. 5. Evaluating overall socio-economic impacts. 6. Drawing conclusions and recommending how to proceed with the proposed undertaking. Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) NWMO s consultants (AECOM) grouped VECs into 4 Asset Areas: 6

8 SEIA asks: Will the DGR affect any aspects of the socio-economic environment as described in each asset area? Human Assets Population & Demographics Skills & Labour Supply Education Health & Safety Facilities & Services Social Services Financial Assets Employment Business Activity Tourism Residential Property Values Municipal Finance & Administration Income Resource Use: Nonrenewable & Renewable Agriculture Economic Development Services Physical Assets Housing Municipal Infrastructure & Services Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Community Character Social Assets Inverhuron Provincial Park Cultural & Heritage Community & Recreational Facilities & Programs Use & Enjoyment of Private Property Sources: Ontario Parks, Community HSAL and Morgue Photos Cohesion Socio-Economic Environment VECs Analysis Process AECOM used a matrix to identify DGR project- environment interactions likely to cause measurable change in socio-economic environment VECs. AECOM data collection used: Secondary source data Field studies Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge Use of special and standard SEIA. 7

9 DGR EA Follow-Up Monitoring Program The MPRT reviewed the DGR EA Follow-up Monitoring Program to verify commitments made in the EA and the monitoring of follow-up actions. Findings & Conclusions Source: Municipality of Kincardine 8

10 Initial Peer Review Findings 80 specific comments submitted by the MPRT on the Socio-Economic Environment TSD and DGR EA Follow-up Monitoring Program. Overall findings: Reached same conclusions as AECOM and NWMO: socio-economic effects will not be significant. Study was well done. Several comments pointed to additional socio-economic effects and follow-up measures to consider. Detailed Analysis & Findings Summary 1. Need end-use plan for rock pile, including landscaping and screening, with public consulted. 2. Effects on property values need further discussion and Property Value Protection (PVP) Plan. 3. Potential stigma effects must be managed. 4. Traffic pressure on country roads/intersections needs to be addressed. 5. Plans needed to obtain regional non-opg mine rescue workers support for training local EMS workers. 9

11 Detailed Analysis & Findings Summary (cont (cont d.) 6. OPG must further define and implement provisions to support Municipality monitoring socio-economic effects. 7. Public attitude research should not be used as a tool for measuring noise and dust effects. 8. DGR project s s economic development role needs to be strengthened. 9. Socio-economic mitigation measures must be defined in Follow-up Monitoring Program to facilitate CNSC implementation recommendations. Disposition Process Proponent responds to comments by: 1. Agreeing with the peer review comment; or 2. Pointing to other reports and studies that may have adequately addressed the peer review comment; or 3. Satisfactorily explaining to the peer reviewer why the proponent s s findings should stand; or 4. Disagreeing with the peer review comment. 10

12 Disposition Process (cont`d.) Following the MPRT presentation to Council: OPG, NWMO and AECOM provided comments, met with MPRT to discuss, then reviewed several disposition responses. MPRT received follow-up dispositions. MPRT`s overall findings remain as: Construction and operation of DGR will not result in significant socio-economic effects. Many original MPRT comments satisfactorily disposed. Final Disposition 1. Trees will be used as a visual barrier for rock pile and berm will not be at full height. Municipality to have input on landscape design. 2. OPG is prepared to address and monitor potential stigma effects. Monitoring program for socio-economic effects currently in place. 11

13 Final Disposition (cont d.) 3. PVP Program to be created. 4. Plans to address traffic pressure. 5. Municipality assured OPG and NWMO will adequately consider Centre of Excellence. 6. Mutual aid agreement for mine rescue not required but OPG to have reciprocal agreement and training program for mining rescue workers. Final Disposition (cont d.) 7. Public attitude research to only be used as a qualitative measure for nuisance effects. 12

14 Conclusions The MPRT is satisfied with Socio-Economic Environment TSD and DGR EA Follow-Up Monitoring Program. Methodology, type, volume and quality of data collected and AECOM report conclusions are valid. Conclusions (cont d.) The MPRT believes: With appropriate impact avoidance, mitigation measures and follow-up monitoring, the project is unlikely to cause significant adverse socio- economic effects. Follow-up monitoring actions in DGR EA Follow-up Monitoring Program are adequate. As peer reviewers, HSAL supports these conclusions. 13