JOINT REVIEW PANEL COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT · 9 --- Upon recessing at 9:14 a.m./ 10...

DEEP GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR LOW AND INTERMEDIATE

LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROJECT

JOINT REVIEW PANEL

PROJET DE DÉPÔT EN FORMATIONS GÉOLOGIQUES PROFONDES

DES DÉCHETS RADIOACTIFS À FAIBLE ET MOYENNE ACTIVITÉ

COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT

CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY

AGENCE CANADIENNE D’ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

HEARING HELD AT

Royal Canadian Legion 219 Lambton Street Kincardine, Ontario

Monday, September 30, 2013

Volume 12

JOINT REVIEW PANEL

Dr. Stella Swanson

Dr. Gunter Muecke

Dr. Jamie Archibald

International Reporting Inc.

41-5450 Canotek Road

Ottawa, Ontario

K1J 9G2

www.irri.net

1-800-899-0006

(ii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES

PAGE

AQUATIC - GROUNDWATER: Opening remarks by the Joint Review Panel 1 Presentation by Ontario Power Generation 8

Presentation by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 19 Presentation by the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines 37 Questions by the Panel 54

Questions by the public 129 Oral intervention by Mr. Patrick Gibbons 141 Questions by the Panel 165 Questions by the public 180 Oral intervention by the County of Bruce 198 Questions by the Panel 221

Questions by the public 227 Oral intervention by the Canadian Environmental Law Association 238 Questions by the Panel 259

Questions by the public 274 Oral statement by the United Church of Canada 280 Oral statement by Algonquin Eco Watch 287 Questions by the Panel 294

(iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS / TABLE DES MATIÈRES

PAGE

AQUATIC - GROUNDWATER: Oral statement by Michigan State Senate 300 Oral statement by Michigan House of Representatives 311

Questions by the Panel 321 Questions by the public 344 Written submissions: 356 - Gayle Bettega (PMD 13-P1.122) - Alliance for the Great Lakes (PMD 13-P1.27/13-P1.27A)

- Marilyn Sue Biernot-Hess (PMD 13-P1.59) - Lynn Township (PMD 13-P1.174) Questions by the Panel 356

(iv)

UNDERTAKINGS / ENGAGEMENTS

No. Description PAGE

U-41 By OPG to the JRP to provide information

on the differential between the forces required for fracture initiation vs. fracture propagation in the Cambrian formation. 60

U-42 By OPG to the JRP to provide any studies to differentiate between diagenetic and hydrothermic dolomite in the DGR cores. 69

U-43 By CNSC to the JRP to provide additional

information on tritium concentrations in drinking water supplies over a longer time

frame than 2009 to 2012, to provide a greater understanding of the long-term trend and reasons for the trend. 187

U-44 By OPG to the JRP to provide a list of

open houses conducted in Saugeen Shores, including the attendance at each. If available, provide examples of input received during the open houses and OPG’s response to that input. 197

U-45 By OPG to the JRP to provide resolution

of issues around if there was an agreement as noted in the November 13, 2004 Owen Sound Sun Times article on page102 of 900 in Volume 2 of the DGR Environmental Impact Statement. 234

1

INTERNATIONAL REPORTING INC.

Kincardine, Ontario 1

2

--- Upon commencing on Monday, September 30, 2013 3

at 9:11 a.m./L'audience débute lundi, le 30 4

septembre, 2013 à 9h11 5

6

--- OPENING REMARKS: 7

Mme McGEE: Bonjour, mesdames et 8

messieurs. Bienvenue à l'audience publique de la 9

Commission d’examen conjoint pour le Projet de 10

stockage des déchets radioactifs à faible et 11

moyenne activité dans des formations géologiques 12

profondes. 13

Good morning, and welcome to the 14

public hearing of the Deep Geologic Repository for 15

Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Joint 16

Review Panel. 17

My name is Kelly McGee. I am the 18

Co-Manager for the Joint Review Panel, and I'd like 19

to make a few announcements before we begin today's 20

scheduled proceedings. 21

We have simultaneous translation. 22

Des appareils de traduction sont disponible à la 23

réception. Headsets are available at the 24

reception. La version française est au poste 3 and 25

2


English is on Channel 1. 1

Please keep the pace of your 2

speech relatively slow to assist the translators. 3

A written transcript is being created for these 4

proceedings and will reflect the official language 5

used by the speaker. 6

Transcripts will be posted on the 7

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Website. 8

To make the transcripts as accurate as possible, we 9

ask everyone to identify themselves before 10

speaking. 11

As a courtesy others in the room, 12

please silence your cell phones and other 13

electronic devices. 14

These proceedings are also being 15

webcast live. The webcast can be accessed from the 16

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission home page at 17

www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca. 18

There will be one 15-minute break 19

during both the morning and afternoon sessions, and 20

there will be a meal break at approximately 12:30. 21

The afternoon session will begin at 2:00 p.m. 22

Emergency exits are located at the 23

back of the room and to my left behind the screen 24

and curtain, and washrooms are located in the 25

3


lobby. In the event of a fire alarm, you are asked 1

to leave the building immediately. 2

If you are scheduled to make a 3

presentation today, please check in with a member 4

of the Panel secretariat at the back of the room. 5

They are each wearing name tags to help you 6

identify them. 7

If you are a registered 8

participant and want the leave of the Chair to have 9

a proposed question asked to a presenter, please to 10

speak with a member of the secretariat. 11

And if you are not already 12

registered to participate and would like to make a 13

brief statement, please also speak to a member of 14

the secretariat staff. 15

Opportunities for either a 16

proposed question to a presenter or a brief 17

statement at the end of today's session maybe 18

provided, time permitting, and will be determined 19

by the Chair on a case by case basis. 20

Participants are reminded that 21

proposed questions are to be directed to the Chair 22

and may not be asked directly to a presenter. 23

Anyone who wishes to take photos 24

or videos during today's session should first speak 25

4


with one of the secretariat staff at the back of 1

the room. 2

Thank you. 3

MS. MYLES: Sorry to interrupt, 4

Kelly. The technicians have told me they have to 5

reboot the system, and it should only take a few 6

minutes. If we could take a very brief pause right 7

now and do that, get the system running properly. 8

--- Upon recessing at 9:14 a.m./ 9

L'audience est suspendue à 09h14 10

--- Upon resuming at 9:19 a.m./ 11

L'audience est reprise à 09h19 12

Mme McGEE: Thank you to everyone 13

for your patience. We are experiencing some 14

considerable technical difficulties. We are going 15

to try to resume. 16

If we lose the sound again, we 17

will have to call a short break to try and resolve 18

the problem. Thank you. 19

Dr. Swanson. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, 21

everyone. Welcome to a Monday morning. 22

On behalf of the Joint Review 23

Panel, welcome to everyone here in person or -- oh, 24

looks like we're going to have to take a break 25

5


because we're going to have to continually be 1

fighting with a mic that goes dead. 2



--- Upon resuming at 10:00 5


THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning 7

again, everyone. Thank you for your patience. 8

All I can say is, these things 9

happen on Monday mornings, I think. 10

On behalf of the Joint Review 11

Panel, welcome to everyone here in person or 12

joining us through the webcast. 13

My name is Stella Swanson. I am 14

the Chair of the Joint Review Panel for the Deep 15

Geologic Repository for Low and Intermediate Level 16

Radioactive Waste Project. 17

I am going to introduce the other 18

Members of the Joint Review Panel. On my left is 19

Dr. Jamie Archibald, and on my right is Dr. Gunter 20

Muecke. 21

We have already heard from Ms. 22

Kelly McGee, the Co-Manager of the Joint Review 23

Panel, and we also have Mr. Denis Saumure, counsel 24

to the Panel, with us on the podium today. 25

6


The subject for today's session is 1

aquatic-groundwater. Our Tuesday and Wednesday 2

sessions will also deal with aquatic matters. 3

Today we will begin with 4

presentations by Ontario Power Generation, the 5

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Ontario 6

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. 7

The Panel will hear all three 8

presentations before asking our questions. 9

Proposed questions from registered 10

participants will be considered once the Panel has 11

completed our questions. 12

I remind everyone here that your 13

proposed questions must be addressed to the Chair 14

and must specifically relate to the presentations 15

that have just been completed. As Chair, I will 16

decide if the Panel needs an answer to the question 17

and to whom it should be addressed. 18

Please keep your proposed question 19

as brief as possible. This is not an opportunity 20

for making a statement or debating a presenter. 21

Please speak with a member of the secretariat staff 22

at the back of the room if you have a proposed 23

question for a presenter. 24

I acknowledge Mr. Christopher 25

7


Wilkie, Executive Director, U.S. Trans-Boundary 1

Affairs Division, from Foreign Affairs Trade and 2

Development Canada, who is here today, as well as 3

Mary Lynn Becker from the Canadian Consulate in 4

Detroit, who is here today. 5

We also have present and available 6

on the phone personnel from the Natural Resources 7

Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the 8

Environment. 9

So with that, I will proceed with 10

an announcement. 11

On Friday of last week, we 12

announced that the decision of -- the discussion of 13

human health would continue on Monday, October the 14

7th. In addition, we also announced last week that 15

we would be returning to the subject of willing 16

host community on Thursday, October 10th and have 17

asked several of the presenters from September 16th 18

and 17th to return on that day. 19

In light of these changes to the 20

schedule, a revised hearing schedule will be issued 21

on Wednesday, October 2nd. 22

Because of the technical 23

difficulties we experienced this morning, the lunch 24

break today will be shortened by one half-hour, and 25

8


I would ask everyone to expect to be here at least 1

one half-hour later this afternoon. 2

Thank you. 3

We'll now begin with Ontario Power 4

Generation. 5

--- PRESENTATION BY ONTARIO POWER GENERATION: 6

MS. SWAMI: Laurie Swami, for the 7

record. 8

Good morning Dr. Swanson and Panel 9

Members. 10

Today, Mr. Jensen, Director of the 11

DGR Geoscience and Research Organization, will be 12

leading our groundwater presentation. 13

Mr. Jensen. 14

MR. JENSEN: Thank you, and good 15

morning. For the record, my name is Mark Jensen. 16

I'm joined this morning by Dr. 17

Jonathan Sykes. Dr. Sykes is a professor in the 18

Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at 19

the University of Waterloo. 20

The purpose of the presentation 21

this morning is to address the shallow groundwater 22

system existing beneath and in the vicinity of the 23

DGR Project site. 24

More particularly, I'll be 25

9


speaking to, one, the historical basis and 1

knowledge regarding the understanding of the 2

shallow ground water system directly beneath the 3

project site as relevant to existing OPG and 4

proposed DGR surface facilities. 5

Two, an assessment of impacts 6

arising from development of the proposed DGR waste 7

rock management area and storm water management 8

pond. 9

And lastly, an assessment of 10

impacts arising from DGR shaft construction 11

activities. 12

For clarity, the shallow 13

groundwater system comprises the upper 180 metres 14

of glacial drift in carbonate bedrock beneath the 15

Bruce nuclear site. It is within this shallow 16

system that construction and operation activities 17

could potentially influence existing groundwater 18

conditions. 19

This groundwater system is 20

isolated from the intermediate and deep groundwater 21

systems proposed for DGR implementation. 22

The investigation of hydrogeologic 23

conditions in the vicinity of the DGR project site 24

began in the late 1970s. 25

10


These early hydrogeologic 1

investigations, conducted by the University of 2

Waterloo, focused on characterization of the 3

groundwater system within the glacial drift 4

underlying the Western Waste Management Facility 5

located immediately south of the DGR Project site. 6

In the mid-1980s, a survey of 7

geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, which 8

included more than 150 borehole and test pit 9

records, extended this understanding into the DGR 10

Project site area and beyond. 11

Additional investigations were 12

undertaken in the early 1990s to increase the 13

understanding of the shallow groundwater system, 14

including the bedrock underlying the glacial drift, 15

as part of an initiative by Ontario Hydro at the 16

time to improve groundwater monitoring at its 17

radioactive waste management facilities. 18

A new groundwater monitoring 19

program, since increased to accommodate Western 20

Waste Management Facility expansion, was 21

implemented in 1995. 22

Additional investigations and a 23

numerical analysis between 2001 and 2011 were 24

conducted to address the fate of elevated tritium 25

11


concentrations detected at overburdened monitoring 1

well WSH 231, up gradient of the DGR Project site 2

beneath the Western Waste Management Facility. 3

The knowledge gained from these 4

historic hydrogeologic investigations, coupled with 5

the results of site-specific DGR geotechnical 6

investigations in 2011 and 2012, have provided the 7

basis with which to establish groundwater 8

conditions beneath the DGR Project site and design 9

groundwater monitoring systems. 10

Based on the knowledge gathered 11

over the last several decades, the near surface 12

groundwater system is comprised of six key hydro 13

stratigraphic units that in descending order from 14

ground surface are; a surficial sand and gravel, an 15

upper weathered till, an upper unweathered till, a 16

localized middle sand unit, a lower unweathered 17

till and a confined carbonate bedrock aquifer. 18

Groundwater flow paths, based on 19

both field observation and numerical groundwater 20

system simulation, are oriented vertically 21

downwards through the glacial drift and then sub-22

horizontally through the underlying confined 23

carbonate bedrock aquifer to a point of near 24

shoreline discharge in Lake Huron. 25

12


For the area incorporating the DGR 1

Project, this is illustrated in the two figures to 2

the right, the upper figure representing vertical 3

hydraulic head distributions in the overburden and 4

bedrock, and the lower figure horizontal hydraulic 5

head distributions in the shallow bedrock aquifer. 6

Groundwater flow directions are 7

shown by the accompanying arrows. 8

The DGR Project site is underlain 9

by a dense, fine-grained, low permeability glacial 10

till aquitard. The glacial till deposits nominally 11

range in thickness between 10 to 14 metres, as 12

shown in the central and lowermost figures. 13

These low permeability sediments 14

have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 10 15

to the minus 10 metres per second. 16

The middle sand unit, which varies 17

in thickness and elevation beneath the Western 18

Waste Management Facility, is absent beneath the 19

DGR Project site. The lateral extent of the middle 20

sand unit is shown in the uppermost figure as 21

outlined in green. 22

Recharge rates through the till 23

are low, on the order of millimetres per year, such 24

that the water table remains near ground surface 25

13


most of the year. 1

Vertically downward groundwater 2

velocities within the glacial till toward the 3

confined bedrock aquifer are estimated to be on the 4

order of centimetres per year. 5

Groundwater discharge to surface 6

water bodies is not evident through the glacial 7

till such that wetland areas represent the 8

accumulation of precipitation in closed circle 9

depressions in the glacial till surface. 10

Recharge from the glacial till 11

entering the bedrock aquifer will flow sub-12

horizontally in the uppermost bedrock to the 13

northwest. This confined bedrock aquifer has 14

nominal hydraulic connectivity of 10 to the minus 15

six metres per second. 16

Groundwater velocities are 17

estimated to be tens of metres per year in the 18

shallow bedrock. 19

This understanding of the 20

groundwater system and specific location of 21

proposed DGR surface facilities was taken into 22

account in the design of the shallow groundwater 23

monitoring well network. 24

Monitoring wells are positioned 25

14


immediately down gradient of the waste rock 1

management area and storm water management pond in 2

the uppermost aquifer in which lateral offsite 3

contaminant migration could occur. This assured 4

reliable baseline monitoring and the ability for 5

early detection. 6

An assessment to illustrate 7

potential impacts arising from the development of 8

the proposed DGR waste rock management area and 9

storm water management pond was performed. The 10

assessment involved numerical analyses that 11

considered base case, or present day, and post 12

waste rock management area, storm water management 13

pond construction conditions. 14

A key objective of the assessment 15

was to explore how uncertainty and glacial till 16

properties and surface recharge could influence 17

present-day groundwater conditions. 18

The significance of impact was 19

based on comparison of pre and post construction 20

states with respect to groundwater flow patterns 21

and rates. The assessment of impact illustrated 22

the dominant influence of the low permeability 23

glacial till aquitard on groundwater conditions. 24

Surface recharge rates are 25

15


controlled by the design of the surface facility 1

and the low permeability of the underlying glacial 2

till. Surface recharge in post-construction 3

simulations continued to represent a small 4

fraction, a few millimetres of annual precipitation 5

with downward groundwater velocities in the glacial 6

till not exceeding centimetres per year beneath 7

both of these management facilities. 8

Mounding of hydraulic head beneath 9

the surface facilities which could alter 10

groundwater flow in the underlying confined bedrock 11

aquifer is not predicted. This is illustrated in 12

the three figures to the right which are virtually 13

identical. The reliability of the existing 14

groundwater monitoring system to reveal groundwater 15

quality impacts resulting from DGR site preparation 16

and construction remains unaffected. 17

Groundwater analyses have also 18

been performed to assess the influence of DGR shaft 19

construction on the shallow groundwater system, in 20

particular, hydraulic influences occurring as a 21

result of dewatering within the confined bedrock 22

aquifer. These analyses considered the shaft 23

construction schedule, dewatering control measures 24

and installation of the proposed hydrostatic shaft 25

16


liners within the upper bedrock surface. 1

As part of the assessment, 2

estimates of dewatering rates during shaft advance, 3

the extent of hydraulic influence or capture, and 4

subsequent influence on existing on groundwater of 5

tritium plumes in the vicinity of the Western Waste 6

Management Facility were obtained. 7

The results of the analysis 8

indicate that the DGR shaft construction will only 9

temporarily influence the near surface groundwater 10

system. Dewatering activities during shaft 11

construction will extend only tens of metres from 12

the shaft collar as shown in the middle figure. 13

This hydraulic influence is 14

temporary in the sense that installation of the 15

hydrostatic liner during shaft advance will isolate 16

the shaft workings from the shallow groundwater 17

system. 18

As described earlier, a routine 19

program of groundwater monitoring has been 20

implemented at the Western Waste Management 21

Facility since the early 1980s as a condition of 22

regulatory licensing. Program oversight is 23

provided by the CNSC. 24

During the last decade, elevated 25

17


groundwater tritium concentrations have been 1

detected in several bedrock monitoring wells 2

immediately up gradient of the DGR project site. 3

It is evident that natural attenuation in the 4

shallow confined bedrock aquifer has reduced these 5

tritium concentrations to background levels, 1 to 6

10 becquerels per litre, as observed in DGR project 7

site monitoring wells. 8

A conservative estimate of tritium 9

concentrations in DGR shaft discharge during 10

construction that accounts for the monitoring 11

results at the WWMF and no natural attenuation 12

would be 250 becquerels per litre. 13

This impact would be temporary as 14

when DGR shafts advance, any elevated tritium 15

concentrations resulting from capture and mixture 16

with tritiated groundwater originating up gradient 17

beneath the Western Waste Management Facility will 18

return to background levels as currently observed 19

in DGR project site monitoring wells. 20

In conclusion, an assessment of 21

the shallow groundwater system beneath and in the 22

vicinity of the DGR project site indicates that 23

impacts resulting from DGR site preparation and 24

construction activities are unlikely to be 25

18


significant. 1

The surface facilities are 2

underlain by a thick glacial till aquitard that 3

protects groundwater resources. The reliability of 4

the baseline groundwater monitoring program to 5

detect future impacts is unaffected by development 6

of proposed DGR surface facilities. 7

The construction of the DGR main 8

and vent shafts will temporarily influence shallow 9

groundwater system, in particular, the confined 10

bedrock aquifer. Groundwater tritium 11

concentrations in the bedrock aquifer underlying 12

the DGR project site are currently at background 13

levels. 14

Change in tritium concentration 15

due to DGR shaft dewatering and conditions 16

immediately up gradient at the Western Waste 17

Management Facility may create minor, temporary 18

increases that would remain well below regulatory 19

guidelines. 20

Finally, the DGR project site 21

groundwater monitoring system is designed to 22

establish baseline conditions in the uppermost 23

aquifers in which lateral offsite migration of 24

contaminants could potentially occur. This 25

19


function will not be influenced by the proposed DGR 1

development activities. 2

Thank you. We would be glad to 3

answer any questions. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. 5

Jensen. 6

We will now proceed directly to 7

the scheduled presentation on behalf of the 8

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 9

Dr. Thompson? 10

--- PRESENTATION BY THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY 11

COMMISSION: 12

DR. THOMPSON: Thank you and good 13

morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Joint 14

Review Panel. 15

My name is Patsy Thompson. I am 16

the Director General of the Directorate of the 17

Environmental and Radiation Protection and 18

Assessment. 19

With me today are Mr. Michael 20

Rinker, the Director the Environmental Risk 21

Assessment Division and Dr. Shizhong Lei and Son 22

Nguyen, who are two geoscience experts at the CNSC. 23

Mr. Rinker is an environmental 24

geochemist with more than 20 years of experience 25

20


assessing the impacts of metals and radioactivity 1

in the environment. He has served as a consultant 2

in the private sector both nationally and 3

internationally, dealing with the management of 4

wastes, mining activities and the environmental 5

consequences of major resource projects. 6

At the CNSC Mr. Rinker has been 7

responsible for the geoscience, geotechnical and 8

environmental risk assessment functions of the 9

CNSC. 10

Drs. Lei and Nguyen have been 11

leading CNSC staff assessment work in the 12

geoscientific fields related to the groundwater and 13

its relation to the short-term and long-term safety 14

of OPG’s proposed DGR project. 15

In addition to Drs. Lei and 16

Nguyen, the CNSC has other geoscience experts in 17

the fields of environmental engineering, structural 18

geology, biogeochemistry and radioecology. 19

Groundwater is one of the most 20

important considerations in the safety of a deep 21

geologic repository because it would form the major 22

connection between where the wastes are stored and 23

the surface environment. 24

As discussed on September 19th in 25

21


our presentation on the DGR’s long-term safety 1

case, the characteristics of the groundwater and 2

the geology of the repository depth provide 3

evidence that supports staff’s conclusion that Lake 4

Huron would not be impacted by the proposed 5

repository on the Bruce site. Today’s presentation 6

will discuss in more detail the evidence used by 7

staff to come to that conclusion. 8

I will now ask Mr. Michael Rinker 9

to make the presentation. 10

MR. RINKER: Good morning, Madam 11

Chair, Members of the Joint Review Panel. 12

My name is Michael Rinker and I 13

have managed a team of geoscience specialists at 14

the CNSC who have reviewed OPG’s proposed DGR 15

project. 16

The purpose of this presentation 17

is to provide CNSC staff’s review and assessment of 18

groundwater at the proposed location of OPG’s Deep 19

Geologic Repository and then indicate how knowledge 20

of groundwater can help us understand long-term 21

safety of OPG’s proposed project. 22

We will present the basis of our 23

review, including information on both the deep and 24

shallow groundwater regimes. We will present where 25

22


and how groundwater would interact with the surface 1

environment and we will also present how monitoring 2

would enable us to confirm our expectations. 3

Finally, we will summarize CNSC staff’s major 4

findings and conclusions. 5

The basis for CNSC staff’s review 6

are the guidelines for the preparation of the 7

environmental impact statement which required OPG 8

to provide first, characterization of the existing 9

groundwater environment, the interactions between 10

surface water and groundwater flow systems; second, 11

the hydrogeology of the area from ground surface 12

through and into the top of the basement rock; and 13

third, existing groundwater quality and quantity 14

which forms the basis of an assessment of potential 15

impacts from the DGR project. 16

CNSC staff’s review of OPG’s work 17

is also based on the following: Joint research 18

with Queen’s University that included verification 19

of OPG models and independent evaluation of the 20

deep groundwater system and joint research with 21

Ottawa University that included the evolution of 22

the deep groundwater regime and how it evolved 23

under past glaciation cycles. 24

This knowledge and the experience 25

23


of CNSC staff enabled a thorough review of OPG’s 1

submissions and forms the basis of today’s 2

presentation. 3

This figure is an elevation map of 4

the region with the proposed DGR location shown 5

with a red dot and the boundary of the regional 6

groundwater flow model outlined with a red border. 7

Groundwater was characterized within this study 8

area. 9

Groundwater characterization 10

included field investigations, laboratory tests and 11

numerical modelling which was conducted to 12

determine groundwater flow and contaminant 13

movement. 14

This work enabled an understanding 15

of how groundwater would move near and around the 16

repository, the length of time it would take for 17

water to move from the repository to Lake Huron and 18

how these times could be influenced under various 19

scenarios. 20

Geological, geophysical, 21

geochemical, as well as hydrogeological data was 22

obtained from previous investigations conducted by 23

OPG and others, as well as from borehole drilling 24

and hydraulic testing near and around the proposed 25

24


DGR site, specifically for preparation of this 1

assessment. 2

The left part of this slide 3

illustrates the plan view of these borehole 4

locations and the drawing on the right shows the 5

depth of the recent onsite boreholes which are 6

illustrated with black lines. 7

There are three boreholes drilled 8

into bedrock at intermediate depth and they are 9

called the U.S. series boreholes. 10

There were four boreholes drilled 11

into the intermediate to deep bedrock and these 12

boreholes are called the DGR boreholes. In 13

addition, two inclined boreholes, DGR 5 and DGR 6, 14

were drilled into the deep bedrock. 15

It should be noted that two more 16

boreholes, not shown, have been drilled at the 17

proposed shaft locations, after the EIS was 18

submitted, at depths of 190 metres below ground 19

surface to a depth of more than 700 metres below 20

ground surface. 21

The results of the geological 22

investigations of these additional boreholes are 23

consistent with that which is presented in the EIS. 24

The figure on this slide shows the 25

25


hydraulic conductivity data that was obtained by 1

OPG in the various rock formations. 2

The vertical distribution of the 3

hydraulic conductivities illustrates that, at the 4

depth of the proposed DGR, the rocks are very 5

resistant to allowing water to flow with very low 6

hydraulic conductivity. 7

Some hydraulic conductivity values 8

are below 10 to the minus 14 metres per second in 9

the Cobourg rock where the DGR is proposed to be 10

located. 11

This is more than a million times 12

more resistant to water flow compared to sands and 13

silts and more than a thousand times more resistant 14

to water flow compared to clays. 15

In addition, the shallow and deep 16

groundwater zones are separated by many layers or 17

low permeability rocks such as the shale formation 18

located immediately above the Cobourg formation 19

which further restricts the movement of water from 20

the proposed repository depth to the surface. 21

This figure illustrates the 22

vertical distribution of the pourwater pressure in 23

different rock formations. 24

The data show that groundwater is 25

26


significantly under pressured in the proposed 1

repository horizon and over pressured in the deeper 2

formation. 3

This observation is not unique to 4

the Bruce area. It has been observed in other 5

sedimentary rock around the world that have 6

extremely low hydraulic conductivity values. 7

This observation provides 8

additional evidence that the rock around the 9

repository have very low permeability and there is 10

little interaction between shallow, intermediate 11

and deep groundwater formations. 12

This figure illustrates the total 13

dissolved solids concentration in groundwater, in 14

bedrock, at various depths of the proposed DGR 15

site. 16

There are three groundwater 17

regimes based on the observed concentrations in 18

groundwater. The profiles show that pourwater has 19

remained isolated from shallow groundwater as 20

illustrated by distinct groundwater regimes. 21

First, the groundwater regime at 22

the depth of the repository has very high total 23

dissolve solids, indicative of brine, whose 24

signature indicates a very ancient origin. 25

27


Second, a shallow groundwater 1

regime exists at up to approximately 200 metres 2

depth. The chemical signature of this water 3

indicates mixing with surface water, rain water 4

recharge and glacial melt waters. 5

An intermediate zone also exists 6

in between the above two. These three groundwater 7

regimes would have taken many millions of years to 8

develop and suggest that the groundwater regimes 9

evolved by diffusion dominated transport processes 10

in the host in the cap rock. 11

The data support the conclusion 12

that there is little mixing between deep 13

groundwater and shallow groundwater. 14

The geological, hydrogeological 15

and geochemical data as illustrated in the previous 16

slides show that there are four distinct zones at 17

the DGR site. 18

The first zone is shown in dark 19

blue and consists of surficial deposits or 20

overburden. This zone is about 20 metres thick. 21

The second zone is the shallow 22

bedrock zone, which has a relatively high 23

permeability that is about 150 metres thick. 24

Groundwater in the stone is fresh 25

28


to brackish and flow is primarily horizontal, 1

driven by topographic features with discharge to 2

Lake Huron. 3

The third zone is the intermediate 4

bedrock zone and is about 280 metres thick. 5

Formations in this zone are primarily low 6

permeability shales and dolostones with some 7

extremely low permeability salt beds. 8

Regional horizontal groundwater 9

flow is expected to exist in these formations, 10

although under very low horizontal gradients. 11

Totally dissolved solids in 12

groundwater in this zone is from 20 to 310 grams 13

per litre. For comparison, seawater has about 30 14

grams per litre. 15

The fourth zone is the deep 16

bedrock zone which covers all stratigraphic units 17

below the Ordovician shale and limestone. 18

Groundwater in this zone is extremely saline, with 19

a total dissolved solid concentration of 150 to 350 20

grams per litre. 21

And transport in the low 22

permeability Ordovician shale and limestone is 23

diffusion dominated. As seen in the figure, the 24

proposed DGR would be located in this zone. 25

29


There are two parameters that help 1

to describe the movement of groundwater; 2

groundwater age and groundwater life expectancy. 3

Groundwater age indicates how long 4

it has taken a water particle, either to stay in a 5

current location or to migrate to that location. 6

Groundwater life expectancy refers to the time it 7

will take a groundwater particle to move from the 8

current location to a surface water body such as 9

Lake Huron. 10

Geochemical evidence indicates 11

that the groundwater age and the intermediate and 12

deep bedrock groundwater zones is more than 250 13

million years old. 14

Groundwater modelling under 15

various scenarios shows that the mean life 16

expectancy of the groundwater in rocks at the DGR 17

horizon, is estimated to be over 100 million years. 18

In summary, the groundwater at the 19

proposed site is hundreds of millions of years old 20

and would take more than 100 million years to reach 21

Lake Huron. 22

There are multiple lines of 23

evidence to support the conclusion that the shallow 24

groundwater that discharges into Lake Huron is 25

30


isolated from the deep groundwater. 1

First, the deep groundwater is 2

very old, hundreds of millions of years old, 3

indicating very little movement. 4

Second, extremely high total 5

dissolved solids concentrations in deep groundwater 6

indicates no mixing of shallow and deep 7

groundwater. 8

Third, existence of extremely low 9

hydraulic conductivities in some formations, 10

between the shallow zone and the deep zone. 11

And fourth, the existence of under 12

pressure in the different groundwater zones means 13

that the pressures are not being transmitted from 14

one sedimentary layer to the next. This could only 15

be maintained over time if there is low 16

permeability. 17

Computer modelling of the 18

groundwater flow system also supports the 19

conclusion that the shallow groundwater that 20

discharges into Lake Huron, is and will remain, 21

isolated from the deep groundwater. 22

Recall that diffusion is the 23

movement of solute in a fluid from the area of high 24

concentration to an area of low concentration. 25

31


An advection, is the movement of a 1

solute in a fluid due to the fluids bulk motion 2

that is carried as it flows. 3

Whether contaminate transfer 4

occurs by diffusion or by advection is determined 5

by the Péclet number, which is the ratio of 6

advective transport relative to a diffusion 7

transport. A Péclet number of less than 0.4 8

indicates that solute transport is dominated by 9

diffusion. 10

The Péclet numbers of vertical 11

groundwater movement in the Cobourg rock, at the 12

proposed site, where the proposed DGR repository is 13

located, are less than 0.001, indicating that the 14

movement of contaminants from the DGR is diffusion 15

dominated. A process that is extremely slow. 16

The groundwater modelling shows 17

that potential contaminant movement in the sealed 18

shafts would also be by diffusion. 19

This figure shows the shallow 20

groundwater, elevation contours in blue that were 21

interpreted from data obtained in February 2013. 22

Groundwater monitoring wells are indicated in red. 23

The data from these wells show that the shallow 24

groundwater flows toward Lake Huron. 25

32


The data collected from these 1

wells have helped to established the baseline 2

characteristics of the shallow groundwater and will 3

serve to monitor shallow groundwater in future 4

should the project proceed. 5

The Western Waste Management 6

Facility is approximately 120 metres away from the 7

proposed DGR site. This facility is the current 8

location of the low and intermediate level waste. 9

Over the last decade, elevated 10

tritium concentrations in some of the groundwater 11

monitoring wells at the Western Waste Management 12

Facility have been observed. 13

OPG estimates the groundwater in 14

the shallow bedrock originated from the Western 15

Waste Management Facility, would move towards the 16

DGR shafts at a velocity of 4 metres per year, 17

meaning that it would take approximately 30 years 18

for groundwater contaminant from the Western Waste 19

Management Facility to reach the shaft area. 20

However, the impact of the 21

proposed project, particularly dewatering during 22

shaft construction, on the movement of the tritium 23

plume and groundwater was not assessed. 24

OPG determined that tritium 25

33


concentrations in the groundwater would be captured 1

during shaft concentration, would be on the order 2

of a few hundred becquerels per litre. This 3

concentration does not represent a risk to human 4

health, nor to the environment. 5

To verify this conclusion and to 6

ensure worker protection, a groundwater monitoring 7

program is recommended by CNSC staff to monitor and 8

to continually assess the tritium plume migration 9

and interaction with the proposed shafts as part of 10

the EA follow-up program that were presented on 11

October 5th. 12

Pumping the seepage water from the 13

shafts during construction and operation will 14

impact the groundwater flow system. OPG estimated 15

the zone of influence from dewatering during 16

construction to be smaller than 54 metres. 17

Once the shaft liners are 18

installed to at least a depth of 230 metres below 19

ground surface, the shafts would be hydraulically 20

isolated and will no longer influence the 21

groundwater or the surface water system. 22

CNSC staff recommend that OPG 23

provide verification of assessment results through 24

groundwater and shaft discharge monitoring programs 25

34


to ensure that the zone of influence does not 1

extend beyond 54 metres and to monitor both the 2

quantity and quality of water from dewatering 3

activities. 4

OPG has collected sufficient 5

monitoring information to identify groundwater flow 6

direction and flow rates to establish appropriate 7

baseline information to support an EA and licensing 8

decision. 9

Nevertheless, CNSC staff recommend 10

that OPG include additional groundwater monitoring 11

wells around the southern part of the DGR footprint 12

as reference wells to complete the currently 13

installed network of wells. 14

Although the behaviour of tritium 15

around the Western Waste Management Facility is 16

well understood, the impact of shaft dewater for 17

the DGR project has not been evaluated in terms of 18

dewatering water and the tritium plume from the 19

Western Waste Management Facility. 20

CNSC staff recommend that OPG 21

continually assess the migration of the tritium 22

plume and the interaction with the proposed shafts 23

as part of the EA follow-up program monitoring 24

program in order to provide early detection of the 25

35


potential migration of the tritium plume 1

originating for the Western Waste Management 2

Facility so as to enable OPG to be aware of tritium 3

levels, especially if they were to be at higher 4

concentration or to occur earlier than expected. 5

A recommendation for refined 6

numerical modelling would also help confirm OPG's 7

assessment of the surface water/groundwater 8

interaction. 9

I will now provide a summary of 10

the main findings on groundwater. 11

At the proposed repository depth, 12

groundwater flows into the repository during the 13

assessment timeframe. Contaminant transport is 14

diffusion dominated, which is a very slow process. 15

Evidence for these main findings 16

stem from the following; an independent research 17

project with Ottawa University that investigated 18

past glacial cycles and their impact on pourwater 19

pressure and the evolution of deep groundwater 20

geochemistry at the proposed site, and an 21

independent research project with Queen's 22

University to investigate the deep groundwater 23

models and science that supports the ancient origin 24

of deep groundwater at the proposed DGR site. 25

36


This work, together with our 1

review of OPG's submissions, support the main 2

finding that the proposed repository location is 3

ideally situated to contain the waste and restrict 4

any movement to the surface environment, including 5

to Lake Huron. 6

CNSC staff conclude that the EIS, 7

together with OPG's responses to the information 8

requests, is sufficient and meets the requirements 9

of the EIS guidelines with regard to the 10

description of the baseline groundwater conditions 11

and assessment of the effects of and on groundwater 12

hydrology. 13

There remains the need for 14

continual monitoring. However, it is not expected 15

that the outcome of this monitoring would change 16

the overall conclusions at the EIS that the 17

project, as proposed, would provide adequate 18

measures for the protection of people and of the 19

environment. 20

I will now pass the presentation 21

back to Dr. Thompson. 22

DR. THOMPSON: To conclude, I 23

would like to re-emphasize the very detailed 24

technical work conducted by CNSC geoscience staff, 25

37


recognizing the importance of understanding the 1

groundwater regime to assess the long-term safety 2

of the proposed repository. 3

Our work confirms the conclusion 4

that Lake Huron would not be impacted by the 5

proposed Deep Geological Repository. 6

Further assessment results will be 7

discussed tomorrow, October 1st, during our 8

presentation on surface water. 9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to 10

CNSC. 11

Next in our -- on our schedule is 12

a presentation by the Ontario Ministry of Northern 13

Development and Mines. 14

With us today from the Ministry 15

are Stewart Hamilton and Frank Brunton. 16

Please go ahead. 17

--- PRESENTATION BY THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF 18

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES: 19

DR. HAMILTON: Dr. Stewart 20

Hamilton, for the record. 21

The MNDM, among other things, maps 22

quaternary geology -- I guess I'll advance a slide 23

here -- quaternary geology and Palaeozoic bedrock 24

geology with a focus of characterizing on 25

38


groundwaters across Southern Ontario. 1

In a follow-up to our written 2

submission and our testimony earlier this month, 3

we'd like to summarize some of the new findings on 4

Devonian bedrock, groundwater geochemistry that are 5

relevant to the site and to our comments and 6

follow-up on -- and make comments on regional karst 7

mapping, hydrogeology, hydrogeochemistry in context 8

with the regional stratigraphy and topography. 9

Our comments -- written comments 10

regarding the technical support document were that 11

geoscience studies and the scientific methods were 12

appropriately conducted to the extent of our 13

mandate to investigate that. And there were no 14

substantive gaps, from our perspective, in science. 15

The geological conclusions, we 16

found, were consistent with the geoscience data. 17

Okay. This is just a repeat of 18

what we said earlier, but just to restate it before 19

we get into the technical side of things. 20

The context for our comments are 21

that we, MNDM, do hydrogeochemical studies in 22

freshwater overburden and shallow bedrock 23

groundwater systems, and we cover a regional study 24

area which is much larger than the DGR, obviously, 25

39


and has -- it has a different data source. So this 1

is sort of another way of looking at it from a 2

regional perspective and providing sort of a pan-3

provincial context. 4

The Phase 1 regional 5

hydrogeochemistry report is comprehensive and well 6

written, as we said earlier. 7

MNDM has a groundwater geochemical 8

database. It was not available at the time. It's 9

newer. And it contains important new information. 10

And MNDM provides geochemical 11

evidence for -- or the data provides geochemical 12

evidence for widespread karst and the Lucas 13

formation extended from the proposed DGR site more 14

than 100 kilometres south. 15

Now, I just want to be perfectly 16

clear, we're talking about the Devonian here, so 17

this is very shallow, especially in this area. 18

It's only -- once we hit the bedrock surface, it's 19

only a few tens of metres below that, the Lucas 20

formation, that is, and so this is a shallow issue. 21

This is not an issue with respect to the DGR itself 22

or the aquiclude or the deep formations. 23

The implications are that the -- I 24

think it's important to address the presence of 25

40


karst in the Lucas formation in later phases of 1

study, and I think we will -- I think we'll show 2

some evidence that demonstrates that there is very 3

likely to be karst. 4

The geochemical evidence that was 5

presented by OPG and the TSD is -- showed that the 6

deep groundwaters have been isolated for very long 7

periods of time. That's just our geochemical 8

assessment. And the -- we feel that further 9

information -- if we could provide information to 10

the Panel, rather than in an actual collaboration, 11

a simple data transfer would be all that would be 12

required to tighten things up. 13

This is just MNDM's groundwater 14

sort of -- we call it a logic model, and it just 15

explains why we do what we do. And it does -- in 16

the end, it's -- the bottom line from this is that 17

it's pan-provincial and that it -- the purpose of 18

our doing our work is to maintain the quality of 19

life and have bearing on -- a positive bearing on 20

the economy and the province. 21

This is the logic model. I just 22

-- we wanted it in the public record, so we thought 23

we'd put it in the -- in here as well. 24

Okay. Moving on to something a 25

41


little more technical, this is the bedrock 1

topography of Southern Ontario. It's similar to 2

the map that was shown earlier, which showed the 3

surface topography. 4

A little different in that there's 5

quite a lot of glacial sediment in Southern 6

Ontario, so this is looking at what the topography 7

would look like under the glacial sediment. 8

These green areas are actually 9

below sea level, so this is not -- if there's some 10

surface water, the -- we're looking at -- if this 11

was on surfaces, it would all be covered by water. 12

Just as background, these are the 13

-- pardon me. 14

I want to point out a number of 15

bedrock valleys and troughs here, and you can see 16

them -- I think I'll use the mouse here if I can. 17

You can see a bedrock valley up in 18

this area. This is called the Walkerton trough. 19

There's another bedrock valley 20

down here that's called the Brantford-Welland 21

trough, and there's another one down in this area 22

here which is called the Ipperwash trough. And 23

these were ancient drainage systems at one point, 24

and they're now filled with glacial sediments, some 25

42


of which are very permeable, and they capture 1

groundwater. 2

These are the ambient groundwater 3

locations, just to show you as sort of a background 4

where the data is coming from. 5

Now, these are the water levels 6

partly derived from -- mostly derived from those 7

measurements at those locations, and you can see 8

that there are -- these water level contours curve 9

at these bedrock valleys. And that's because 10

groundwater is captured in these areas and moved 11

down the valleys in the subsurface. 12

They're curved down here in the 13

Ipperwash trough too, and for -- the fact that 14

they're curved in both directions here is the 15

suggestion that there's anthropogenic issues 16

related to pumping. There's a great deal of water 17

taken out in this area because of pumping. It's a 18

very small aquifer. 19

But that doesn't happen up here. 20

Up here, the water is captured in the Walkerton 21

area and moves down the bedrock valley and ends up 22

in Lake Huron, as was just mentioned, as does water 23

in this immediate area, which would be about 10 24

kilometres to the west of that, or maybe 15. 25

43


Another way to look at this is to 1

look at the height of the potentiometric surface, 2

that is, at the water level, below the bedrock 3

surface. And these dark areas represent areas 4

where the potentiometric surface is well below the 5

bedrock surface. 6

And the lighter areas are cases 7

where the potentiometric surface is above the 8

bedrock surface. And the reason that's important 9

is that when we see these dark areas, these dark 10

areas are areas where the water levels plunge below 11

the bedrock surface, and that's an indication of 12

some kind of under drainage. 13

So water goes into the bedrock 14

and, for some reason, goes straight down. 15

It means that the bedrock is very, 16

very permeable and it's being under-drained by 17

karstic systems. 18

So this is the breathing well 19

zone. I mentioned this is in my earlier testimony. 20

It's a large area where all the wells in that area 21

breathe. They inhale and exhale air, depending on 22

the atmospheric conditions. 23

It's the largest area of its kind 24

in the world, we think, and it's the -- it's quite 25

44


a profound feature when you see it. The wells make 1

a lot of noise, either inhaling or exhaling. And 2

they can do it for many days to actually weeks, 3

with changes in atmospheric pressure. 4

And the reason that's an issue is 5

that that means that there's an awful lot of void 6

space down there. There is a karstic system and 7

more importantly, from our point of view, is when 8

you see water levels in that area, the water levels 9

curve around that area, which means that water is 10

going into the karstic system. 11

You see that elsewhere. You see 12

it -- we think we see it right here along here, 13

along the -- this is called the Ipperwash 14

escarpment. It's a buried escarpment east of here. 15

We see it in this area up in here 16

and east of Walkerton, and we see it in these areas 17

right here. 18

Now, the -- as I said, it's most 19

apparent in the breathing well zone. 20

This void space occurs for a 21

reason. It occurs because of gypsum. That's the 22

quite water soluble mineral that we make gyprock 23

out of. 24

It tends to dissolve away when 25

45


it's exposed to water, so the -- once the gypsum's 1

gone, if there's a lot of gypsum in the rock, then 2

there's an awful lot of void space left over. 3

And so the big question is, in 4

this area we know there's no gypsum for -- from 5

drill records and whatnot but also from other 6

evidence. 7

The question is, is there gypsum 8

up in these areas as well. If there isn't, then 9

there's a tremendous amount of karst up here that 10

we can't map this way. It may be mapped other 11

ways. 12

Just to get a little tiny bit 13

technical here for a moment, when you dissolve 14

gypsum, while you're dissolving gypsum you can't 15

dissolve strontium. And so there's a lot of 16

strontium in these rocks as well. 17

Once the gypsum is dissolved, only 18

then can the strontium start dissolving for 19

chemical reasons. And in this area, in the area of 20

the breathing well zone, we see a lot of strontium, 21

but we also see it up in these areas here, which 22

suggests to us that the karst extends northward. 23

We have other reasons for this, 24

too. There's anecdotal evidence from drillers that 25

46


there are so-called wet caverns in that area as 1

opposed to the dry caverns in this area. And so 2

that's suggestive that there's a considerable 3

amount of karst north of the breathing well zone. 4

So this is a -- primarily a 5

geotechnical issue. They have to deal with this 6

when they're first constructing, if they do 7

construct, but it's not an issue at all for the 8

long-term safety of the DGR or, rather, long-term 9

movement of groundwater in and around the DGR 10

because it's so shallow. 11

So that area we were talking about 12

is up -- this is looking at a paper from -- just 13

published from Dr. Ian Clarke at Ottawa U based on 14

the -- some of the DGR's work. 15

This area we were talking about is 16

right up -- that tiny little sliver up there at the 17

top and possibly a little bit into some of the rest 18

of the no-name. But that sliver at the top is the 19

Lucas formation in this area. And -- but just 20

because it's small doesn't mean it's not 21

significant from a -- again, a construction point 22

of view. 23

Now -- so again, this is the 24

Devonian up here. You can see in the Devonian from 25

47


this -- again, these are their data, not ours. 1

But this is just an impression 2

from a geochemist as to what this shows. And we 3

can see very clearly that we have young waters in 4

this area from all the datasets, but most of all 5

from the O18 dataset. 6

We have what looks like some 7

glacial influence here. There's some glacial 8

influence down here in the Silurian A1 carbonate, 9

and then there's -- and then that's pretty much it 10

for glacial influence. 11

So from this point on, it very 12

rapidly becomes old water and from here down, it's 13

very, very old water. I said this in my earlier 14

testimony. It's -- the first impression that any 15

geochemist would get when looking at this is that 16

these are very old waters. 17

And that's pretty much all I was 18

going to say. 19

Dr. Brunton -- pardon me, Mr. 20

Brunton is going to speak about the Palaeozoic sort 21

of repository. This is what's in the aquifers. 22

He's speaking about the actual aquifer material 23

themselves. 24

MR. BRUNTON: Thank you, Dr. 25

48


Swanson and Panel Members. Frank Brunton, for the 1

record. 2

Stu and I work within the 3

groundwater program of the Ministry of Northern 4

Development and Mines. My role is to map base and 5

analysis aspects to groundwater, so I look at the 6

sequence stratigraphic controls or the stratigraphy 7

of the basins and I try and map where the flow 8

zones are within that stratigraphy. 9

So some of the evidence I'm going 10

to talk to supports the geochemical evidence that 11

Stu’s been doing in the regional ambient 12

groundwater mapping, which is of overburdened wells 13

and shallow to intermediate bedrock wells. 14

So there's another view of the 15

same diagram we've seen already just to show where 16

the deep cored holes are that were undertaken at 17

the DGR to undertake the characteristics. 18

I'm only going to talk about the 19

Devonian stratigraphy to some degree and the 20

anomalous water values that we see in the A1 21

carbonate and the Guelph because all of the waters 22

below the Devonian and the Silurian are below the 23

aquiclude and are very old. 24

One of the jobs I had entering the 25

49


groundwater program was to provide the first karst 1

map of Southern Ontario. And this map shows a 2

summary of the distribution of known karst at 3

surface, inferred karst and potential karst. 4

And the reason those latter two 5

terms are used is because Ontario is glaciated and 6

there's a lot of overburden that covers and masks 7

the rock from showing its true karstic character. 8

The thickened green lines highlight the main 9

escarpments that you see within the Palaeozoic 10

strata. There is karst that occurs in the marbles 11

of the Grenville Basin, in the older rocks. 12

Most of the karst in Southern 13

Ontario occurs in the sedimentary strata because 14

lithologies like limestone and dolostone and gypsum 15

and salt are susceptible to dissolution by water. 16

And when rainwater with a little bit of carbonic 17

acid is added, you get somewhat aggressive waters 18

that can more actively dissolve these bedrock 19

units. 20

So in part what we see in Ontario 21

is a bit complicated. Because of the last two 22

million years of glacial and interglacial cycles, a 23

lot of the more mature karst features that would 24

have been evident in the Palaeozoic rocks have been 25

50


either destroyed or mantled by Quaternary cover. 1

And so the reddened area is from 2

Manitoulin to along the Bruce Peninsula here, so 3

Manitoulin Island and here, are easier to map 4

because there’s very thin drift or no drift at all. 5

And these are some of the largest karst dolostone 6

plains on earth to look at. And in other terms 7

that biologists would call the Malvar terrains. 8

Okay? 9

But when we get to the DGR site, 10

specifically what we see, and this is a reiteration 11

of a slide that Terry Carter presented on the 18th 12

so it’s not introduced for the first time but I’m 13

going to put a slightly different spin on some of 14

the data. 15

So here we are where the proposed 16

site is and then this shallow system. This is 17

where groundwaters are flowing into the Lucas 18

formation. And to add some geological context to 19

the well chemistry, the Lucas is a dolomitic rich 20

rock from the DGR to the southern area of where the 21

breathing well zone is. And we call these sabkha 22

cycle deposits. They’re metre scale, depositional 23

cycles that had gypsum in them that were kept by 24

stromatolitic microbial rocks and/or dolomite. 25

51


What we see in from cores I’ve 1

looked at, the gypsum is largely gone which 2

supports the geochemistry that Stu was talking 3

about, they’re mostly dolomite now but they have 4

very high permeabilities. 5

So even in areas where there isn’t 6

large cavern systems -- and we’ve mapped these 7

cavern systems, not so much in Ontario because of 8

the mantle of the quaternary, but there’s extensive 9

work done in Michigan that shows the extent of 10

these caverns in the same formation from the upper 11

Peninsula of Michigan into Southern Michigan. 12

Just the rock itself you can blow 13

through and you can pass water through. When I was 14

logging the core, I couldn’t keep it wet it was so 15

permeable. So this system and the chemistry 16

variation that Stu showed in his slides show the 17

change from dry caverns to wet cavernous systems 18

where the strontium chemistry and the distribution 19

of this karst is significant. 20

Now to get down into the deeper 21

formations where the -- point here -- to where the 22

Guelph is and to where the Salina A1 carbonate is -23

- one of the more recent projects I’ve been doing 24

for the last four years is mapping all of the 25

52


potable waters and aquifers in the outcrop and sub-1

crop belt of the Niagara escarpment. Well as you 2

go downdip here in Ontario towards where the 3

proposed site is, this surface that Terry shows 4

from the 26,000 wells and so forth where the data 5

is shown, basically is showing a surface of paleo-6

karstification that happened in the Palaeozoic. 7

And so the -- one of the ways in 8

which we could look at why there’s a distinction 9

between the A1 carbonate and the fact that the 10

total dissolved solids are much less, the 11

salinities are much less than in the underlying 12

Guelph which is only about 20 metres below it is 13

because this depositional system is drastically 14

different from the underlying rocks that represent 15

the Guelph and the Eramosa and the Goat Island. So 16

this is the Lockport group and the A1 carbonate 17

sits within the overlying Salina group. 18

There is -- I would argue that 19

from the data that I’ve been compiling and I’ve 20

gone over to Michigan and so forth, there’s 21

millions of years separating the disconformity 22

between the Salina in the Lockport group, which has 23

helped to explain this real surface which we can 24

map and helps explain why we see the discrepancy in 25

53


the chemistries and why there’s such a highly briny 1

character to the Guelph and just a few metres above 2

not so briny. 3

So there are geological controls 4

on -- that help influence the hydrochemistry and 5

that’s all I wish to say about that. 6

And so to summarize, the 7

geoscience studies, scientific methods for the DGR 8

we believe were done appropriately. The data that 9

they present corroborates our regional mapping and 10

surface groundwater systems versus deeper 11

formational brine systems. 12

I’ve -- you know, personally from 13

the mapping I’ve done, a number of the results I 14

published between 2009 and 2011 aren’t attributed 15

in the most recent summary report they put forward 16

but that nomenclatural issue doesn’t deter from 17

their interpretations. 18

The regional karst system in the 19

Devonian is extensive. There is a change if you 20

were to go from St. Mary’s or just north of London 21

west. You go from a high purity dolomite north of 22

London, which helps explain this breathing well 23

system, to a limestone to the east, which is why 24

there isn’t a breathing well zone in Ingersoll 25

54


where the Lucas outcrops. 1

And lastly we’d like to thank the 2

Joint Review Panel for providing us the opportunity 3

to provide these new results. Thank you. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very 5

much. 6

The Panel will now start our 7

series of questions related to this morning’s 8

topic. We’ll go for about 15 minutes of questions 9

and then we’ll take a break. 10

So perhaps let’s start with Dr. 11

Muecke. 12

--- QUESTIONS BY THE PANEL: 13

MEMBER MUECKE: Yes. Could I have 14

one of the slides back from the last presentation, 15

and in particular -- let’s get this straight -- 16

number 8, it illustrates the point very nicely. 17

There. Good. Thank you. Okay. 18

But my question is to OPG. Can 19

you confirm how many of your deep boreholes 20

penetrate the Cambrian? 21

MR. JENSEN: Mark Jensen, for the 22

record. 23

Three; DGR2, 3, and 4. 24

MEMBER MUECKE: Penetrate? 25

55


MR. JENSEN: Penetrate the 1

Cambrian, the top of the Cambrian, yes. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: They make it to 3

the top of the Cambrian but I said penetrate the 4

Cambrian. 5

MR. JENSEN: Only DGR2 went 6

through the Cambrian entirely. It was 17 metres 7

thick and we obtained 1 metre of pre-Cambrian core 8

underneath. 9

The other wells, DGR4 and 3, were 10

drilled approximately 5 to 10 metres into the 11

Cambrian. The --- 12

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay. Now perhaps 13

I can -- that unit is over pressured, it is a -- it 14

is basically an aquifer shown here as a deep flow 15

zone, it has a fairly high hydraulic conductivities 16

and porosities. 17

Can I ask the Ontario Ministry of 18

Northern Development of Mines, do you feel that the 19

Cambrian has been sufficiently characterized in 20

terms of hydrogeologic properties on the basis of 21

one full penetration and a couple of partial 22

penetrations? 23

MR. BRUNTON: Frank Brunton, for 24

the record. 25

56


Yeah, I believe so. They don’t 1

need to have all the wells go through to the 2

basement in order to get a feeling and to be able 3

to analyze the hydraulic head and the chemistry. 4

What that well shows in terms of 5

where -- how high the head goes above the present 6

day ground surface just follows what Josef Toth 7

showed in the sixties with regards to how high that 8

water could go in relation to the top of the 9

Niagara escarpment. 10

So if I could go forward a bit, to 11

this diagram, the head that comes up from that 12

Cambrian aquifer basically goes to, you know, 13

within the highest ground elevation of what those 14

Palaeozoic strata are in Ontario. So it's not 15

that anomalous, it just shows that the pressures 16

are there. 17

These groundwater conditions are 18

very common at major disconformities between 19

Phanerozoic strata and Precambrian Basement. 20

They're seen in most basins. You talk to any oil 21

and gas exploration people, they'd tell you that 22

they see this quite often. 23

This same flow zone occurs in the 24

Carden Plain -- so if I was to back up -– the 25

57


Ordovician escarpment here, has flow in the Shadow 1

Lake and Lower Bobcaygean, along that same 2

disconformity because, there is often a regolith or 3

a paleosol, and so it's a zone that encourages 4

flow. 5

The nature of the flow can be 6

determined -- if it's siliciclastic units -- one of 7

the key things you need to look at is, whether it's 8

cemented by calcium carbonate or by silica. 9

So, if it's a carbonate cement 10

then you have a brine fluid come in of a particular 11

chemistry –- as long as those waters can attack 12

that you can increase porosity and permeability and 13

create quite a head. 14

And, the fact that you have such a 15

thick aquiclude unit above, helps drive it up to 16

where the present day groundwater surfaces at the 17

top of the Niagara escarpment. 18

MEMBER MUECKE: Yes. Thank you 19

very much. 20

My understanding then, is that, 21

what has been found for these boreholes, are 22

basically holes for this part of the Michigan 23

Basin? 24


58


the record again. 1

Yes. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: Thank you. 3

This is directed toward OPG. 4

Once the shaft and emplacement 5

rooms are in place, the pressure on the floor of 6

the repository will be approximately one 7

atmosphere. 8

The underlying Cambrian is over 9

pressured. Have you done any analyses that address 10

the possibility of hydrofracturing in the 11

repository substrate as a result of this 12

overpressure and the resulting pressure 13

differential? 14


record. 16

Yes, analyses have been done as 17

part of the long-term geomechanical assessment that 18

included gas pressure and pore pressure in the 19

assessment of rock failure associated with the 20

floor and with the roof of the facility in the 21

Cobourg formation. 22

MEMBER MUECKE: Could you provide 23

me with the conclusions? 24

MR. JENSEN: The pore pressures 25

59


and whatnot did not cause any effect on 1

geomechanical stability of the openings within the 2

Cobourg formation. 3

MEMBER MUECKE: The rocks 4

overlying the Cambrian may be fractured, and have 5

you looked at the possibility of fracture 6

propagation as a result? 7

I guess it goes back to a question 8

–- could OPG clarify whether the forces for 9

fracture generation, are the same as for fracture 10

initiation, and what is the difference, for 11

clarification? 12

13


record. 15

For fracture initiation, and for 16

pre-existing fractures the –- we should take an 17

undertaking to provide you with the clarity that 18

you need on that topic. 19

MEMBER MUECKE: So basically, for 20

the undertaking, my question is, what is the 21

differential between the forces needed for fracture 22

initiation versus propagation of existing 23

fractures? 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: So, that will 25

60


become Undertaking Number 41. 1

--- UNDERTAKING NO. 41/ENGAGEMENT No. U-41: 2

By OPG to the JRP to provide 3

information on the differential 4

between the forces required for 5

fracture initiation vs. fracture 6

propagation in the Cambrian 7

formation. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you get the 9

wording Mr. Haden? 10

And when might OPG be able to 11

provide? 12

(SHORT PAUSE/COURTE PAUSE) 13


record. 15

We’d recommend that we come back 16

this afternoon with a date that's appropriate. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 18

MEMBER MUECKE: Mr. Jensen, if I 19

could take it just a little bit further. 20

You said you have done the 21

analyses in terms of the substrate of the 22

repository fracturing as a result of gas pressure 23

and fluid pressures. 24

Have you done analyses which 25

61


include glacial loading and unloading and crustal 1

fracturing in that type of analysis? 2

MR. JENSEN: Yes, those analyses 3

have been included. They are in Chapter 6 of the 4

geosynthesis and they're also described in the 5

long-term geomechanical stability report. 6

MEMBER MUECKE: Now for my next 7

question, I have to take you actually into the 8

preliminary safety report, in particular, page 143. 9

So I might have to give you a second to get there. 10

Okay? 11

Okay, so, it talks about oxygen 12

isotope values, and Delta O-18’s in the porewaters 13

of the middle Ordovician limestones –- which are 14

intra-stress because of repository –- have very low 15

values, down to minus 8.8 part per mil, and these 16

are stated to be anomalous for sedimentary basin 17

brines. Because usually these values go up rather 18

than down because of cotsite clay interactions. 19

It then goes on to do modelling 20

calculations to explain this anomalous behaviour of 21

oxygen isotopes, and suggests that isotopic 22

equilibration with dolomite may explain the 23

observed decrease in oxygen-18 with depth, this 24

anomalous trend. 25

62


Now, we have heard from previous 1

intervenors that dolomitisation in this part of the 2

Michigan Basin is an indicator of proximity to 3

hydrothermal systems associated with basement 4

seated faults that extend through the Middle 5

Ordovician. 6

So my question is –- and that to 7

the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, to 8

CNSC and to OPG, maybe all three can come up with 9

an answer here. What conclusions do you draw from 10

this anomalous oxygen isotope behaviour in the 11

Middle Ordovician? Does it indicate the proximity 12

of dolomitisation along fracture zones? 13

Start with OPG. 14


record. 16

The O-18 results, I believe, it is 17

a possibility as described here, that they could 18

have occurred from fractional exchange. 19

I think there's other information 20

though with regards to the temperatures that these 21

rocks have endured in terms of their thermal 22

chronology. And certainly the temperatures seem to 23

not exceed 70 degrees Celsius, and that was 24

confirmed in work that we did with looking at 25

63


calcites and fluid inclusions and the temperatures 1

there. 2

So those temperatures of 70 3

degrees are very consistent with burial history for 4

these rocks, and the expectation would have been 5

that the temperatures would have had to have been 6

in excess -- of let's say –- 100 degrees C to 7

indicate the occurrence of thermal hydro-8

dolomitisation within this area. 9

So, the fact that we see values in 10

temperatures that are lower than that leads us to 11

believe that hydrothermal dolomitisation is not 12

pervasive in this area. And certainly the effect 13

of hydrothermal dolomitisation would be to increase 14

the hydraulic conductivity of the rocks by about 15

10,000 to 100,000 times in increased porosities 16

from, what we see, of one to two percent, upwards 17

of 10 percent. And we would have seen these things 18

easily within our core and with the other testing 19

that we did and the hydraulic signatures that we 20

see. 21

So the fact that we have this 22

thermochronology that is consistent with burial 23

history, that we have these other markers would 24

indicate to us that thermal dolomitisation and the 25

64


likely near proximity of such features to the 1

repository is highly unlikely. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: You have just 3

outlined the concern one has, okay, of the 4

increased porosity, permeability associated with 5

these features. 6

What I was really trying to get at 7

is not that the site itself has such a system -- 8

incorporated such a system, but I’m talking about 9

the -- does the dolomitisation that occurs in the 10

Ordovician indicate proximity of such a system? 11

That is to say that the chemical 12

effect of the system extends to the site area 13

resulting in the dolomitisation and the exchange of 14

oxygen isotopes that's observed. 15


record. 17

All of the data that we've 18

collected, the lithologic, the pour chemistry data, 19

and the hydraulic head data, do not show an imprint 20

of signatures that one would expect from the 21

occurrence of a hydrothermal dolomitised system in 22

close proximity to the DGR site. 23

MEMBER MUECKE: So how do you 24

explain the oxygen isotope signature of the 25

65


Ordovician? 1


record. 3

It's diffusion transport. 4

MEMBER MUECKE: Isotopic 5

diffusion? Is that what they are talking about? 6


record. 8

It's diffusive transport of the 9

O18, certainly within the pourwater, of the Black 10

River and the Trent carbonate groups. 11

MEMBER MUECKE: And for the oxygen 12

isotopes, has the diffusive transport been modelled 13

to explain the oxygen isotope distribution 14

throughout the Ordovician and into the Silurian? 15


record. 17

The answer is yes. And results of 18

this were presented at the second technical 19

information session that was held back in October 20

of last year. 21

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay. Maybe -- I 22

said I was going to direct the question to Ministry 23

of Northern Development and Mines, too. 24

The fact that the oxygen isotopes 25

66


seem to indicate dolomitisation, is that an 1

indication of proximity to one of the hydrothermal 2

systems? 3

DR. HAMILTON: Stewart Hamilton, 4

for the record. 5

I think that’s sort of a two-part 6

question. One of them is on the oxygen isotopes 7

and the other one is on the regional -- the 8

likelihood of regional hydrothermal dolomitisation. 9

And I'm a low temperature aqueous 10

chemist. I’m not really an expert in hydrothermal 11

dolomitisation, but I do concur that if that were 12

occurring in the immediate area there would be a 13

change in the hydraulic conductivity. There would 14

be a higher hydraulic conductivity in the area 15

because dolomitisation produces greater porosity. 16

And with regard to the likelihood 17

of hydrothermal dolomitisation in the region, Frank 18

is a much better expert on that than I am, so... 19


the record. 21

So are you speaking of the numbers 22

that are in the Coboconk and the Lower Kirkfield 23

now, to be specific? 24

MEMBER MUECKE: In the middle 25

67


Ordovician. 1

MR. BRUNTON: Yes. So there is a 2

-- I can’t speak directly to hydrothermal dolomite 3

plays in Southern Ontario because I haven’t studied 4

any of them specifically, but the comments that 5

have been made to date I concur with. 6

There's -- without having seen 7

thin sections of the rocks from the cores and so 8

forth, it's very difficult to -- for me to comment 9

specifically on the nature of the dolomites, but 10

that -- if that work's been done, then that would 11

be how to get about answering your question better. 12

There have been studies done by 13

oil and gas exploration people in the past that 14

have described Paleo karst in the Coboconk, deep in 15

the subsurface. 16

While I find karst in the 17

Coboconk, in the Gull River, they form -- the 18

Coboconk forms a resistant cap rock unit that 19

controls the nature of the Ordovician escarpment 20

from Lake Simcoe all the way to Kingston. 21

One of the most extensive karst 22

cave systems in Southern Ontario is within those 23

strata. So those rocks which are slightly 24

dolomitized in outcrop and don’t necessarily 25

68


reflect hydrothermal overprint respond nicely to 1

karstification when they're at surface. They are 2

deeply buried here, but there is -- people have 3

found evidence of caves and karst in that unit. 4

So it would be a conduit that 5

could have allowed many different fluids in the 6

history of basin development to have brought 7

dolomitising fluids through the system, which may 8

have nothing to do with the dolomitisation event 9

that happened during hydrothermal ore deposit 10

formation and oil plays that are attributed to 11

this, you know, exploration play. 12

So those are my comments. Thank 13

you. 14

MEMBER MUECKE: Oh, thank you for 15

that clarification. 16

Is it possible to differentiate 17

hydrothermal dolomites from diagenetic dolomite? 18


the record. 20

Yes, there is literature on that. 21

I can provide the Panel with some references if you 22

would like. 23

But yes, there are chemical 24

attributes and mineralogical attributes to the 25

69


dolomites and the texture that you are looking for 1

that creates a secondary porosity that's associated 2

with the hydrocarbons being able to get into that 3

structurally controlled play. 4

Thank you. 5

MEMBER MUECKE: Rather than asking 6

you to provide references, maybe I go back to OPG 7

and -- to provide us with the evidence that you 8

have gathered in terms of the diagenetic versus 9

hydrothermal nature of the dolomites you have 10

encountered in the cores. 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Muecke, 12

that’s an additional undertaking, I understand? 13

MEMBER MUECKE: Well, unless the 14

information is available right now. 15


record. 17

We would take that as an 18

undertaking. Again, we'll come back after the 19

break with an appropriate date. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: So that will be 21

number 42. 22

--- UNDERTAKING NO./ENGAGEMENT No. U-42: 23

By OPG to the JRP to provide any 24

studies to differentiate between 25

70


diagenetic and hydrothermic 1

dolomite in the DGR cores. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: And Mr. Haddon, 3

would you like Dr. Muecke to repeat the 4

undertaking? 5

Yes, please. 6

MEMBER MUECKE: Has OPG undertaken 7

any studies to differentiate between diagenetic and 8

hydrothermal dolomite in the cores of the deep 9

drill holes? Yes. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Muecke, did 11

you want CNSC to weigh in on these questions? 12

MEMBER MUECKE: Indeed. 13

MR. RINKER: Mike Rinker, for the 14

record. 15

So we didn’t explicitly look at 16

whether hydrothermal dolomitisation could also 17

explain the signature of the oxygen isotopes. 18

What we did do is take the data 19

and, together with Dr. Novakowski at Queen’s 20

University, to model it on our own, not to review 21

OPG’s model, but to look at the information 22

ourselves. And it was a natural tracer study that 23

looked at the advective versus diffusive transport 24

impact of glaciation. 25

71


And through that work, we could 1

explain the signature of the oxygen isotopes. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: So what I hear is 3

you have an alternative model which would explain 4

it but which would not eliminate the hydrothermal 5

explanation? 6

MR. RINKER: It's Mike Rinker, for 7

the record. 8

That's exactly right, yes. 9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Muecke, did 10

you want NRCan to also comment? 11

MEMBER MUECKE: If they are 12

available, yes, please. 13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Apparently 14

they're not yet on the phone. 15

If you're finished with this 16

particular line of questioning, Dr. Muecke, I think 17

this would be a good time for a 15-minute break. 18

We'll reconvene at quarter to 12. 19



--- Upon resuming at 11:44 a.m./ 22


THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back. 24

We understand now that Natural 25

72


Resources Canada is indeed available on the 1

telephone. So at this point I would ask NRCan -- I 2

believe it's Mr. Desbarats -- to provide the Panel 3

with any comments or further insight he could offer 4

us on the line of questioning Dr. Muecke was using 5

prior to the break. 6

NRCan, please. 7

DR. DESBARATS: This is Dr. 8

Desbarats at NRCan, for the record. 9

I would like Dr. Muecke to please 10

repeat his question. 11

MEMBER MUECKE: Which one? 12

DR. DESBARATS: This is a 13

question, I believe, that was concerning the 14

oxygen-18 profile --- 15

MEMBER MUECKE: That is correct. 16

DR. DESBARATS: --- through the 17

Ordovician. 18

MEMBER MUECKE: That's correct. 19

And the -- one of the explanations given for that 20

is that the -- that profile can be explained by the 21

presence -- by the interaction with dolomite and 22

that the profile is anomalous for a sedimentary 23

basin because the oxygen-18 values are decreasing 24

rather than increasing the steps. 25

73


DR. DESBARATS: Well, to address 1

your question, Dr. Muecke, I believe there are a 2

number of explanations for the observed profile and 3

indeed NRCan, in a comment, specifically in EIS 4

04128 information request from last year, NRCan 5

raised issues about the Proponent's modelling 6

efforts of the O-18 profile through the Ordovician, 7

specifically the modelling that is described in 8

Section 4.5.2 of the geosynthesis document. And 9

this modelling was conducted using the MIN 3P1D 10

model. 11

Now, NRCan believes that the poor 12

profile -- the poor fit to the O-18 profile in the 13

carbonate portion of the Ordovician could have been 14

improved by considering not only diffusion from 15

below, but diffusion from above, specifically from 16

the permeable Cambrian unit. 17

This follows the same theme as 18

NRCan's comments from, I believe it was, September 19

-- our presentation two weeks ago where we've 20

placed a lot of emphasis on lateral advective 21

transport in thin permeable layers. 22

And in this case, the -- if you 23

look at the O-18 profiles in the lower Ordovician, 24

you will see that there's a cusp as they rise 25

74


upward towards the values measured in the Cambrian. 1

So NRCan believes that not only is 2

diffusion from the Guelph downward possible, but 3

also diffusion of O-18 upward from the Cambrian is 4

also occurring. And that would certainly improve, 5

in NRCan's opinion, the fit to the O-18 profile. 6

I don't know if that addresses 7

your question. 8

MEMBER MUECKE: In part, it does, 9

I guess. 10

Do you think that equilibration 11

with a fluid that has been in contact with dolomite 12

could be part of that explanation? In other words, 13

isotopic exchange between a fluid that has been in 14

contact with the --- 15

DR. DESBARATS: Your question 16

really goes beyond my area of expertise in terms of 17

water rock interaction and isotopic transfers, so 18

I'm not really able to answer that. 19

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay. Thank you 20

for your previous answer. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm now going to 22

ask more of a layperson question because I am a 23

biologist and some of this preceding conversation 24

has kind of left me in the dust a bit. 25

75


And so I want to make sure that, 1

in particular, the description that we heard from 2

the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines of 3

karst in this region of Ontario is that I 4

understand it correctly. 5

So my understanding is that, Mr. 6

Brunton, your map that you showed us of different 7

areas of karst, including one that you called one 8

of the largest, if not the largest in the world, 9

is, however, in a very, very shallow layers, 10

geological layers close to the surface and are 11

really far away from the proposed layer that would 12

host the proposed DGR. 13

Am I correct? 14


the record. 16

Yes. Yes, you are correct. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: So the 18

implication of that is, again as a layperson -- you 19

were talking, for example, about breathing wells 20

and being able to hear the air flow through the 21

wells. And it was really hard to keep the rock 22

even wet. 23

That had to do with the really 24

surficial layers, and this repository would not be 25

76


a breathing repository. 1

MR. BRUNTON: Yeah, that's 2

correct. 3

I mean, Stu provided the well 4

chemistry data for the Lucas and for -- showing 5

other areas as well, but for the Lucas. And it's 6

those rocks that are highly dolomitised that used 7

to possess a lot of gypsum, and that gypsum's 8

dissolved away, that you're now left with a rock 9

that if you were to look at the chemistry of it, 10

this is virtually pure dolomite with fluorite and 11

celestite. 12

So it's got strontium in it and 13

it's got fluorite and it's got magnesium and 14

calcium in it. And that's typical setting for 15

this. 16

And that same geology, the Lucas 17

has that same character in the upper peninsula of 18

Michigan and down in south central Michigan where 19

you find these rocks. 20

And there's reports that describe 21

hundreds of sinkholes and subterranean caverns. 22

I visited quarries in the upper 23

peninsula of Michigan where the people wanting to 24

excavate the quarry can drill a hole through the 25

77


dolomite and then hit 100 feet of quaternary sand 1

and then hit dolomite again. So there's huge 2

caverns in the rock that -- where quaternary sand 3

is drafted in, all at the surface, okay. So 4

hundreds of metres -- like you're talking 400 plus 5

metres above where the DGR repository is being 6

proposed. 7

And not just -- the depth isn't so 8

relevant as the nature of the strata that separates 9

that upper karstic -- active karstic system from 10

the aquiclude. They're in below the aquiclude. 11


Dr. Muecke? 13

MEMBER MUECKE: Since we have you 14

on the phone, could we turn back to your Slide 15

Number 5? Okay. Showing the bedrock valleys and 16

troughs. And I just want to be sure I understood 17

this right. 18

These valleys, one of which is 19

shown to the northeast -- northwest of the DGR, are 20

in-filled by glacial deposits; did I understand you 21

right? 22


for the record. 24

Yes, they're largely in-filled. 25

78


There is a depression in the surface as well, but 1

they're largely in-filled with glacial deposits and 2

there is an escarpment, that Onondaga escarpment, 3

which would be fairly close to vertical in the 4

subsurface. 5

MEMBER MUECKE: What sort of 6

depths are these valleys? 7

DR. HAMILTON: Stewart Hamilton 8

again, for the record. 9

They cut down into the Silurian, 10

so they're maybe 30 to 40 metres deep. And in some 11

cases down -- elsewhere in Ontario, they're much 12

deeper than that. But in this part up in the 13

Walkerton trough, it's about that depth. 14

I think Frank wanted to say 15

something. 16

MR. BRUNTON: Yeah. The depths 17

vary from 40 to 50 to over 100 -- over 300 feet of 18

overburden in places. 19

And remember that this -- if you 20

were to look at this diagram -- here, I'll use the 21

mouse, okay. 22

So when you extend off here into 23

Lake Huron, that's the Southampton Basin of the 24

lake. That's the deepest part of Lake Huron. 25

79


And that's because the -- part of 1

the reason these bedrock valleys exist and are 2

still -- this one is a prominent feature here -- is 3

because you're eroding away the Salina group 4

strata. And that's why Lake Huron and Lake 5

Michigan are hydraulically connected. 6

But that's still hundreds of 7

metres above the proposed site. 8

It might provide one of the 9

geological explanations for why you're finding 10

mixed waters in the underlying Guelph and the 11

Salina A1 because between glacial advances and 12

retreats, this bedrock trough would have been 13

sediment free. 14

A lot of the sediments in these 15

bedrock valleys is quite young, and so waters could 16

have been driven into that intermediate flow system 17

that could give you the mixed water signatures 18

you're getting. 19

But those -- but the waters are 20

still older waters, and I don't believe there are 21

dates, but other dates of these pourwaters in 22

Michigan and so forth range from 14,000, 50,000 and 23

older. 24

MEMBER MUECKE: During future 25

80


glaciation, which we consider in the postclosure 1

phase, would these valleys provide drainage 2

channels which would deepen even further? 3


the record. 5

Yes, most likely, because we've 6

had documented advances and retreats of ice sheets 7

in the last two million years, but most of these 8

bedrock valleys are filled with the youngest 9

sediments. 10

So every advance and retreat kind 11

of cleans the slate and then as the ice sheet 12

retreats these deeper void spaces or bedrock 13

valleys get filled in again with the sediments 14

coming off of the front of the ice sheet and at the 15

interplay of ice lobes during glaciation. 16

MEMBER MUECKE: Thank you very 17

much. 18

Going on, directed towards OPG. 19

And I’m afraid I'm going to take you back again to 20

the safety -- preliminary safety report. And 21

actually, the same page, so it should make it 22

easier, page 143. 23

And just as a preamble here, 24

previous evidence by OPG has stated conditions in 25

81


the middle Ordovician rocks have essentially 1

remained stable for hundreds of millions of years. 2

Is that an accurate 3

characterization, Mr. Jensen? 4


record. 6

I believe it is. Within the 7

Silurian, you were in an aquiclude -- sorry, an 8

aquitard system. The hydraulic conductivities of 9

the rock are very low. 10

There are two horizons, the A1, 11

and only -- I think it's 40 metres thick, but only 12

the upper four metres, I believe, are permeable, 13

and the Guelph, which is also four metres thick. 14

You know, in terms of the 15

chemistry that we see in these from the 16

opportunistic groundwater sampling in the A1 17

aquifer -- and these are confined. We do see 18

depleted O-18 signatures indicating that the waters 19

have mixed with glacial waters and likely have done 20

so episodically during events like Frank Brunton 21

just described. 22

But certainly in the Guelph 23

formation, for example, that's where we saw the 24

highest TDS fluids of 370 grams per litre, and 25

82


there's no indication of interaction with surface 1

even during Paleo-hydrogeologic events such as 2

glaciation and the like. 3

MEMBER MUECKE: So may I bring 4

your attention to page 143 again in the preliminary 5

safety report, this time under the heading "Fluid 6

Mixing"? 7

And it states, and I'll just 8

quote: 9

"In contrast to water-rock 10

interaction, the Middle 11

Ordovician trends for all 12

tracer profiles could result 13

from one or more mixing 14

events with water at depth 15

that is relatively depleted 16

in oxygen-18 has lower 17

chlorine and bromine 18

concentrations, and is 19

enriched in deuterium.” 20

It goes on to say that this could 21

not have been pourwater currently observed in the 22

Cambrian. 23

So my question is, this evidence 24

suggests that the pourwaters encountered at the 25

83


repository horizon do not conform to those of the 1

original depositional environment. At some stage 2

or stages, they have been impacted or replaced by 3

other fluids. 4

Could you provide evidence for how 5

long the pourwaters in the middle Ordovician have 6

remained essentially steady? 7


record. 9

A recent paper in geology lead 10

authored by Dr. Ian Clarke at the University of 11

Ottawa had used the in-growth of helium to date 12

these waters at 260 million years of age, so they 13

are ancient and have resided there in these rocks 14

for a very long period of time. 15

MEMBER MUECKE: Could you provide 16

that paper as evidence? 17


record. 19

I have a copy here. Yes, I could. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: You could 21

provide the citation to the Panel. Obviously there 22

will be copyright issues that we would have to deal 23

with as well with respect to making it more broadly 24

available. But perhaps by this afternoon, if we 25

84


could get the citation, that would be very helpful. 1

Thank you. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: Now, turning from 3

the deep to the shallow, and could we have OPG's 4

Slide Number 5? 5

On that slide, you characterize 6

the overburdened groundwater in the glacial till 7

that underlies the project as having -- the till 8

having a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 10 9

to the minus 10 metres per second, very low 10

permeability. 11

In the geology TSD -- that's on 12

page 53 if you want to look it up, but I'll quote 13

it to you: 14

"It is noted that below the 15

thin veneer of surficial sand 16

and gravel occurs a weathered 17

till unit with fractures 18

extending to a depth of 19

approximately three metres." 20

(As read) 21

In our -- on the registry, you 22

will find a paper by McKay, Cherry and Gillham, 23

1993, research paper in the journal "Water 24

Research" from which I'd like to quote. In it, 25

85


they say: 1

"The clay rich tills of 2

Southwestern Ontario are 3

visibly weathered and 4

fractured to a depth of four 5

to six metres." (As read) 6

So first of all, I would like to 7

direct a question to the Ontario Ministry of 8

Northern Development and Mines, who have some 9

experience with tills in this region. 10

Would you agree or disagree with 11

this statement? 12

I can re-read it, if you would 13

like to. 14


for the record. 16

Was that the statement about the 17

till being fractured to 6 metres down? 18

MEMBER MUECKE: And the excess -- 19

I'm quoting now, okay, from the paper by McKay, 20

Cherry and Gillham: 21

"The clay-rich tills of 22

Southwestern Ontario are 23

visibly weathered and 24

fractured to depths of 4-6 25

86


m..." 1

And then they give references of 2

other people saying the same thing. 3

DR. HAMILTON: In the clay-rich 4

tills and in the clays that I've seen in southern 5

Ontario, that's rather deep. I would say it's 6

shallower than that, but it depends on the 7

topographic conditions in a low area where there's 8

a lot of moisture. It's very shallow, it can only 9

be a metre or maybe two metres to the point where 10

the clays are no longer weathered, and therefore, 11

no longer fractured. 12

In -- up in higher areas then 6 13

metres would be appropriate, but I think even 6 14

metres in a high area is -- that's about the limit, 15

it gets no more than that. 16

MEMBER MUECKE: My question is to 17

OPG. 18

What methods were employed by OPG 19

to detect the presence and abundance of fractures 20

in the tills on the project site? 21


record. 23

The work that was conducted was 24

associated with geotechnical investigations of the 25

87


project site, and we particularly actually cored 1

the till as opposed to split spoon sampling or 2

periodically sampling it, so we had a complete 3

record of the till. 4

And based on those results, the 5

weathered horizon, which is identified as early as 6

the 1980s by the work of Cherry, and whatnot, at 7

the site, indicated that the depth of the weathered 8

till horizon was on the order of a metre or so, if 9

present. So the depth of the fractures would not 10

exceed -- would not exceed that. 11

MEMBER MUECKE: You said you 12

looked for fractures in the cores; if you have 13

clay-rich tills, what is your -- how well can you 14

identify fractures? 15

MR. JENSEN: The assertion was 16

based on a linkage between the work done at the 17

Western Waste Management Facility, the detailed 18

work, in that the fractures in the till units were 19

associated largely with the weathered horizon in 20

the upper till. And in this particular instance, 21

the weathered horizon is a metre to a metre and a 22

half in thickness. 23

MEMBER MUECKE: But you did no 24

confirmation work to actually verify that this is 25

88


the case in the project area? It's based on the -- 1

you base it on the assumption that the -- it's only 2

the weathered tills that fracture and the fractures 3

cannot extend deeper? 4

MR. JENSEN: It's part of the 5

geotechnical investigations, that's what was done, 6

yes. 7

MEMBER MUECKE: Based on an 8

assumption rather than on new work done? 9


record. 11

That's correct. 12

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay, thank you. 13

Then fractures are taking into 14

account tills which have had rock conductivities of 15

10 to the minus 10 have been shortened, by the 16

authors that I quoted, to have a reduction of the 17

hydraulic conductivity 10 to the minus 7 metres per 18

second. 19

Now, if one takes the 20

precautionary approach, and without having any 21

direct -- having no direct evidence of fractures in 22

that area, how would you evaluate the possible 23

connection between the stormwater management pond 24

and the wetland, which just lies on the border of 25

89


the property? 1

There's a -- the modelling was 2

done on the basis of tills with hydraulic 3

conductivities of 10 to the minus 10, how would 4

that change if one took the more conservative 5

approach of assigning hydraulic conductivities of 6

10 to the minus 7? 7


record. 9

And I might ask Derek Wilson to 10

discuss more of the details of the construction of 11

the stormwater management pond, but the hydraulic 12

conductivities, certainly in the tills, based on 13

the work of the University of Waterloo earlier, did 14

not indicate hydraulic conductivities of that 15

magnitude higher. And certainly, the stormwater 16

management pond is an in-ground facility that would 17

intersect the unweathered till portions of, and 18

during that work these sorts of features could be 19

detected and dealt with at that time. 20

I'm not sure if Derek Wilson has 21

anything to add. 22

MR. WILSON: Derek Wilson, for the 23

record. 24

As part of the design of the 25

90


stormwater management pond, as Mr. Jensen has 1

pointed out, we expect that we're going to be below 2

the grade into the competent tills as part of our 3

excavations. However, we have allowed for 4

contingency for a liner on the near surface 5

interface. 6

In the event that we get into a 7

weathered till situation, we can put in a liner and 8

then have it run into the competent till so that we 9

don't have that migration between the two. 10

MEMBER MUECKE: Moving on to 11

tritium in the surficial deposits in the Lucas 12

formation. Is there an actual -- there's frequent 13

mention of a tritium plume. 14

My question is has that plume been 15

defined -- spatially defined, in terms of a map 16

where we can see the plume, which includes not only 17

the geographical extent of the plume but also its 18

variability and thickness? 19


record. 21

The understanding of tritium in 22

subsurface migration at the Western Waste 23

Management Facility is based largely on the results 24

from monitoring wells that were purposefully 25

91


installed as detection wells. So their purpose is 1

to alert of a potential issue, and the results of 2

those monitoring results, which are submitted to 3

the -- to CNSC is that the concentrations in the 4

bedrock, just immediately up gradient of the DGR, 5

are on the order of 300 to 400 becquerels per 6

litre, and that's the indication that we have. 7

MEMBER MUECKE: Could I ask CNSC 8

to comment on that? 9

DR. THOMPSON: Patsy Thompson, for 10

the record. 11

The finding of tritium in 12

groundwater around the Western Waste -- certain of 13

the -- some of the Western Waste Management 14

Facility buildings resulted in enhanced regulatory 15

oversight, where OPG had to not only define the 16

extent of the contamination but also to 17

investigate, find the sources, and correct. 18

And I could ask Mr. Don Howard to 19

talk about the regulatory oversight, and if needed, 20

I can ask Shizhong Lei to talk about some of the 21

monitoring wells and what we know about the 22

situation of tritium around the Waste -- Western 23

Waste Management Facilities. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the 25

92


Panel would appreciate some further details from 1

Dr. Lei, please. 2

DR. LEI: Shizhong Lei, for the 3

record. 4

The CNSC has been paying lots of 5

attention to the tritium issues since over a decade 6

ago when we saw some increasing trend. And since 7

that time, we also requested OPG to conduct a 8

further investigation, and they have done quite 9

some additional monitoring and numerical modelling. 10

From the monitoring wells they 11

have on site, as Mr. Jensen was saying, it’s 12

primary to monitor the performance of the system 13

around to the Waste Management Facility. 14

And only -- there’s only one 15

monitoring well which is screened in the mid-sand 16

aquifer that has been showing a much higher tritium 17

concentration than any other wells and it’s been 18

continuing and it has reached currently around 19

50,000 becquerels per litre concentration but it’s 20

just that well. 21

They also have some other wells in 22

the mid-sand aquifer. And they have several 23

groundwater monitoring wells that are screened 24

deeper into the shadow bedrock. And the highest 25

93


concentration in the bedrock right under the middle 1

sand aquifer currently is just a few hundred 2

becquerels per litre. 3

So their understanding, and the 4

CNSC staff agrees, is that there might be a very 5

small window for the tritium to move from the mid-6

sand aquifer which is a very permeable to the lower 7

bedrock. 8

And they have conducted numerous 9

modelling and has defined the pathway of the 10

potential movement of the tritium plume but they 11

didn’t have many monitoring wells to delineate, to 12

describe the extent of the tritium plume. 13

With regard to this DGR project, 14

we -- CNSC staff is also paying a lot of attention 15

and hope to have a better understanding of the 16

interaction of this plume -- potential interaction 17

of this plume and the construction, especially 18

sinking of the shafts. 19

And we seem to still have some 20

disagreement between CNSC staff and OPG. And we 21

would have hope to have more detailed numerical 22

modelling of the plume migration and how much would 23

be captured during the sinking of the shafts. 24

DR. THOMPSON: Patsy Thompson. 25

94


If I could just complete, Dr. 1

Swanson, for just two seconds. 2

The last part of Dr. Lei’s 3

response is the reason why we have maintained a 4

recommendation for more detailed work to delineate 5

the plume between the Western Waste Management 6

Facility and the proposed DGR shaft. And I can’t 7

remember what recommendation that is but it’s one 8

of the recommendations made by staff. 9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Thompson, as 10

a follow-up to that, why is it the opinion of CNSC 11

that we can wait for that data until later? 12


the record. 14

And again, Dr. Lei may provide 15

more technical information. My understanding from 16

the work that OPG did and the review from Dr. Lei 17

is the time it would take for the plume to move 18

from its current location to the shaft is several 19

years. And it will give us the time to -- the 20

recommendation is for additional wells to be put in 21

place and additional modelling. And so that time 22

-- there’s sufficient time too because of the 23

expected pace at which the plume would migrate. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Archibald? 25

95


MEMBER ARCHIBALD: It’s my 1

understanding that the movement is about four 2

metres per year. This is based on this morning’s 3

work. And that there is therefore -- and there’s 4

also a concentrated zone around this one specific 5

well that we’ve been hearing about. 6

My question is is there any form 7

of mitigation at some time that can be implemented 8

to reduce or maintain current or baseline water 9

quality conditions? Is there any plan in effect 10

other than monitoring to find out the aerial extent 11

in transition to also enhance the capability to 12

keep the values down? 13


the record. 15

The first course of action once 16

the high levels of tritium were detected in the 17

well was to require OPG to actually find the source 18

and remediate the source. And that work has been 19

undertaken. It’s taken a number of years going 20

from the things that were the likely more obvious 21

to the less obvious sources and gradually the 22

source of the tritium has been corrected. 23

But I think Don Howard probably 24

has the most recent work in terms of remediation as 25

96


a source. 1

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Very much 2

appreciate hearing that. 3

MR. HOWARD: Don Howard, for the 4

record. 5

Over the course of -- as Dr. 6

Thompson has indicated, over the course of several 7

years, OPG has been conducting an investigation 8

into the source of the tritium. 9

They basically started with things 10

that seemed to be the obvious sources and 11

remediated those and then worked their way down to 12

the not so obvious. 13

Some of the things that they’ve 14

done was to look into the electrical manholes and 15

tritiated water flowing out of the electrical 16

manholes, air and/or vapour transfer from inside 17

the low level storage buildings through the 18

electrical cable ducts into the electrical manhole. 19

Basically, they believe that this 20

is to be the source of the tritium. And a three 21

dimensional tritium transport modelling was used to 22

substantiate the -- this observation and theory. 23

So basically, they began a 24

campaign in 2011 to seal and -- the floor and wall 25

97


cable penetrations associated with the electrical 1

manholes. 2

So I guess a short story is, is 3

that basically right now is that the tritium levels 4

were trending up over the last several years but 5

they seem to be levelling off at the present time. 6

And this’ll still take quite a few more years to, 7

you know, see if they’re going to maintain at those 8

levels. 9

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: And should 10

those be sealed, would there be any consideration 11

of doing mitigation in the ground -- local 12

groundwater or between the DGR, for example, and 13

the current source? Once the source is sealed is 14

the problem still in existence or will that fade 15

away with time? 16


the record. 18

Currently the -- once the source 19

is remediated, the expectation is that it would be 20

monitored. The levels of 50,000 in a limited area 21

don’t pose a risk to workers working in and around 22

the Western Waste Management Facility. There’s no 23

source of portable water, no groundwater used in 24

that area. And over time, given the slow movement, 25

98


the radioactive decay would gradually reduce the 1

concentrations. 2

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Thank you. 3

I have then another question; 4

should the proposed DGR go ahead, we’re talking 5

about dewatering of the shaft and the common 6

question is, if that plume is still in existence, 7

what will be the impact of tritium being drawn into 8

the drawdown water in the zone of influence? 9


the record. 11

The assessment we’ve done with the 12

-- essentially, the assumptions -- and I’ll ask Dr. 13

Lei to fill in some of the details. With the 14

assumptions of the time it would take to -- for the 15

plume to migrate and the expected concentrations, 16

the recommendations that staff has made is, in case 17

the plume gets there quicker, then the 18

concentrations would be higher. 19

And so dewatering that water with 20

higher levels of tritium would not pose a risk to 21

non-human species. The levels are much, much lower 22

than levels that are known to cause effects. 23

The concern would be more in terms 24

of worker protection and to make sure that we have 25

99


a good handle on concentrations of tritium in the 1

air that would be around people. So essentially -- 2

but more for inside the repository than people 3

walking around. 4

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Just one last 5

question. Seeing as there’s a very high 6

concentration in a localized area basically 7

channelled to one of these wells, that may extend, 8

you don’t know at this point in time because 9

greater monitoring is going to be done. 10

The reason for the questioning 11

about mitigation was, if in fact you find out there 12

is a local channelized high velocity flow that 13

could be intercepted by the zone of influence of 14

the dewatering operations, would there be any other 15

intermediate mitigation measures that could be 16

taken, such as, for example, installation of 17

grouting walls, for example? 18


the record. 20

We have experience with 21

interception of contaminated plumes in certain 22

other facilities. And so if the concentrations of 23

tritium were of concern, then there could be 24

interception to essentially slow down the migration 25

100


to give radioactive decay time to act. 1

There’s also -- for certain 2

facilities where there’s been a requirement to pump 3

the water and return it upstream, essentially. So 4

there’s different options that can be looked at. 5

But in terms of -- there's no chemical treatment 6

that can be done for tritium at those low 7

concentrations. 8


THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Muecke? 10

MEMBER MUECKE: Another question I 11

would like to direct at OPG, and this has to do 12

with the hydrogeology of some of the disruptive 13

scenarios that we have discussed, coming back to 14

that. 15

And it concerns the -- in 16

disruptive scenarios, the presence of faults. And 17

how has mass transport allowed possible faults to 18

be modelled, as a discrete plane or as a zone of 19

finite dimensions? 20

DR. GIERSZEWSKI: Paul 21

Gierszewski, for the record. 22

They were modelled as a zone of 23

finite dimensions. 24

MEMBER MUECKE: The dimensions 25

101


being? 1

DR. GIERSZEWSKI: A one-metre wide 2

zone. 3

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay. Thank you. 4

We have heard evidence that the 5

faults are often associated with dolomitisation, 6

increase in hydraulic conductivity, and porosity as 7

a result of the dolomitisation. 8

Has there been -- in any of the 9

disruptive scenarios been an attempt to model using 10

these -- what are the real configurations of faults 11

in this region? 12



So these were idealized fault 15

models. They were, as I said, about one metre wide 16

and had a porosity -- I don't recall what it was 17

offhand, but it's in the report. 18

But they were sufficiently 19

permeable that they were a pathway for pressure to 20

be transmitted from the Cambrian and for flow to be 21

transmitted up from the lower features, so I think 22

that they had the effect -- the expected effect 23

that you would have from a larger feature. 24

MEMBER MUECKE: And the question 25

102


then becomes where can one find this comparison or 1

this evaluation that it would actually encompass 2

the conditions of one of these faults associated 3

dolomitisation? 4



So we did not do that comparison, 7

so I don't have that particular evidence. But from 8

the modelling that we did, you could see that the 9

pressure is being transmitted reasonably quickly 10

through these permeable features and their 11

influence towards the repository was commensurate 12

with their fairly -- with a fast transport through 13

the faults. 14

But there was no direct comparison 15

with the larger hydro-dolomitised feature. 16

MEMBER MUECKE: Would it be 17

possible to do this, actually? 18


record. 20

Perhaps we could just have a word 21

before we answer. Just one minute. 22


THE CHAIRPERSON: While OPG is 24

conferring, the Panel would appreciate some insight 25

103


from CNSC, as well as from NRCan. 1

DR. LEI: Shizhong Lei, CNSC. 2

In terms of a safety assessment, 3

CNSC staff was particularly paying attention to 4

"what if" scenarios. And in their initial EIS 5

assessment, OPG only assumed two scenarios for 6

their fault zone, one at 500 metres, another at 100 7

metres away from the repository. 8

And the CNSC staff considered 9

that’s inadequate. What if there were faults that 10

were not detected today, but exist between -- 11

closer to the repository? 12

So OPG came up with more 13

additional modelling under different scenarios with 14

location changes, some even to like just 10 metres, 15

and -- to see how those calculations would change. 16

And in terms of those calculations 17

and contaminant transport, it is the 18

hydroconductivity of the fault zone that matters, 19

so that's what we are paying attention to, about 20

how these faults might have formed. 21

And so the results is that even -- 22

like CNSC staff did some simplistic bounding 23

calculation and we felt that OPG could have done 24

maybe additional work by assuming different 25

104


orientations of those faults or different 1

thickness. 2

However, our simple bounding 3

calculation indicates that probably in terms of 4

those calculations it might be captured by the 5

failed seal scenario in terms of those 6

calculations. 7

They felt a seal of the shaft 8

might represent a more severe case in terms of 9

those calculations. 10

MEMBER MUECKE: Thank you for 11

that. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: And may I ask 13

NRCan to also provide the Panel with a comment? 14

DR. DESBARATS: Alexander 15

Desbarats, NRCan, for the record. 16

NRCan did review the Proponent's 17

modelling scenarios involving a fault. In these 18

scenarios, the fault extended from the Cambrian 19

over pressured unit up to the Guelph formation, the 20

permeable layer also. 21

In our opinion, the -- this type 22

of scenario is analogous or represents a 23

conservative end member representation of the fault 24

or fractures associated with a hydrothermal 25

105


dolomite type reservoir. 1

The Proponent investigated a 2

number of scenarios involving this fault at 3

different distances from the repository. 4

Now, the important factors to 5

consider are not only the hydraulic conductivity of 6

the fault, but also the layers in which the faults 7

terminate. It's specifically the -- in this case, 8

the over pressured Cambrian, which would drive 9

fluid flow upward through the fault, and the 10

Guelph, which would permit lateral flow. 11

So in our review, we considered 12

that the Proponent had done a sufficient, 13

satisfactory job investigating this type of 14

scenario -- these scenarios involving a fault. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG, are you 16

ready to respond to Dr. Muecke's suggestion? 17


record. 19

All of the work that we have done 20

in the boring and in the numerical simulations has 21

indicated that there is not the presence of a sub-22

vertical/vertical hydrothermal dolomitised fault in 23

close proximity to the site. 24

So there's absolutely no evidence 25

106


from the physical hydrogeology, the 1

hydrogeochemistry or from the stratigraphy for the 2

presence of such a feature within close proximity 3

to the fault. And really, these representations 4

that have been done are really hypothetical 5

simulations, just illustrative of what might occur 6

with a permeable sub-vertical feature in close 7

proximity to the repository. 8

I might ask Dr. Jon Sykes to 9

discuss some simulations that he has done to 10

illustrate that the hydraulic signatures that we 11

see and the geochemistry that we see could not have 12

been preserved had these permeable hydrothermal 13

dolomitised features existed in close proximity to 14

the repository. 15

DR. SYKES: Yes. Jon Sykes, for 16

the record. 17

We did do simulations that put a 18

fault from the Cambrian through to the Guelph, and 19

that was assumed to be -- hypothetically, again, 20

assume one metre fault zone with a transmissivity 21

or, actually, hydraulic conductivity of three times 22

10 to the minus 6 metres per second. 23

What that –- and we looked at a 24

distance from the repository of 1 kilometre and 5 25

107


kilometres and we noted that a feature like that, 1

would conduct the over pressures from the Cambrian 2

upward, so that you would no longer preserve the 3

pressures that are observed in the Guelph, and in 4

fact, such a feature would result in much higher 5

pressures than we see today. 6

In the absence of those pressures, 7

the fact that there is an upward gradient between 8

the Cambrian and the Guelph preserved by the low 9

intermediate Ordovician limestone and shales, tells 10

us there is no vertical connection. 11

But even when we put that in there 12

we get unrealistic over pressures than in the 13

Guelph. It still took -- 1 kilometre away at the 14

DGR -- about 3 million years for the under 15

pressures that are measured to dissipate. 16

And solute transport within that 17

Cobourg Ordovician sequence remains diffusive, and 18

in fact, path lengths to the feature a kilometre 19

away, are still longer than upward to the Guelph 20

and the integrity of the site remains. 21

MEMBER MUECKE: The Ontario 22

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has 23

commented that they are a storehouse of 24

hydrogeologic and geologic information, geochemical 25

108


information which is valuable on both a local and 1

regional scale. 2

This is directed towards OPG. 3

Could OPG explain the apparent lack of cooperation 4

and consultation during the period of the 5

evaluation and the EIS stage with Ontario Ministry 6

of Northern Development and Mines? 7


record. 9

I don't think that's the case. 10

Number one, there was a Memorandum of Understanding 11

signed with the Ministry of Northern Development 12

and Mines to cooperate and work collaboratively 13

with the program in terms of doing reviews on our 14

work. 15

The Northern Ministry of –- sorry 16

–- the Ministry of Northern Mines -– the Ministry 17

of Northern Development and Mines was invited to 18

four core workshops to observe the core and work 19

with others. And lastly, the geological section of 20

the geosynthesis was reviewed by the Ministry of 21

Northern Development and Mines. 22

MEMBER MUECKE: So, would Ministry 23

of Northern Development and Mines like to comment 24

on that? 25

109


Because there were comments in 1

your submission which seemed to indicate that there 2

was insufficient cooperation. 3

DR. HAMILTON: Dr. Stuart 4


Just –- I should clarify that 6

right now. I did mention in my last submission, 7

about three weeks ago, that –- or two weeks ago 8

that the issue here was that our publication came 9

after the compilation of their report. 10

So with respect to the ambient 11

groundwater geochemical data that came too late for 12

them to use. 13

The point that we are trying to 14

make here, was that these data are useful as a 15

regional –- to get regional context –- and I concur 16

that there has been consultation with MNDM and that 17

high level –- and in the intermediate and low 18

levels too there's been interaction. 19

And certainly Frank and Derek his 20

colleague the other pre Cambrian –- or sorry -- 21

Palaeozoic geologist has attended a number of these 22

core workshops. I think, in fact, all of them he's 23

been at. And there's been information going both 24

ways. 25

110


So I didn't -- if that was from my 1

statement I certainly didn't want to leave the 2

impression that there hasn't been collaboration, 3

there certainly has been. 4

MEMBER MUECKE: Thanks for 5

clarifying that. 6


MEMBER ARCHIBALD: I'd like to 8

bring us forward. This is from OPG's presentation 9

on Slide 8. 10

During the DGR proposed shaft 11

construction and at least during the initial 12 12

month proposed construction period when it will 13

deepen through the initial 200 metre depth where 14

we're looking at the advective flow region, could 15

you please identify what dewatering measures will 16

be proposed? When in time they'll be implemented, 17

and if grouting is part of the dewatering effort 18

how many rounds of grouting type and extent will be 19

used? That is, are you going to be grouting from 20

surface or will you simply be doing in-shaft 21

grouting as it progresses? 22

So it's a multiple part question. 23

Would you like me to read it to you again? 24


111


record. 1

If you could just go one more time 2

Dr. Archibald. 3

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Could you 4

please identify what various dewatering measures 5

will be proposed; when in time they will be 6

implemented –- and I'll leave it at that to start. 7

And I'll get to grouting in the 8

second part of this. 9


record. 11

Actually the dewatering of the 12

shafts is somewhat contingent on the grouting 13

effort. So maybe I can try and capture your 14

comments throughout. 15

Our intent is to perform ground 16

treatment, and our preference would be for 17

grouting. As we reported back -- as part of the 18

technical information session in July of last year, 19

we had a grouting trial underway, which we were 20

grouting down to 200 metres. And the focus of that 21

grouting program was to see how effectively we 22

could grout down to 200 metres. 23

And then we -- as part of that 24

activity we had pump tests in 2012 and we were able 25

112


to determine that we were meeting the groundwater 1

inflow reduction rates that we had hoped to, which 2

were targeted at two lugeons or essentially two 3

litres per second inflow. 4

With that inflow that would 5

dictate how the shaft sinker would be able to 6

handle the water which would be conventional 7

dewatering, no need for storage tanks in the 8

Galloway and so on. 9

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: It was my 10

understanding based upon the field trials, the 11

grouting trials, that it took three rounds of 12

grouting to achieve the required hydraulic 13

conductivity values that you needed to reduce it to 14

that level? 15


record. 17

We did two stages of grouting. As 18

part of that, we did a primary and a secondary. 19

From that work and as specifically in the upper 80 20

metres we'll be going in for tertiary and perhaps a 21

fourth round of grouting for infill in the upper 50 22

metres, which is the higher permeable zones as we 23

have been able to see. 24

However, when we did our pump 25

113


test, because we didn't focus on the upper 50 1

metres -- because we wanted to again get the casing 2

down into the Lucas formation to be able to keep 3

the alignment on the boreholes or on the drill 4

holes -- we found that that upper zone still had 5

some high permeability. 6

We put a packer in at 40 metres, 7

and then we redid the pump test, and it showed from 8

40 metres below grade which is about 25 metres into 9

the bedrock. 10

We were able to get very good 11

grouting results. So that indicated that we'll have 12

a tertiary round at the vent shaft, and perhaps 13

some limited infill drilling. 14

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Based upon what 15

I read in your written presentation for today's 16

effort, it indicated that most of the grouting 17

would be done from in-shaft grouting. Do you 18

propose to do surface grouting initially or will it 19

all be in-shaft grouting? 20


record. 22

Our initial grouting efforts will 23

be from surface, and we'll target from surface to 24

achieve the predicted inflows. Should we encounter 25

114


an area of higher permeability that warrants 1

grouting, then we would do some in-shaft grouting 2

such as the Guelph and the Selina A-1 3

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Now my next 4

question and this is based upon presentation today. 5

Slide 9 where OPG states that the zone of influence 6

from hydraulic, the hydraulic zone of influence 7

will be tens of metres, CNSC specifically mentioned 8

54 metres, so we're talking somewhere from multiple 9

tens to 54 -- will be temporary until the shaft 10

liner could be in place. 11

So my question is, because you've 12

mentioned other control measures -- and this 13

primarily would be grouting -- can hydraulic 14

isolation be developed earlier in the proposed 15

construction program to minimize the zone of 16

influence, and thereby any problems that you may 17

have with surface groundwater materials? 18


record. 20

Maybe I'll provide a couple of 21

comments, and then I'll ask Dr. Sykes to make some 22

comments. 23

With respect to the modelling that 24

was done, which was conservative, our intention is 25

115


to try and minimize the groundwater inflows as much 1

as possible prior to sinking of the shaft. 2

When we did the assessment of the 3

zone of influence, we assume that there is going to 4

be a lag of the liner to the face, as much as a 5

three-month lag of the liner to the face. 6

Whereas, in reality, once the 7

collar is constructed, the liner will be trailing 8

the face by no more than 15 metres. So we'll have 9

the liner progressing with that, and again, the 10

grouting from surface, enabling us to limit the 11

groundwater inflow into the shafts has a 12

significant improvement in the efficiency of shaft 13

sinking as well as the safety of that. 14

And, Dr. Sykes? 15

DR. SYKES: Jon Sykes, for the 16

record. 17

My analyses looked at different 18

stages of construction, from developing the collar 19

at the top of the Lucas all the way down through to 20

the Salina G. 21

And in those -- the distance from 22

the Lucas down is about 100 metres and -- I stand 23

corrected on that. What’s the distance, top of 24

Lucas to the Salina G? 25

116


A hundred and sixty (160) metres 1

passing through various units. I assumed steady 2

state flow analysis looking at the Lucas, Amherst, 3

Bois Blanc, Bass Islands in turn, so four different 4

scenarios. 5

I assumed for the analysis that 6

there would be a grout annulus around both the main 7

and the vent shaft of three metres. And I looked 8

at two different hydraulic conductivity cases for 9

the grout, 10 to the minus six and 10 to the minus 10

seven metres per second. 11

And given the fact that there’s 12

four different scenarios for the advancement of -- 13

through the Lucas, there would only be the grout, 14

then there would be the concrete liner put in and 15

that would reduce it, and then you’d go down below 16

and do the Amherstburg. That the range in capture 17

zones while only the grout is impeding the flow 18

range from the 10 metres up to a worst case of 19

about 54 metres for the capture zones for these 20

staging. And I -- okay. 21

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Would there be 22

any way of enhancing that even more through in-23

construction grouting? I mean, your initial plans 24

now, I take it, are to be doing surface grouting 25

117


prior to initial shaft sinking operations? 1

And would there be any contingency 2

for in-shaft grouting before you place the liner? 3


record. 5

As I mentioned earlier, we’ve 6

identified the zones. We’ve identified -- below 7

about 50 metres, there's about three horizons that 8

we had higher water takes. And there may be an 9

interest from the shaft sinking contractor to go in 10

and do those grouting scenarios. 11

However, I don’t believe that it's 12

going to be a requirement from a zone of influence 13

perspective. I think it's more of a conventional 14

and efficiency aspect than that. 15

For us, the zone that would have 16

the greatest influence back towards, say, the 17

Western Waste Management facility is in that upper 18

40 metres. And we intend to try and get that area 19

grouted well. 20

And then insulation of the collar 21

will further facilitate that linkage, which is down 22

to about 30 metres into bedrock, which brings us 23

below the Lucas and into the Amherstburg. 24

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Thank you very 25

118


much. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Archibald, I 2

think the Panel would benefit from a comment from 3

CNSC on this matter. 4

DR. LEI: Shizhong Lei, CNSC, for 5

the record. 6

The CNSC staff considers OPG’s 7

assessment of the influence zone of the shaft 8

sinking conservative. 9

However, to be cautious, CNSC 10

staff also strongly recommended that in their PVP 11

program they should have more -- when they are 12

developing their program should have more detailed 13

-- details on the monitoring and, from there, we'll 14

decide -- so the current stage monitoring for 15

everyone to give us more insights to this problem 16

so we would hope to see how it’s progressing. 17

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: In simple 18

terms, the current plan is conservative but you 19

would appreciate more verification. 20

DR. LEI: CNSC, Shizhong Lei. 21

That’s correct. 22


THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a couple 24

of questions that I would direct to CNSC. 25

119


On your slide number 17, if we 1

could bring that up, please? 2

This would be the CNSC slide 3

number 17 where you summarize your main findings. 4

And I -- the third bullet, you make the point that 5

the time for transport of any contaminants from the 6

proposed repository to Lake Huron is longer than 7

the time for radioactivity of the waste to decay to 8

natural levels found in the rock. 9

My question is, is this statement 10

true even for the longest-lived intermediate level 11

wastes? 12


record. 14

Some explanation is required. 15

We’re not talking about a concentration of 16

activity. It is the comparison of the total 17

inventory of nuclear substances in the repository 18

relative to the total that would be in the rock 19

mass above that unit. 20

So it was a relative comparison, 21

to give it some context, in terms of the amount of 22

radioactivity left in the repository but not a 23

concentration of low versus high. 24

THE CHAIRMAN: That helps. Thank 25

120


you. 1

I have another question for CNSC, 2

and this has to do with your statement toward the 3

end -- actually, your conclusions that with respect 4

to groundwater, particularly shallow groundwater, 5

the baseline data are appropriate. 6

My question is, what is the CNSC’s 7

determination of the decision error associated with 8

the current available shallow groundwater baseline 9

data with respect to both flow and transport in 10

terms of the level of CNSC’s confidence in your 11

evaluation and recommendation? 12

In other words, how sure are you 13

that the baseline data are adequate? 14



record. 17

So we had to confer. The 18

additional monitoring that we are looking for is to 19

verify predictions; it is not to characterize 20

additional baseline information. 21

Our view is that there is 22

sufficient baseline information now and that 23

additional monitoring that would be required are to 24

look at predictions or other impacts such as the 25

121


tritium plume. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: This is a 2

follow-up question, then. 3

In previous testimony to the 4

Panel, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission made 5

use -- made reference to the fact that the CNSC 6

actually will require a formal process of data 7

quality objectives for monitoring. And the Panel 8

understands that in terms of future monitoring 9

requirements. 10

So to rephrase my question, did 11

the CNSC also require that same standard of rigour 12

when they looked at the existing baseline data in 13

the support of the EIS? 14


the record. 16

So as -- I think it was last week 17

we mentioned that we use the U.S. EPA guidance in 18

terms of the data requirements for designing 19

monitoring programs to have a reasonable likelihood 20

of detecting an effect. 21

In terms of the baseline 22

information, what we did was to look at the 23

available baseline information in relation to the 24

level of impact that we were -- that were being 25

122


modelled and predicted. And so if the -- what we 1

normally do is our expectations in terms of 2

abundance of data and data quality, I would say, is 3

higher when the expected impacts are more 4

significant. 5

And so when the impacts are minor, 6

our requirement for baseline information is less 7

rigorous. 8

But I would qualify that in terms 9

of the approach we would have for a greenfield 10

site, for example, where we have no knowledge of 11

the site would be very much more rigorous in terms 12

of the analysis of data quality for baseline data. 13

The fact that a lot of this work 14

has centred on the Bruce site where we have 15

extensive monitoring data, we have years of 16

monitoring reports that we can back check, 17

essentially, the information that was provided in 18

the EIS is probably an advantage that other 19

reviewers didn’t have. 20


I have a question now for OPG and 22

this is to the shallow groundwater system on the 23

proposed DGR site. 24

Would you assist the Panel in 25

123


reminding us again of the evidence and the strength 1

of that evidence with respect to the fact that the 2

wetlands are strictly precipitation, they’re fed by 3

precipitation i.e. rain and snow and there is no 4

connection with groundwater discharge. 5


record. 7

The evidence is is that gradients 8

within the till are downwards, they’re not upwards, 9

and that was confirmed during the geo-technical 10

investigations. There were at several points where 11

piezometers were placed into the till sheet to 12

confirm that groundwater gradients were downwards 13

towards the confined aquifer. 14


I would ask if possible if the 16

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines could 17

comment, given your experience in this region at 18

least. Wetlands, how often are they strictly 19

precipitation-based with no connection to 20

groundwater given the knowledge you have of this 21

particular area. 22


for the record. 24

I can’t actually speak 25

124


specifically to this area, but bogs by definition 1

are rain-fed and fens by definition are groundwater 2

fed. And so it’s not at all unusual to have 3

downward gradients in wetlands, especially in bogs. 4


Question back to OPG, and this is 6

back to more -- some of Dr. Archibald’s line of 7

questioning. 8

If the DGR shaft construction 9

actually ends up taking longer than the year or so 10

plus, would your predictions change and would your 11

engineering plans change? 12


record. 14

I’ll provide an initial response 15

and then again ask Dr. Sykes if he would like to 16

add anything further. 17

When we look at the shaft sinking 18

again, our critical area with respect to 19

groundwater inflows is in the upper 200 metres. 20

And that upper 200 metres will take a little bit 21

longer on a per metre advance rate because of the 22

establishment of the shaft collars, the 23

establishment of the head frames and getting the 24

mine workings in place to have an efficient and an 25

125


ongoing development of the shaft. 1

So we’ve been somewhat 2

conservative in our assumptions around the timing 3

of when we first start to extract the collars from 4

surface to the installation of the head frames and 5

then getting down below the 200 metre level into 6

about the 230 metre level, installation of seals in 7

that estimate of about 18 months for shaft 8

construction. 9

So I think the conservatism has 10

been placed on the groundwater inflow conditions 11

and have been reflected in the groundwater 12

modelling by Dr. Sykes, but if, for instance, that 13

9-month or 9 to 10-month window was to extend, I’ll 14

ask Dr. Sykes to speak to that. 15

DR. SYKES: Jon Sykes, for the 16

record. 17

First of all, my analyses were 18

conservative in that I assumed steady state 19

conditions. I did an evaluation using transient 20

conditions to verify that in fact everything I was 21

doing was conservative. 22

The advancement, for example, 23

where the Lucas is completely open except for the 24

grout annulus, my calculated influx rates both 25

126


through the bottom of the shaft upward as well as 1

laterally through the grout, I was calculating 2

rates of about maximum of .3 litres per second. 3

And that was for a very conservative case where the 4

grout was only assigned a permeability or a 5

hydraulic conductivity rather of 10 to the minus 6 6

for the case of 10 to the minus 7, so an order of 7

magnitude, lower hydraulic conductivity, in that 8

case, the leakage was on the order of .1 litres per 9

second, very, very low. 10

And as you move down through the 11

system where, for example, la Bois Blanc is open, 12

but everything else is sealed, then in that case, 13

the conservative rate would be 16 litres per second 14

with a better grout annulus around the shaft. It 15

drops down to 3.7. 16

What that means then is if there 17

was a problem, prolonged going down through to the 18

Salina G, you could always go in and enhance the 19

grouting. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a follow-21

up question and I direct to both OPG and to MNDM. 22

Are there real world examples of 23

nearby mines that would help illustrate the 24

conservative nature of the modelling that you’ve 25

127


been describing, i.e. the groundwater inflow rates 1

and just reality check them with some nearby real 2

world examples? 3


record. 5

I believe the answer is yes and 6

there was some studies done in the late eighties, 7

looking at different mines, the Drumbo Mine, Sifto 8

Mine in Goderich, and other local mines that 9

intersect the sedimentary rocks that we intersect 10

at the Bruce site and there is information on 11

inflow rates and how they can be very discrete 12

target information where inflow rates become an 13

issue and where they’re not. 14

A lot of this work was done in the 15

-- I think in the sixties and seventies. 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: MNDM? 17

MR. WILSON: We don’t have 18

specific experience at sinking shafts. That’s not 19

what we do. There is data available for Sifto, 20

there is data available for the mines that 21

extracted gypsum in Caledonia, Drumbo and so forth. 22

That data is available to be integrated into your 23

files. 24

Thank you. 25

128



MR. JENSEN: Dr. Swanson, if I 2

could. With respect to the Sifto mine as well, the 3

latest shaft that they -- I don’t have the data off 4

the top of my head, but it was the late seventies 5

or early eighties, they had a lot of lessons from 6

the early shaft sinking back in the fifties and 7

they were able to sink a relatively dry shaft and 8

they’ve been able to maintain that dry shaft or 9

they do have some inflows into the other pre-10

existing shafts. 11

The shaft that they sunk 30 years 12

ago has been demonstrated to be dry and when we 13

visited that facility for OPEX, they were able to 14

provide us that information which helped us look at 15

our grouting program and how we would progress the 16

shaft through those features. 17

So they have demonstrated that 18

they could maintain a dry shaft. 19


My last question and then we’ll 21

take a break because I think we’re probably all 22

getting pretty hungry. This is back to wetlands. 23

Remind the Panel again, OPG if you 24

please, has tritium been monitored in the wetlands 25

129


and if so, what were the activity levels measured? 1

MS. MORTON: Lise Morton, for the 2

record. 3

No, there has been no monitoring 4

at that location. 5


All right, it’s now almost five 7

minutes past one; it is time for a lunch break. We 8

will resume promptly at 2:00 with questions from 9

the participants. 10

--- Upon recessing at 1:02 p.m./ 11

L’audience est suspendue à 13h02 12

--- Upon resuming at 2:01 p.m./ 13

L’audience est reprise à 14h01 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, 15

everyone. 16

As I indicated prior to lunch, we 17

will now proceed with questions from the 18

participants related to this morning’s 19

presentations. 20

The first question will be from 21

Mr. Mann. 22

--- QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC: 23

MR. MANN: Thank you, Dr. Swanson. 24

I wonder if I could have leave to 25

130


ask the following. Since intermediate waste has 1

the same characteristics as high level waste, based 2

upon the findings by OPG and CNSC and everyone, is 3

the proposed DGR safe to store high level waste? 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC, would you 5

like to comment on this, please? 6


the record. 8

The only comment I could offer is 9

that the assessment was done on the long-term 10

safety case that includes the geological 11

considerations, the repository design but also the 12

waste inventory and so we have not done an 13

assessment for a different waste inventory. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms. 15

Martin? 16

MR. MANN: If I could --- 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, did you have 18

a second question, Mr. Mann? 19

MR. MANN: Yeah, if I could 20

follow-up on that. 21

Is it possible for Kincardine to 22

have a suitable geology for a safe DGR while 23

Saugeen Shores, a few kilometres away, does not 24

have a safe geology for a DGR? 25

131


THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC, would you 1

like to comment? I think that’s a very conceptual 2

question but perhaps you can address it similarly 3

high level. 4


record. 6

In general, the safety case for 7

this assessment relied largely on very site-8

specific information, boreholes that were drilled 9

within hundreds of metres of the site to assess 10

that site. We have not assessed a possible site 11

farther away. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: Does that help 13

you, Mr. Mann? 14

MR. MANN: Well, as a citizen of 15

the community, it doesn’t give me much comfort to -16

- if it’s safe in Kincardine but not safe in 17

Saugeen Shores, a few kilometres away, it doesn’t 18

give us much comfort in Kincardine’s being safe, 19

frankly, Doctor. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for 21

the redirect. I think that helps CNSC understand 22

your question. CNSC, please? 23


the record. 25

132


So what we’ve done is do a 1

complete review of all the documentation that was 2

submitted by OPG for this project. The long-term 3

safety case indicates that this site is suitable 4

for the proposal. 5

We have not studied essentially 6

similar information from another site in the area 7

so we can’t say whether another site in the area 8

would be or would not be safe. 9

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Thompson, 10

can you please clarify for the Panel that the 11

proposed DGR did include, within the EIS study 12

areas, the community of Saugeen Shores? 13


the record. 15

I think you can see the puzzled 16

look on our face. I don’t -- I’m not sure we 17

understood your question, Dr. Swanson. 18

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mann is 19

asking whether if it’s safe for Kincardine it’s 20

safe for Saugeen Shores, the proposed DGR as per 21

se. 22

DR. THOMPSON: So my apologies. 23

Patsy Thompson, for the record. 24

And so the long-term safety case, 25

133


the assessment that was conducted for the potential 1

impacts from site preparation and construction, 2

operation, closure and postclosure indicate that 3

there would not be any impacts that could affect 4

human health or the environment offsite, so that 5

would include the community of Saugeen Shore. 6


Ms. Martin? 8

MS. MARTIN: Thank you, Dr. 9

Swanson. 10

Joanne Martin, for the record. 11

Would a mine being built on the 12

boundary of a residential hamlet and/or provincial 13

park site be required to meet siting guidelines and 14

if so, would this DGR project as described, meet 15

the siting guidelines for a mine? 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Martin, are 17

you asking the Panel to consider a question around 18

more socio-economic siting guidelines? Is that 19

what you’re getting at? 20

MS. MARTIN: I guess I’m getting 21

more at the regulation in terms of is there -- are 22

there any regulations that have to do with siting a 23

mine beside a town or a provincial park because 24

we’re talking about this whole mine type of thing, 25

134


mining operation and is it legal to do so so close? 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ontario 2

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, can you 3

comment on this and then I’ll ask CNSC. 4

DR. HAMILTON: Dr. Stewart 5


We are representatives of the 7

Ontario Geological Survey which is within the 8

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. And 9

although MNDM has a regulatory role we do not. So 10

we can’t really comment on that. 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC? 12


the record. 14

So I would have two elements for 15

that response. So the CNSC does not have 16

requirements for distance, for example, de facto in 17

regulation that, you know, a nuclear facility can’t 18

be closer than, you know, this many metres or 19

kilometres from a developed area. 20

What we do is assess the proposal 21

that is submitted to us and wherever that proposal 22

is in relation to habitation, residential areas, 23

municipalities or sensitive ecosystems, the 24

assessment essentially ensures that the proposal 25

135


and the design would meet the safety requirements 1

wherever it’s located. 2

And so if a proposal is located 3

closer like a mine would be located closer to a 4

residential area, then the design requirements 5

would be more stringent to afford the same level of 6

protection to that community as for, you know, if a 7

mine was more remote for example. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: And OPG, again, 9

for the benefit of participants here today that may 10

have not been here before, would you please 11

reiterate to the Panel this -- the regulations that 12

do apply to the proposed DGR in terms of not only 13

CNSC but other ministries. 14


record. 16

There are a number of different 17

regulations that do apply to this facility, the 18

CNSC, obviously the licensing authority, but there 19

would be applications to the Ministry of 20

Environment for discharges to the lake, for 21

instance, from the stormwater management system and 22

some other, NRCan potentially for explosives if 23

that’s required to be stored onsite. So there are 24

a number of different regulations that would apply 25

136


to the project. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Martin? 2

MS. MARTIN: I have a follow-up 3

question, if I may. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Very briefly, 5

please. 6

MS. MARTIN: Yes. Now I may not 7

say this properly, do piezometers -- P-E-I-Z-O-8

meters, ever have their hoses collapse when 9

measuring deep rock pressures leading to, for 10

example, under pressure readings for a given rock 11

mass or whether their measurements ever merely 12

reflect equipment noise rather than actual 13

pressures when measuring at depth? 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG? 15


record. 17

We do not use piezometers to 18

measure the hydraulic conditions certainly within 19

the deep bedrock, we use the Westbay systems. And 20

it’s a pressure profiling tool that takes direct 21

measurements of formation pressures. 22

MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Storck? 24

MR. STORCK: Sorry, Madam Chair. 25

137


I think there’s been a mix-up; I have a question 1

for another presentation. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Very well. 3

Mr. Gibbons, I had your name down 4

as well for this series. Yes. 5

MR. GIBBONS: The Bruce nuclear 6

tritium groundwater report 2010 on the slide this 7

morning, it was one of the reference documents used 8

for OPG's presentation. 9

My question is, why was the most 10

recent 2013 report not used? 11


MR. JENSEN: The plot that was 13

shown of tritium was just illustrative of the 14

concentrations that existed certainly within the 15

bedrock aquifer directly up gradient of the DGR 16

Project site certainly to contrast it with the 17

tritium concentrations that exist beneath the 18

project site, which we know are about one to 10 19

Becquerels per litre or background conditions from 20

our groundwater monitoring program. 21


Did you have a follow-up, Mr. 23

Gibbons? 24

MR. GIBBONS: Well, actually, my 25

138


question had to do with the document that was 1

referenced. I think it was on their second slide 2

this morning. And it referenced the Bruce Nuclear 3

Tritium Groundwater Report 2010. 4

It's the date that I was concerned 5

about because much has happened since then. 6


MR. JENSEN: I'm just taking a 8

look at the slide now. Mark Jensen, for the 9

record. 10

The intent of those dates was just 11

to indicate when the activities were taking place. 12

The submission was in 2011. Sorry, the submission 13

of the WWMF assessment for tritium and groundwater, 14

the submission was in 2011. 15


record. 17

Perhaps I can just mention that 18

the work that was done was submitted to the Panel 19

in 2011. That was the time of the EIS, and so we 20

don't go back in time and update it every time 21

there's a new piece of information. 22

I realize that we do have more 23

information as time progresses. And perhaps I 24

could ask Lise Morton, if it's helpful, to describe 25

139


some of the work. If that's helpful to the Panel. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it would be 2

helpful. 3

Ms. Morton, please? 4

MS. MORTON: Lise Morton, for the 5

record. 6

So again, if we -- just to make 7

sure -- I think we're all speaking about the same 8

thing. 9

If we look at slide 3 from this 10

morning, as Mark Jensen indicated, the report 11

that's referenced with respect to 2010 is a 12

specific report that was done in 2010 with respect 13

to tritium and groundwater. 14

We continue to monitor, sample the 15

entire groundwater monitoring network. We report 16

those results quarterly to the CNSC. All of those 17

groundwater monitoring wells are under regulatory 18

oversight. 19

I believe, to go back to what Ms. 20

Swami said, I don't think that this slide was 21

intended to say that the basis for something was 22

stopped in 2010. 23

I don't know if I quite understand 24

the basis of the question, but we continue to 25

140


monitor those wells and have up to date information 1

on all of them. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC, 3

Mr. Gibbons used the phrase "much has happened 4

since 2010". I recall from evidence presented to 5

the Panel this morning that CNSC described the 6

situation for tritium, I believe it was you, 7

Mr. Howard, as apparently the trend seems to be 8

levelling off. 9

The Panel would appreciate some 10

clarification regarding what has happened between 11

2010 and now. 12

MR. HOWARD: Don Howard, for the 13

record. 14

So the CNSC conducts inspections 15

at the Western Waste Management on -- so many times 16

per year. We -- as a result of the tritium plume, 17

which started many years ago, we've instructed OPG 18

to do some further analysis to try to find the 19

source of this tritium. So basically, the -- and 20

they report the groundwater monitoring results on a 21

quarterly basis to the CNSC and we review that. 22

So as I said this morning is that 23

they've been doing some remedial work that started 24

in 2011 to try to, you know, address the primary 25

141


source of the tritium. And from what we've seen so 1

far is that the -- it seems that the level seems to 2

be stabling off, but it will take a few rounds of 3

monitoring to confirm that and make sure the 4

trending is still not going up but it's basically 5

levelling off. And hopefully in the near future we 6

might see a downward trend. 7


We are now ready to proceed with 9

our first oral intervention today, which is by 10

Mr. Patrick Gibbons. 11

Mr. Gibbons, I want to thank you, 12

on behalf of the Panel, for agreeing to change the 13

date of your intervention. Please go ahead. 14

--- ORAL INTERVENTION BY MR. PATRICK GIBBONS: 15

MR. GIBBONS: My name is Patrick 16

Gibbons, and with here me -- with me today I have 17

two colleagues. On my right, my wife, Paula 18

Gibbons, and Cheryl Grace. 19

I'm a full-time resident of 20

Saugeen Shores, and I've been a taxpayer in Bruce 21

County for over 25 years. I am a supporter of 22

Bruce Power and appreciate the benefits that we 23

have realized in this community. 24

I will be speaking to four issues 25

142


as shown on the slide, each of which calls into 1

question the validity of the Environmental 2

Assessment of the proposed DGR for low and 3

intermediate level waste in Kincardine. 4

The hosting agreement, which is to 5

clearly describe benefits as well as possible 6

hazards, dangers and risks involved with the DGR 7

for radioactive waste, falls short on the second 8

half of this mandate. While the 21-page document 9

spends eight full pages describing financial 10

benefits, only one sentence even suggests danger. 11

The hosting agreement makes no 12

mention of the following widely researched issues 13

relating to radioactive waste siting. Stigma 14

effect, property value decline, decline in tourism, 15

decline in people wishing to retire in Bruce 16

County. 17

The impact of the hosting 18

agreement on Saugeen Shores is evident now and, if 19

approved, would increase exponentially with 20

construction and operation licences for the DGR. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Could we have 22

some technical help? We have a dialogue box come 23

up here. 24


143


MR. GIBBONS: The impact of the 1

hosting agreement on Saugeen Shores is evident now 2

and will increase exponentially with construction 3

and operation licences. 4

As an adjacent community, Saugeen 5

Shores is referenced 37 times in the hosting 6

agreement, yet only OPG and the past Mayor of 7

Kincardine signed the hosting agreement. More 8

alarming still are the many sections of the hosting 9

agreement that allows OPG to revise and amend this 10

agreement. 11

The following amendments can be 12

completed without seeking the approval from 13

citizens. 14

When any milestone date is missed 15

or delayed. To extend the operation of a DGR 16

beyond 2035. To enlarge the size of the DGR. To 17

accept waste from a new nuclear reactor. To accept 18

low and intermediate level waste from anywhere 19

else. And to accept decommissioning waste. 20

All of these situations have 21

negative impacts on the residents of Saugeen Shores 22

far into the future, yet we have no representation 23

within the hosting agreement. Why would our 24

elected officials allow this to occur? 25

144


In October 2004, the Mayors of the 1

municipalities of Bruce County who make up the 2

Bruce County Council were not all in support of the 3

hosting agreement. There was nothing in the 4

hosting agreement for three of the Bruce 5

municipalities and, despite promises from the 6

Kincardine Mayor, there was nothing in it for the 7

County of Bruce. 8

One Mayor stated, "The 9

environmental aspect of this is a concern for me". 10

Another Mayor stated, "They're going to pound the 11

heck out of the roads". And a third Mayor stated 12

that "Over the long-term, it could undermine the 13

efforts to promote Bruce County as Ontario's 14

natural retreat". 15

It was reported in 2004, November 16

the 10th, that two agreements were reached involving 17

OPG and Bruce County which guaranteed a quarter of 18

a million dollars to Bruce County Council. 19

However, in trying to locate these documents, the 20

Bruce County clerk stated that these documents do 21

not exist. 22

Madam Chair, because of the 23

confusion on this issue, I respectfully request an 24

undertaking to be initiated to confirm the 25

145


agreements between OPG and the County of Bruce do 1

in fact exist. 2

The hosting agreement allows for 3

decommissioning waste from any and all existing or 4

future reactors. 5

As has been confirmed during these 6

hearings, OPG's plans include decommissioning waste 7

from all Ontario reactors to be placed in this DGR. 8

Why is decommissioning waste not 9

part of this construction application? 10

The hosting agreement allows for 11

the inclusion of low and intermediate level waste 12

that the parties agree to, possibly allowing for 13

radioactive waste from other provinces or other 14

countries. 15

Again, Saugeen Shores and other 16

adjacent communities do not have a say in the type 17

of waste or where it comes from. 18

The size of the DGR and the length 19

of time for which radioactive waste will be 20

accepted are also left wide open in the hosting 21

agreement. 22

Section 7 of the hosting agreement 23

discusses the property value protection plan, but 24

it shows that it's very -- it's a very limiting 25

146


statement that requires radioactive contamination 1

on one's property during the operation of the DGR 2

caused by the DGR before one cent is paid out by 3

OPG. 4

As well, the onus of proof of 5

contamination and the related property depreciation 6

and all associated costs would be the 7

responsibility of the property owner. 8

OPG states that the Kincardine 9

property value protection plan is in line with a 10

similar agreement in the Town of Port Hope. It is 11

not. 12

Port Hope's plan includes a clear 13

statement where you may apply for compensation if 14

you have realized loss on sale of property, loss of 15

rental income, mortgage renewal difficulties or you 16

have incurred costs related to the delayed sale or 17

rental. 18

Who is OPG protecting with their 19

radioactive contamination requirements in the 20

Kincardine property value protection plan? Calling 21

this a property value protection plan is a 22

disgrace. This is more correctly OPG's corporation 23

protection plan. 24

The phone poll to determine 25

147


community support had to be completed with a 1

positive result by February 28th, 2005 or the 2

agreement was null and void. This deadline imposed 3

by OPG caused the Municipality of Kincardine to use 4

an undemocratic process, a phone poll, to gauge the 5

support. 6

Since I will be discussing the 7

poll in more detail later, at this time I will just 8

make a couple of comments. 9

This phone poll ruled out the 10

democratic secret ballot of a referendum or 11

plebiscite that had been promised by both mayoralty 12

candidates and several councillors in the 2003 13

Kincardine municipal election. 14

OPG also stated that a referendum 15

would be used to decide the fate of the DGR, but 16

obviously, OPG wanted to fast track this proposal. 17

It was stated that a phone poll 18

controlled by the Proponent would be more likely to 19

get a response from 50 percent of the adult 20

residents. A true democratic process may not have 21

that result. 22

With this decision, OPG eliminated 23

a democratic process. 24

Section 4 of the hosting agreement 25

148


and Schedule A details the payments to be made by 1

OPG to Kincardine and the adjacent communities. 2

What is expected of the communities involved? What 3

are the conditions that OPG has set prior to 4

Saugeen Shores or other named towns receiving 32 5

payments over 30 years? 6

The named adjacent communities 7

must, in good faith, exercise their best efforts to 8

achieve milestones and, in good faith, exercise 9

their best efforts to support the operation of the 10

DGR. 11

Eleven (11) times in the hosting 12

agreement these statements are made. 13

If one community, however, does 14

not exercise best efforts to support this project 15

for 30 years, the payments could stop for all 16

communities involved. 17

Each town's mayor is expected to 18

write letters of support and make submissions to 19

this Joint Review Panel and to the Canadian Nuclear 20

Safety Commission. OPG NWMO have agreed to assist 21

the town mayors in the writing of these letters of 22

support. 23

Milestones requiring support from 24

mayors include obtaining licences to construct and 25

149


operate the DGR. As well, OPG would require total 1

support from town officials for all future OPG 2

amendments to the hosting agreement. 3

For decades, many learned scholars 4

have considered such payments as bribery, hush 5

money and being morally corrupt. 6

In 2005, Dr. Allan Marshall, 7

social scientist, carried out the most 8

comprehensive independent study of the social and 9

ethical aspects of siting a nuclear waste facility. 10

He summarized the studies from other researchers. 11

Kleindendorf says no amount of 12

compensation makes up for living next to a 13

radioactive waste site. 14

Shrader-Frechette warns that the 15

use of compensation confuses and upsets any notion 16

of pure consent. Disparities in negotiating 17

strength might arise purely through well-financed 18

interests employing misinformation and propaganda. 19

Outen states when financial 20

compensation is introduced, it is likely that some 21

will perceive the process as being somewhat morally 22

corrupt. 23

The mayors who, on behalf of the 24

town, receive the money from OPG, have spoken to 25

150


this Joint Review Panel because several sections of 1

the hosting agreement requires them to exercise 2

their best efforts to support the licensing and 3

operation of the DGR. 4

In summary, this hosting agreement 5

is fatally flawed. The known potential dangers and 6

hazards of constructing, operating, decommissioning 7

and abandoning a DGR on this site over a span of 8

over hundreds of thousands of years while some of 9

its contents remain highly radioactive are not 10

disclosed to the residents of Kincardine, nor the 11

adjacent communities. 12

The adjacent communities never 13

have and never will have a say in this hosting 14

agreement that seriously impacts their lives and 15

the lives of future generations literally forever. 16

While we were told that the County 17

of Bruce had a monetary agreement with OPG with 18

regard to the DGR, we have recently been advised 19

that these documents do not exist. 20

OPG has not clearly and completely 21

confirmed what the final size of the DGR would be, 22

the final volume of waste to be buried there, 23

whether -- what massive amounts of decommissioning 24

waste and used fuel will ever be included and 25

151


whether radioactive waste from other provinces or 1

jurisdictions could ever be included for burial. 2

The so-called property value 3

protection plan provides no assurance that 4

residents will not see their life savings greatly 5

devalued if locating this DGR causes the stigma 6

effect seen in other communities. 7

For OPG to insist that a resident 8

must demonstrate radioactive contamination of their 9

property under ridiculous time constraints is just 10

irresponsible and an attempt to take advantage of 11

residents. 12

The phone poll was an undemocratic 13

attempt to prove overwhelming support that was just 14

not present. 15

And finally, the 30 or more years 16

of monetary payments to Kincardine and adjacent 17

communities in exchange for the mayors of these 18

towns exercising their best efforts to support all 19

aspects of the DGR has already caused municipal 20

governments to show support because this hosting 21

agreement forces them to do so. 22

As previously stated, the method 23

used by Kincardine's consultants in 2005 to gauge 24

support of its residents for OPG's proposal were 25

152


seriously flawed. 1

I will now expand on my concerns 2

that many people, including Kincardine's present 3

mayor, have expressed about the polling process. 4

My focus will be on the process used, the preamble 5

and question posed and the manipulation of the 6

results. 7

On January the 7th, 2005, Marie 8

Wilson interviewed then former Mayor Larry Kramer, 9

who is, as you know, Kincardine's present mayor, at 10

his request. To commence the interview, Kramer 11

said that he was disappointed with the polling 12

process which began in Kincardine on the previous 13

day. 14

He said both mayoralty candidates, 15

Glen Sutton and himself, called for a full public 16

referendum. He went on to say, "What is needed is 17

a full democratic process that isn't open to even a 18

whiff of questioning". 19

Kramer stated that town hall 20

meetings where the mayor and council are open to 21

questions about the deal, the use of scrutineers, 22

secret ballots also need to be part of the process. 23

None of this took place. 24

Kramer said that he did not 25

153


believe that the telephone poll process was an 1

acceptable method of gauging public support for 2

such an important issue. 3

The interview ended with Kramer 4

stating that, "We need a proper democratic vote 5

that we can hold up to the world and be proud of". 6

He said it did not happen. 7

The consulting firm, Strategic 8

Council, was paid for by OPG. Their process left 9

respondents without the confidentiality of a secret 10

ballot which could very well influence how they 11

answered the poll. 12

Just months prior to the poll, the 13

town asked the consultant to have the head of 14

household respond to the poll not just for herself 15

or himself, but for all adults living in the 16

residence. 17

While I understand that this 18

process was amended in the eleventh hour due to 19

public outcry the consultant's report on the poll 20

results continues to refer to the number of 21

households that were contacted and the number of 22

residents that this represented. 23

The number of people spoken to on 24

the phone was never clearly stated. The number or 25

154


percentage of seasonal residents who were contacted 1

by phone or mail does not appear in the 2

consultant's report. 3

The fact that the poll was taken 4

in the dead of winter, immediately after the 5

Christmas-New Year's break, no doubt greatly 6

reduced the number of seasonal as well as permanent 7

residents who could have been available to respond 8

to the question. 9

Approaching residents by phone is 10

not only an infringement on their privacy, but also 11

jeopardizes each person's confidentiality and 12

identity. 13

Prior to the question being asked, 14

a preamble was read. Key points of the preamble 15

are Kincardine Council has expressed its support 16

for a DGR. The DGR will permanently isolate 17

radioactive waste. The DGR will provide 18

significant economic benefits to residents. And no 19

high level waste will be in the DGR. 20

However, Town Council is mentioned 21

three times endorsing the project. Would this sway 22

the interviewee? 23

This preamble provided no 24

information about the hazards or potential dangers 25

155


involved with the construction or operation or 1

decommissioning or abandonment of the DGR. 2

The unproven safety case was 3

overstated. Economic benefits to residents were 4

overstated. The term "permanently isolated" is 5

just faults and the radioactivity of some of the 6

intermediate level waste is equivalent to that of 7

high level waste. 8

The question asked was, "Do you 9

support the establishment of a facility for the 10

long-term management of low and intermediate level 11

waste at the Western Waste Management Facility". 12

Respondents without a connection 13

to the nuclear industry would have no idea to what 14

this question is referring. The question used the 15

word "facility" with no mention of "DGR", "nuclear" 16

or "radioactive". 17

Although it was required by the 18

hosting agreement, the question is neither clear 19

nor complete. It does not state the issue. There 20

is no mention of the potential harm or danger that 21

is associated with nuclear waste. If nothing else, 22

the question was misleading. 23

The phone poll results were 24

manipulated. The consultant broke down the 25

156


responses into five groups: yes, no, neutral, 1

don't know, refuse to answer. 2

The consultant then combined 3

responses 4 and 5 and came up with the following 4

results: yes, 60 percent; no, 22 percent; neutral, 5

13 percent; don't know/refused to answer, 5 6

percent. 7

The consultant combined the 8

neutral responses and the don't know and the refuse 9

to answer responses and threw them out. This gave 10

a false result of 73 percent yes response. 11

The consultant reported that 69 12

percent of the eligible residents responded to the 13

poll. Therefore, the total percentage of yes 14

respondents out of the total eligible residents 15

would be 60 percent of 69 percent, which is 41 16

percent. 17

The statistics were seriously 18

manipulated. At most, 41 percent of the eligible 19

residents said yes to this proposal as a result of 20

the faulty phone poll. 21

In summary, using a phone poll to 22

gauge public support was undemocratic, even the 23

mayor says so. The preamble and question were 24

misleading, and the results were manipulated. 25

157


If a secret ballot were held today 1

with the knowledge that OPG NWMO are planning on a 2

second DGR in Bruce County for all of Canada's used 3

nuclear fuel, what would the results be? 4

The current media relations 5

director for NWMO wrote an article in the 6

Kincardine News in January 2005 just prior to the 7

community poll on the DGR that will shed some light 8

on the above question. 9

Marie Wilson said: 10

"If the day were ever to come 11

when the Bruce became the 12

recipient of all of Canada’s 13

spent fuel, it would be 14

catastrophic...” 15

She went on to say that: 16

"…economic efforts such as 17

tourism, or the development 18

of agriculturally related 19

industries […] would be 20

destroyed - no one is going 21

to want meat that is 22

processed next to a mega size 23

spent fuel facility - proven 24

safety record or no. 25

158


She went on to ask: 1

“Would families vacation at 2

Inverhuron Park campground if 3

a large spent fuel […] 4

facility were next door?” 5

As a summary of the phone poll 6

process, I believe that the preamble and question 7

was biased, inaccurate and incomplete. The 8

question asked was misleading. The poll results 9

were manipulated. 10

Various methods were used by OPG 11

and NWMO and their regular stable of consulting 12

firms to disseminate their propaganda. None of 13

these methods could be considered true citizen 14

participation or engagement. 15

The purpose of OPG open houses and 16

displays are to distribute OPG DGR promotional 17

literature, to hand out toys for children and key 18

chains and pens for adults, to provide biased 19

monologue about their proposal, to collect data on 20

the number of people in attendance and then create 21

reports based on this insignificant data. 22

Information on potential hazards 23

and dangers are neither discussed nor presented at 24

OPG NWMO open houses or displays. The objective is 25

159


not to enable residents to have a voice or an 1

opinion or to participate in planning of the 2

project in the community. 3

The goal of the open house and the 4

mobile display for OPG NWMO is not public 5

participation. Yet, OPG has not adhered to the 6

Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines which 7

state: 8

“Public participation is a 9

central objective of the 10

overall review process. 11

Meaningful public 12

participation requires the 13

proponent to address concerns 14

of the general public 15

regarding the anticipated 16

[and] potential environmental 17

effects of the project. In 18

preparing the EIS, the 19

proponent is required to 20

engage residents and 21

organizations in all affected 22

communities…” 23

Investigating Arnstein’s research 24

on citizen participation, it becomes clear that the 25

160


OPG NWMO consultation process is focussed on what 1

Dr. Sherry Arnstein, social scientist calls “non- 2

participation”. 3

The bottom rung of the 4

participation ladder is manipulation. This rung 5

describes a level of non-participation that has 6

been contrived by some to be substituted for 7

genuine participation. The real objective is not 8

to enable people to participate in the planning or 9

conducting of programs, but to enable power holders 10

to educate the participants. 11

For comparison, the sixth rung of 12

the participation ladder is partnership which 13

enables citizens to negotiate, engage in trade-offs 14

with traditional power holders. 15

However my personal experience 16

with NWMO over the past two years has been that 17

they refuse to attend public town hall meetings to 18

discuss nuclear waste with citizens. I would not 19

consider this engaging the citizens. 20

The OPG NWMO open houses have been 21

perpetually poorly attended, usually with less than 22

a dozen attendees who include the municipal 23

officials who are promoting the event. 24

However, the OPG NWMO spin doctors 25

161


inevitably use their creative writing skills to 1

author reports with misleading conclusions based 2

upon statistically insignificant numbers. 3

If in 2005, the residents of 4

Kincardine had known of the cumulative effects 5

involving the DGR what would the poll results have 6

been? The increasing evidence as we’ve heard 7

today, of tritium is an example of the cumulative 8

effect that results from this OPG proposal that 9

could see Bruce nuclear plant, the Western Waste 10

Management Facility, this DGR and a used fuel DGR 11

all here in Bruce County. 12

The Canadian Nuclear Safety 13

Association states that: 14

“Tritium […] can pose a 15

health risk if it is ingested 16

through drinking water or 17

food, inhaled or absorbed 18

through the skin…” 19

This is from their Web site. 20

In 2011, CNSC set an objective for 21

tritium in groundwater and stated that: 22

“A study is required on the 23

uncertainty in measurements 24

conducted as part of their 25

162


monitoring programs.” (As 1

read) 2

In 2013, just a couple of months 3

ago, CNSC disagreed with OPG when they had told 4

this Joint Review Panel that tritium levels had 5

stabilized at the western waste site. As a 6

displayed figure shows, tritium in the bedrock is 7

still going up. CNSC states that: 8

“…the upward trending may be 9

an indication that that link 10

between high tritium 11

concentrations in the middle 12

sand aquifer and the bedrock 13

is more extensive than 14

originally thought.” 15

Tritium levels in drinking water 16

in parts of Bruce County is 400 percent higher than 17

the provincial average, and in Southampton, the 18

tritium levels have continued to rise in the past 19

four years. This slide is from the Bruce nuclear 20

environmental monitoring program, page 51 of this 21

year’s report. 22

Deciding on the merits of OPG’s 23

proposal for burying radioactive waste of every 24

toxicity, size and description beside Lake Huron, I 25

163


urge this Joint Review Panel to consider, among 1

many other aspects, the questions I’m posing now. 2

Has OPG acted in good faith and 3

exercised their best efforts to inform the citizens 4

of Kincardine and all other Bruce County residents 5

of the potential hazards and dangers involved with 6

this project? 7

Did OPG notify all residents of 8

the health, environmental, social, economic, 9

cultural effects of this proposal in an open, 10

transparent, clear, honest and complete manner as 11

described in the OPG NWMO mandate? 12

Were terms of the hosting 13

agreement created for this proposal fair to all 14

Bruce County residents? Was the phone poll a true 15

democratic process that is required for determining 16

support for a decision of this magnitude and 17

longevity? 18

Have the public participation 19

methods used by OPG throughout Bruce County 20

communities provided honest shared decision making 21

with all citizens impacted by this proposed DGR? 22

This is the most assuring 23

statement that OPG NWMO can make: 24

“The DGR project will likely 25

164


not result in any significant 1

adverse environmental 2

effects. No significant 3

adverse effects on the health 4

and safety of workers, the 5

public or non-human biota are 6

anticipated.” (As read) 7

I will end with two questions 8

posed by Dr. Stella Swanson. 9

“"One of the central problems 10

in the debate about the 11

nuclear fuel cycle is 12

ignorance. Scientists simply 13

do not know what the effects 14

of chronic exposure to 15

low‐ level radiation are, 16

either in people or in other 17

biota. ...We will only begin 18

to know for sure after 19

several more decades have 20

passed and a large population 21

of exposed people has been 22

studied… In the meantime, we 23

have to ask: 'Do we really 24

want to live in this 25

165


uncertainty? What risks are 1

we willing to accept as a 2

society?'" 3

I just want to end by saying that 4

we have three young grandchildren and they love the 5

beach and the water and I don’t believe any risk is 6

acceptable. 7

Thank you. 8

(APPLAUSE/APPLAUDISSEMENTS) 9


much, Mr. Gibbons. 11

Panel Members, did you have some 12

questions? 13

Dr. Muecke? 14


MEMBER MUECKE: Mr. Gibbons, just 16

to clarify so I understood you correctly. 17

You made the statement that OPG 18

insisted on a phone poll? 19

MR. GIBBONS: Reading the hosting 20

agreement, which was created in October 2004, there 21

had to be a positive result by the end of February 22

2005. So five months were given. That is a 23

supposition that I’m making. 24

MEMBER MUECKE: So it didn’t state 25

166


what form it had to take, so they didn’t insist on 1

a phone poll? 2

MR. GIBBONS: No. 3

MEMBER MUECKE: I just wanted to 4

clarify that. 5

And a question to OPG, Mr. Gibbons 6

has characterized the property value protection 7

plan by saying that the property would have to -- 8

of any recipient of compensation would have to be 9

radioactively contaminated. Would you like to 10

comment on that? 11


record. 13

That is the description of the 14

property value protection plan that was negotiated 15

with Kincardine at the time and was agreed to by 16

both parties. 17

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Mr. Gibbons, 18

you have stated that OPG frequently states the PVPP 19

is in line with Port Hope’s PVPP. 20

My question to OPG is, and 21

according to the Port Hope one, a homeowner must be 22

able to justify a claim that loss of sale of 23

property or loss of rental income and the like 24

exists in the Port Hope PVPP. Do these features 25

167


also exist in the hosting agreement initiative, and 1

if not, why not? 2


record. 4

As just described, it's with 5

respect to radioactive contamination. It's a 6

slightly different situation in Port Hope than it 7

would be for this DGR, where we don't anticipate 8

any cause for reduction in property values. 9

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: And a specific 10

question to Mr. Gibbons. 11

Do the terms "exercise their best 12

efforts to achieve milestones" and "exercise their 13

best efforts to support the operation" mean must 14

achieve milestones or must achieve support, in your 15

mind? 16

MR. GIBBONS: That is what I read 17

in the hosting agreement 11 times. 18

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: But the actual 19

statement is "exercise best efforts". My question 20

was to you, does that mean must? 21

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, it does, to me. 22



MEMBER MUECKE: You -- I guess 25

168


this is to OPG. 1

And Mr. Gibbons mentioned that 2

three adjacent municipalities were left out of the 3

hosting agreement. Could you elaborate as to why 4

three of them were left out? 5


record. 7

The municipalities that are 8

included in the agreement are those that are 9

abutting or adjacent to Kincardine. There may be 10

others in Bruce County that are not actually in 11

that category of municipalities. 12

MEMBER MUECKE: Yeah, so they had 13

to abut in order to qualify? 14


record. 16

That is correct. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a 18

question also for OPG. 19

Mr. Gibbons characterized the 20

public consultation efforts of OPG in his 21

submission. The Panel would appreciate OPG clearly 22

describing the objectives that you set for your 23

public consultation program. 24


169


record. 1

I'm going to ask Kevin Powers to 2

speak to the fairly thorough program that OPG 3

implemented and went through for many, many years 4

of consultation with the various communities 5

involved in this project. 6

But I'll let Mr. Powers speak to 7

the very specific nature of the objectives. 8

MR. POWERS: Kevin Powers, for the 9

record. 10

Over the past 10 years, our public 11

engagement efforts have sought to be inclusive of a 12

diversity of perspectives. From the beginning, 13

we've realized that this is not just a corporate 14

initiative it's an initiative that involves the 15

whole community. 16

As such, we've sought to engage 17

the community to provide information, to consult, 18

to involve, to collaborate, and ultimately empower 19

the community. And we have done that with a -- on 20

a number of occasions and throughout the 21

consultation process. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Powers, can 23

you please provide the Panel with some explicit 24

examples regarding how your public consultation 25

170


process empowered the community? 1


record. 3

The intervenor had shown a ladder 4

of public consultation. There are a number of 5

those ladders that exist, but what they do show is 6

the increasing level of public impact as a result 7

of public consultation programs. 8

The top few rungs of these ladders 9

generally involve a collaboration, which means 10

partnering with the public and its governments in 11

aspects of the decision-making, including 12

identification of a preferred solution. And 13

empower means to finally place decision-making in 14

the hands of the public or its representatives. 15

I think throughout the course of 16

this project we have been doing this, and if I 17

could provide a specific example. I would say that 18

the selection of the Deep Geologic Repository 19

itself was a collaborative effort between the 20

municipality and the company, and the empowerment 21

was with the consultation process and the final 22

poll to decide whether or not to proceed with this. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Powers, the 24

Panel would appreciate a bit more detail regarding 25

171


the collaboration you've just described as between 1

the municipality and OPG, vis-à-vis the selection 2

of the DGR as the preferred option. 3

Precisely who in the community or 4

who in the municipality did the OPG -- did OPG 5

interact with regarding that ultimate selection of 6

the preferred alternative? Was it limited to the 7

elected representatives at the time, or did it 8

extend into the community? 9


record. 11

There was a nuclear waste steering 12

committee that was formed, which included elected 13

representatives as well as a CAO, but all of the 14

information that was gathered by this selection 15

committee was given to the public through open 16

houses, newsletters, the creation of a Web site 17

with all of the materials available. 18

We set up a storefront, that has 19

been mentioned before, which allowed for the public 20

to come in and ask questions, and we provided 21

booklets that -- to all of the residents in 22

Kincardine explaining the process, explaining the 23

selection, explaining the rationale behind the 24

selection. 25

172


THE CHAIRPERSON: So Mr. Powers, 1

correct -- please let me know if the Panel has 2

understood you correctly. 3

So what I think I heard you say is 4

that the collaboration itself was with the Nuclear 5

Waste Steering Committee, which comprised elective 6

officials and the CAO, the Chief Administrative 7

Officer, and then that -- the results of that 8

collaboration were communicated to the broader 9

community; is that correct? 10

MR. POWERS: That is correct. 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question to 12

OPG. 13

Mr. Gibbons referred to a 14

technique called "town hall meetings" with 15

citizens. Would you please provide the Panel with 16

clarity with respect to whether OPG refused 17

invitations to attend such town hall meetings? 18


record. 20

I believe he was speaking of the 21

NWMO. OPG has not refused participation in town 22

hall meetings. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Follow-up to 24

that then, could you give the Panel some examples 25

173


of town hall meetings, and those are not the same 1

as open houses, but town hall meetings which -- 2

where you would have a wide variety of opinions 3

represented? 4


record. 6

I do not have any of those at my 7

disposal right now. 8


Another question to OPG. The 10

Panel would like a more rationale or reasoning that 11

was used for why there was a fairly short time 12

period for Kincardine to demonstrate public 13

support. Why was it such a short time period? 14


record. 16

The timeline was established 17

through the negotiations between Kincardine and 18

OPG. We don't know specifically why it was 19

selected to be that timeframe. 20

But I would also note that in 21

Section 3.1 there is an option to change that date 22

as agreed to by the parties, and that presumably 23

was not exercised for those involved at that time. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 25

174


Dr. Archibald, do you have a 1

question? 2

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Yes, one more 3

question for Mr. Gibbons. 4

In the matter of the strategic 5

council poll, you stated that: 6

"I believe that nuclear 7

employees [...] felt [likely] 8

constrained in their 9

responses because the calls 10

could be tracked." 11

Do you have any evidence to back 12

up the statement or corroboration from people that 13

you may have had interaction with? 14

MR. GIBBONS: Pat Gibbons, for the 15

record. 16

I don't have any evidence, but I 17

was using a common sense, that if somebody calls 18

you on the phone and they know -- and you're giving 19

your name, that that could affect the way in which 20

you respond. 21

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: A follow-up for 22

OPG. Was telephone tracking of calls performed for 23

this poll, to your knowledge? 24


175


record. 1

No, there was no tracking of that 2

nature as a result of this poll. It was conducted 3

independent from OPG by the consultant hired. 4



MEMBER MUECKE: Yes, Ms. Swami, 7

coming back to my previous question about the 8

property value protection plan. 9

And -- it seems to me that your 10

answer sort of contradicted something we heard 11

during the -- socio-economic technical information 12

session. 13

Because the impression the Panel 14

got at that time is that compensation would also be 15

given if there was no -- didn’t necessitate 16

radioactive contamination of the property but it 17

would be considered if the value of a property 18

decreased due to an incident which happened at the 19

DGR site. 20


record. 22

I’d have to go back and look at 23

the technical information session documentation. 24

But the agreement itself, in Section 7.1, describes 25

176


the property value protection plan and that’s the 1

agreement that we’ve reached with Kincardine. 2


question for CNSC, and this is back on tritium. 4

In Mr. Gibbons’ presentation he 5

showed a graphic of tritium concentrations. I 6

believe, Mr. Gibbons, it was up to 2011? 7

MR. GIBBONS: There were two 8

graphs. The first was, yes, up until the end of 9

2011. The second one was drinking water. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. 11

MR. GIBBONS: And that went up at 12

the end of 2012. 13

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So first 14

of all, the graphic that showed the data up to 2011 15

certainly, in that graphic, there did not appear to 16

be any stabilization. So please confirm with the 17

Panel that the possible stabilizing trend would 18

have been since then, in 2012-2013? 19


the record. 21

I’ll ask Dr. Lei to speak to this 22

graph because there are actually two graphs. There 23

is one that Mr. Gibbons has shown that is for data 24

in the bedrock level and we have another graph that 25

177


is quarterly values up to 2012. 1

And so I think that’s where the 2

confusion is coming in but he can explain it better 3

than I can. 4

DR. LEI: Shizhong Lei, for the 5

record. 6

There are two graphs and they -- 7

when the OPG conducted an EIS -- wrote the EIS 8

reports, they were just reporting the data 9

available up to that moment. 10

And CNSC is receiving quarterly 11

reports from OPG on those monitoring wells and -- 12

including the tritium data. 13

The stabilization, I guess it 14

refers to the observed tritium concentration in 15

that particular monitoring well, WSH-231, which has 16

been showing the highest tritium concentration. 17

That well was screened in the 18

Millside aquifer. In that particular well -- and 19

we are, like, putting a lot of attention because 20

that one is higher than any other -- showing higher 21

tritium concentration than any other monitoring 22

wells. In that particular well it has been 23

stabilized around 50,000 becquerels per litre of 24

tritium in the water. 25

178


And the -- there are also several 1

monitoring wells screened in the bedrock which is 2

under the Millside aquifer. Some -- most of the 3

wells are showing almost no trend. And one of them 4

is showing a slightly up-going trend but the 5

highest concentration of tritium is currently 6

around only 500 becquerels per litre. 7


I have a question for you, Mr. 9

Gibbons. If you were given a chance to design a 10

process to identify and confirm a willing host 11

community, what would be the key components of such 12

a process? 13

MR. GIBBONS: I think the process 14

would be open, in that all residents, not just in 15

the municipality but those around the municipality, 16

would feel free to present their views in open 17

dialog in -- I mentioned town hall meetings, they 18

work really well. 19

I also think that the citizens of 20

the community should not be the last people to find 21

out about the -- about a project and they shouldn’t 22

be -- the information shouldn’t be filtered before 23

they get it. It should be -- like as I mentioned 24

the hazards, the dangers, are supposed to be known 25

179


to us so we can make an informed decision. 1

If we’re only told about -- it’s 2

going to be jobs and nothing about the possible 3

negative impacts I think that’s wrong. 4

So I think an open dialog with 5

citizens over a long period of time. To try to 6

rush a decision within a five-month period I think 7

is wrong. 8

As well, for the Proponent to be 9

the only one presenting the information to the 10

public is an issue in my mind. There are many 11

experts, and we’ve had some of them here during the 12

last two weeks. 13

And there are many others who are 14

scholars who have spent 50 years studying their 15

field, whether it is geology or mining, or 16

engineering, who don’t feel this project should 17

happen the way it is being proposed. 18

So we have to hear from all of 19

those people not just during the Joint Review Panel 20

hearing but during the process of engagement with 21

the community. 22


All right, Mr. Gibbons, we do have 24

two proposed questions from participants. 25

180


Mr. Robertson? 1


MR. ROBERTSON: Madam Chair, mine 3

may be a clarification. But the question is on 4

that tritium levels and I would ask that Mr. 5

Gibbons put up the slide with the cumulative effect 6

and the drinking water supplies. It’s got -- yes, 7

that one there. 8

Now, my question will be based on, 9

obviously, rising amounts of tritium in drinking 10

waters in Southampton and Kincardine. And the one 11

prior to that, Mr. Gibbons? 12

And that shows, I think, a trend 13

that there’s an increase in tritium levels. And my 14

question to CNSC and it’s more of concern than 15

anything and a need for some reassurance. 16

Is there any potential that the 17

tritium leak that you are currently investigating 18

has anything to do with that increase of tritium 19

that’s been identified over the last decade or so 20

or last four years or so? 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC, so I think 22

I would appreciate again some clear explanation of 23

the slide in front of us and then we’ll move to the 24

next slide on drinking water and address Mr. 25

181


Robertson’s concerns about (a) the source and (b) 1

the implications of what we are seeing. 2

Yes, Mr. Robertson? 3

MR. ROBERTSON: Just a 4

clarification -- reassurance I think for our 5

communities. 6

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 7

MR. ROBERTSON: Is there any 8

chance that that tritium leak that they’re 9

currently investigating has any connection with 10

what we’re dealing with in these charts? 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes. 12


the record. 14

And so just to go over some of the 15

information. So there is a well that is called 16

WHS-232, which we talked about this morning, that 17

has levels up to about 50,000 becquerels per litre. 18

This one, when we look at the 19

quarterly data for the last couple of years, we’ve 20

seen seasonal variations but an overall 21

stabilization. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Thompson, 23

that is not what we're looking at right now, 24

though. 25

182


DR. THOMPSON: So that's the well 1

we talked about with the --- 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before. 3

DR. THOMPSON: --- 50,000 4

becquerels per litre. 5

The graph that is here is Well 6

243, and that one is showing levels around 500, and 7

it has not stabilized. 8

But when the CNSC -- when OPG 9

reported for the first time many, many years ago 10

the high levels of tritium in groundwater wells, we 11

requested an investigation of the causes, but we 12

also looked at the monitoring well network to make 13

sure that this wasn't migrating offsite. 14

And so with the wells onsite -- 15

and there's some wells offsite as well -- we have 16

evidence that the tritium contamination around the 17

Western Waste Management Facility has not migrated 18

offsite and so that is not the source for the other 19

graph where we look at the values for drinking 20

water at Southampton and Kincardine. 21

And so the explanation for the 22

tritium in those drinking water supply plants is 23

from the liquid effluent discharge from the Bruce 24

site, and it is mainly associated with the nuclear 25

183


power plants. 1

And so to put that information in 2

perspective, the highest value is 14 becquerels per 3

litre, and so the Canadian drinking water quality 4

guideline is 7,000. The World Health Organization 5

value is 10,000 becquerels per litre, the Province 6

of Ontario has a 7,000 becquerels per litre 7

standard, and the Drinking Water Advisory Council 8

recommended a value of 20. 9

And so those values are below the 10

20 becquerels per litre that has been recommended 11

but not adopted by the province. 12

And we have been following that 13

data for many, many years. The highest values 14

we've seen are about 18 becquerels per litre. 15

And so there seems to be an 16

increasing trend, but we've also seen values around 17

18 becquerels per litre a few years before the 18

2009. 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: So Dr. Thompson, 20

a follow-up on that. Mr. Gibbons was presenting 21

these data in the context of cumulative effects. 22

So would you please help the Panel understand the 23

context for this information vis-à-vis cumulative 24

effects from the proposed DGR project on a graphic 25

184


like this? 1

DR. THOMPSON: So Patsy Thompson, 2

for the record. 3

I will provide some information, 4

but then I think, Dr. Swanson, I may ask that we 5

verify the exact numbers because I don't want to 6

give a number that could be wrong. 7

And so the drinking water supply 8

plants are impacted by the water -- the liquid 9

effluent discharge from the site that's associated 10

with the power reactors. 11

We saw last week when we were 12

looking at -- when we did the human health 13

presentation that for overall public dose, the 14

Western Waste Management Facility contributes about 15

.3 percent of the site impact. 16

What I'm not sure and I couldn't 17

say right now is for the liquid part -- 18

contribution Western Waste Management Facility is, 19

I know it's about .3 percent overall, but I'm not 20

sure of what that exact number but we can find out. 21


If you could find out in time for 23

when we come back to human health, which is on 24

October 7th, that would be much appreciated. 25

185


Mr. Robertson? 1

MR. ROBERTSON: Madam Chair, I 2

apologize, just one final question for CNSC, if 3

they -- through you, if they could. 4

The chart seems to be escalating, 5

and on a preventative perspective, is there 6

anything being done to perhaps do early analysis as 7

to how they could turn that around? 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNSC? 9


record. 11

So that well and the slide 12

previous to this one is located in formations that 13

are below the well that has the highest levels. So 14

what's happened is there has been a release from 15

the facility. 16

It's been observed around 50,000 17

becquerels per litre in the shallow groundwater, 18

but that -- as we know, that plume, that inventory 19

is moving. It's moving downwards into that well 20

below, and it may move laterally towards the 21

shafts. 22

So what you're seeing in that -- 23

in this well -- in this observation here is that 24

inventory that was release, it stopped being 25

186


released from the facility, but it's migrating 1

downwards into this location. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr. 3

Robertson's question pertained to the next slide on 4

drinking water. 5

Is the CNSC involved in 6

identifying mitigation such that we don't see the 7

continuous increase here? 8


the record. 10

If -- perhaps through an 11

undertaking would be easier. 12

We have data going back several 13

years, so we can properly look at the trends and 14

have an opportunity to look at what might have 15

happened on the site to be able to see what could 16

explain. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: So that will be 18

Undertaking Number 43, I believe. Yes. 19

So CNSC to provide the Panel with 20

additional information on tritium concentrations in 21

drinking water supplies over a longer timeframe 22

than 2009 to 2012, such that the Panel has a 23

greater understanding of the longer term trends and 24

any reasons for those trends. 25

187



By CNSC to the JRP to provide 2

additional information on tritium 3

concentrations in drinking water 4

supplies over a longer time frame 5

than 2009 to 2012, to provide a 6

greater understanding of the long-7

term trend and reasons for the 8

trend. 9


the record. 11

Given the interest in this 12

subject, I -- not I think, it is doable to get the 13

information for October 7. 14


Mr. Mann? 16

Oh, OPG would like to add some 17

information. 18


record. 20

If it's helpful, Lise Morton could 21

discuss the figure -- I believe it's Figure 10 that 22

was up a few moments ago, if that's helpful to the 23

Panel. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 25

188


Ms. Morton? 1

MS. MORTON: Thank you. Lise 2

Morton, for the record. 3

So yeah, I just wanted to clarify 4

something, and I thank the CNSC for their 5

explanations that are correct. 6

But I just do want to clarify that 7

with respect to 243, the ones that you're seeing up 8

on the slide, again, we continue to monitor that 9

quarterly. And I can provide this to the CNSC as 10

well. 11

In our last quarterly operations 12

report, at the end of Q3 -- or Q1 2013, the levels 13

are clearly shown as stable on our reporting graph 14

from 2011 through to present day at approximately 15

420 becquerels per litre. 16

This graph cuts off in 2011. If 17

you started looking beyond 2011 to 2013, there's a 18

clear stabilization of that trend. 19

The other thing that I wanted to 20

mention, we've talked a little bit about mitigating 21

measures that we are taking on the site. And 22

again, I thank the CNSC for having highlighted some 23

of those. 24

I thought it might be beneficial 25

189


to the Panel if I indicated a few specific ones as 1

well. 2

When we recognized several years 3

ago that the waste was a source term for that 4

tritium plume, we consciously made an effort to 5

relocate any new structures to a different area of 6

the site, to the east part of the site that is away 7

from the mid-sand aquifer. 8

So we, through the hydrogeologic 9

investigations, identified where the MSA was and 10

took proactive steps to not continue to locate 11

buildings in that area. So that was one proactive 12

measure that we took. 13

We've also done extensive sealing 14

of building sumps and sealing, which the CNSC 15

mentioned, of any electrical conduits that are 16

accessible to create that pathway to the mid-sand 17

aquifer. 18

And we've done some other 19

mitigating measures as well throughout the years to 20

basically address the source term that's 21

contributing to that. 22

So I thought that might be helpful 23

to the Panel. And again, just to emphasize that, 24

you know, the tritium concentration 100 to 200 25

190


metres down gradient of the WWMF, we -- as measured 1

through the DGR monitoring wells, is at background 2

levels of in the order of 10 becquerels per litre. 3

And again, all of these wells, 4

243, 231, et cetera, are monitored routinely on a 5

quarterly basis and reported to the CNSC as such. 6

I thought that might provide more 7

context. Thank you. 8


Mr. Mann? 10


I wonder if I could have leave to ask two 12

questions. 13

As a citizen of Saugeen Shores, 14

could Mr. Gibbons comment on what participation the 15

citizens of the twin nuclear town of Saugeen Shores 16

had in the siting selection and hosting process for 17

the DGR, including what participation did the 18

citizens have in the phone poll? 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gibbons, 20

I'll ask you, but obviously it's only from your own 21

personal perspective, but if you would like to 22

address that question, please. 23

MR. GIBBONS: I don't believe we 24

had any participation in the siting of this DGR. 25

191


THE CHAIRPERSON: So no 1

consultation leading up to the time period of the 2

hosting agreement? I'm keying in on that time 3

period. 4

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, neither the 5

hosting agreement nor the phone poll. 6


Mr. Mann? 8

MR. MANN: Thank you. 9

My next question is to Mr. Powers. 10

Since OPG created NWMO, and OPG 11

owns 90 percent of NWMO, and OPG and NWMO have 12

interchangeable employees, it would seem that 13

Mr. Powers should be able to answer why NWMO did 14

not participate in town hall meetings. 15


record. 17

Mr. Powers and I speak for OPG, 18

and OPG is the Proponent for this project. NWMO is 19

a separate and independent company from OPG, and 20

they have their own processes that they follow as 21

part of the siting for and process for the APM or 22

the adaptive phase management project for fuel 23

waste repositories. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mann? 25

192


MR. MANN: Well, I'm -- in their 1

materials, Dr. Swanson, OPG reminds us that on 2

January 2009 OPG contracted to NWMO to manage the 3

regulatory approvals phase for the DGR project. 4

So NWMO and OPG, in my view as a 5

citizen of this community, are really one and the 6

same, and it's in their documents, and the 7

employees keep switching back and forth. 8

And it seems to me, that if NWMO 9

is asked for something, OPG knows about that and 10

should be able to respond, and if they don't show 11

up for town hall meetings that we need answers on, 12

I think OPG is equally responsible and should be 13

able to answer that. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG, I believe 15

what I'm hearing from Mr. Mann is an assumption 16

that because NWMO was contracted to manage 17

regulatory affairs you should indeed be able to 18

address this particular type of question. Would 19

you like to respond to that assertion? 20


record. 22

NWMO was contracted to perform 23

their regulatory approvals phase for the Deep 24

Geologic Repository that is the subject of this 25

193


approval, that is, for the low and intermediate 1

level waste. As part of that project, OPG would be 2

the invitee to any town halls or any other forums 3

should the public want us to come and discuss this 4

project. 5

If we needed to bring NWMO to 6

provide technical support to us, we would have done 7

so. As Mr. Powers stated, we would not refuse to 8

go to a town hall meeting had we been invited. 9

The other work that NWMO does, as 10

part of their mandate, is to do the siting and 11

selection for the adaptive phase management 12

project. That's not part of this contract, and so 13

OPG does not direct NWMO's activities in that area. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gibbons, the 15

Panel would be interested explicitly to understand 16

whether to your knowledge you or other 17

representatives of the community of Saugeen Shores 18

ever invited OPG to a town hall with respect to the 19

proposed DGR, not the APM, but the proposed DGR? 20

MR. GIBBONS: I guess I have to 21

say two things; that I'm not aware that OPG was 22

invited. A greater concern is that OPG did not 23

hold town hall meetings to entertain the citizens 24

of Saugeen Shores with regard to the DGR. 25

194


MS. SWAMI: Dr. Swanson, if I 1

might? 2

Laurie Swami, for the record. 3

I'd like to ask Mr. Powers to just 4

comment on the type of activities that took place 5

during our open house forums that went beyond just 6

OPG providing presentations, if I might do that? 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Powers, if 8

you could in particular focus on Saugeen Shores, 9

the Panel would be appreciative. 10


record. 12

We have done extensive work in 13

Saugeen Shores with both open houses as well as a 14

number of other activities. I have here a 15

chronology of all of the events that we did in 16

Saugeen Shores. 17

I won't take you through them 18

individually, but I say that we had an open house 19

beginning June 13th, 2003; another proposed open 20

house, 2005; a Saugeen Beach Association meeting, 21

July 30th, 2005; we were at the Port Elgin Rotary 22

Home Show, April 20th, 21

st, 22

nd, 2006. 23

I have about 15 pages here of 24

interactions as well as the dates in Saugeen Shores 25

195


with the residents of Saugeen Shores. 1

And these were not just one-way 2

flows of information. We would provide 3

information, but these would be the catalysts for 4

conversations, conversations in which we would talk 5

about the project but also address any concerns of 6

residents and try and help them better understand 7

the project. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Powers, 9

thank you for that. 10

Can you give the Panel an idea of 11

how many people, on average, attended those open 12

houses? 13


record. 15

I don't have an average here. It 16

would depend on the date of the events, anywhere 17

from a handful of people to hundreds of people 18

would be at our events depending on where it was. 19

(LAUGHTER/RIRES) 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: I would remind 21

the participants that I must insist on respect. 22

You can disagree or we can all disagree with each, 23

but I really must insist on respect and not 24

outbursts such I have just heard. I really very 25

196


much would appreciate restraining from that kind of 1

behaviour. We are here to find out the facts. 2

Mr. Powers, we are -- we've been 3

hearing evidence regarding these open houses being 4

actually poorly attended, in particular with 5

respect to Saugeen Shores. So therefore, the Panel 6

would very much appreciate explicit evidence from 7

OPG regarding attendance, the number of people who 8

attended open houses that were targeted at the 9

community of Saugeen Shores. 10


record. 12

That is in this document that I 13

have here, and we would be happy to provide that to 14

the Panel. 15


That would be Undertaking Number 17

44, if OPG could provide the Panel with a list of 18

open houses and attendance as targeted at the 19

community of Saugeen Shores. 20

If I may, Mr. Powers, I would also 21

ask, if available, if you could include some 22

examples of the comments and input received from 23

the community during those open houses and how OPG 24

dealt with those comments and input. 25

197



By OPG to the JRP to provide a 2

list of open houses conducted in 3

Saugeen Shores, including the 4

attendance at each. If available, 5

provide examples of input received 6

during the open houses and OPG’s 7

response to that input. 8

THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you get all 9

that, Mr. Haddon? 10

And if we could request that we 11

have that information in advance of our day on 12

public consultation, which will be on Saturday, 13

October 5th. Thank you. 14

Mr. Gibbons? 15

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, Madam Chair, 16

during my presentation I was expecting the red 17

light to go off, so I didn't give you time to 18

respond to a request for an undertaking with regard 19

to an agreement between OPG and the County of 20

Bruce. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, 22

Mr. Gibbons, I was -- in fact, since our next 23

presenters are indeed from the County of Bruce, I 24

was going to raise that matter at that time. 25

198


Thank you. I think that brings us 1

to the end of the presentation and questions from 2

Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. 3

We will now proceed with our next 4

30-minute oral intervention which is today by Mayor 5

Inglis on behalf of Bruce County. 6

Mayor Inglis, please proceed. 7

--- ORAL INTERVENTION BY THE COUNTY OF BRUCE: 8

MR. INGLIS: Good afternoon, Madam 9

Chair and Panel Members. For the record, David 10

Inglis. 11

I’m before the Panel today in my 12

capacity as warden of -- for the County of Bruce. 13

And prior to reading the contents of the submission 14

dated January 17th, 2013, I wish to briefly 15

summarize chronologically the activities of Bruce 16

County Council. 17

In November of 2004 the council of 18

the County of Bruce passed a resolution endorsing 19

in principle the Deep Geological Repository option 20

for long-term management of low and intermediate 21

level nuclear waste at the Western Waste Management 22

Facility. 23

On September the 20th, 2007, the 24

County of Bruce received formal notification that 25

199


the proposal had been referred to a public review 1

panel. 2

On August the 11th, 2000 -- yes, 3

2011, representatives from Ontario Power Generation 4

made a public delegation at County Council 5

providing an overview of the DGR project, including 6

an explanation of the consultation and technical 7

review process connected to the project. 8

The county was made aware that 9

funding may be available from OPG to fund an 10

independent peer review of the technical reports 11

submitted in support of the DGR. 12

County Council instructed county 13

staff to review the documents supplied in support 14

of the project by the Proponents and to make 15

recommendations to County Council on which matters 16

might be subject to peer review. 17

There was concern from staff 18

shared by County Council that the greatest 19

potential threat to the lake, to the surrounding 20

environment, and to the health and safety of county 21

residents would be from potential groundwater and 22

surface water impacts resulting from the 23

construction and operation of the DGR. 24

In November of 2011, the county 25

200


undertook a competitive RFP process for the peer 1

review. On January 19th, 2012, the successful 2

bidder, Hutchinson Environmental, was contracted to 3

undertake an independent peer review on the 4

following documents: Hydrology and Surface Water 5

Quality Technical Support Document, March 2011, 6

prepared by Golder Associates Limited and NWMO; 7

geology -- the second one, Geology Technical 8

Support Document, March 2011, prepared by Golder 9

Associates Limited and NWMO; DGR EA Follow-Up 10

Monitoring Program, March 2011, prepared by Nuclear 11

Waste Management Organization. 12

The peer review team comprised of 13

the following experts. Neil J. Hutchinson, PhD, 14

served as the peer review project director. David 15

D. Slain, Master of Science, professional geologist 16

of TDCI provided by -- provided all aspects of the 17

review related to hydrogeology. 18

Mr. Bev Clarke, HESL, assisted by 19

Dr. Hutchinson as required in review of the follow-20

up surface water monitoring program. David Leeder, 21

intermediate scientist with HESL assisted with 22

interpretation of any soils and soil contaminant 23

concerns, and Dr. Tammy Karst-Riddoch, PhD, 24

provided technical back-up support to the team. 25

201


The objective of the peer review 1

was to have the following questions answered. Have 2

the authors of the two technical support documents 3

chosen an acceptable methodology for the situation 4

at hand and was the methodology correctly applied? 5

Given the chosen methodology and 6

the type, volume and quality of the data collected, 7

are the conclusions of the two technical studies 8

valid? Are the follow-up monitoring actions of the 9

DGR EA monitoring report adequate given the finding 10

of the two technical support documents? 11

In December 2012, the county 12

passed the following resolution: That the peer 13

review process be considered as complete and the 14

reports -- and that the reports be submitted to the 15

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission by the County of 16

Bruce for consideration in their public review 17

process, and that the supplementary report dated 18

December the 7th addressing stormwater quality 19

concerns be forwarded to the Ministry of the 20

Environment for consideration during the 21

environmental compliance approval stage. 22

In January of 2013, County Council 23

passed a resolution as follows: That a letter be 24

submitted under the warden’s signature in support 25

202


of the Deep Geological Repository. 1

I will now read to you a letter 2

that I wrote or that I sent to Debra Myles, Panel 3

Co-Manager. 4

“Ontario Generation’s proposed 5

Deep Geological Repository for 6

Low and Intermediate Level 7

Nuclear Waste. 8

On behalf of the Council of the 9

County of Bruce, I am writing 10

to the Joint Review Panel to 11

express our council’s support 12

for the Ontario Power 13

Generation proposed deep 14

geological repository for low 15

and intermediate level nuclear 16

waste. We are also providing 17

comment on the following 18

documents: Hydrology and 19

Surface Water Technical Support 20

Document, Geology Technical 21

Support Document and the DGR EA 22

Follow Up Monitoring Program. 23

The County of Bruce believes 24

OPG’s proposed DGR will provide 25

203


safe, permanent storage for low 1

and intermediate level waste 2

which is currently managed 3

safely at OPG’s Western Waste 4

Management Facility located at 5

Bruce Power site in the 6

Municipality of Kincardine. 7

We are aware OPG has safely 8

managed this waste for over 40 9

years on an interim basis. 10

OPG’s proven track record on 11

the safe management of this 12

waste provides us with the 13

confidence and trust in their 14

ability to meet and exceed 15

regulatory regulations to 16

ensure the safety of both 17

public and the environment. 18

We support OPG and the 19

Municipality of Kincardine in 20

their proposal to move the low 21

and intermediate level waste to 22

a permanent, safe location in 23

the DGR on behalf of present 24

and future generations. 25

204


The environmental statement for 1

the DGR project concludes the 2

proposed DGR is not likely to 3

result in any significant 4

adverse environmental effects 5

on human health or the 6

environment and in fact, there 7

will be some positive socio-8

economic benefits. 9

We can support this statement 10

based on the many updates and 11

presentations we have received 12

from OPG throughout the entire 13

regulatory approvals process 14

but in particular, during the 15

project development years 16

between 2006 and 2010. 17

We were kept apprised of the 18

progress and results of the 19

various work programs in 20

support of the DGR including 21

geoscience, safety assessment, 22

engineering design and 23

environmental field work. 24

OPG has taken care to provide 25

205


us with the technical 1

information from the various 2

subject experts working on the 3

project to ensure we have a 4

solid understanding of why the 5

low permeability rock 6

formations located beneath the 7

Bruce nuclear site will provide 8

safe isolation and containment 9

for the low and intermediate 10

level waste while the 11

radioactivity decays through 12

the passage of time. 13

We understand the methodology 14

used by OPG to assess potential 15

effects of the DGR project and 16

where necessary, identify 17

mitigation measures and follow 18

up monitoring programs. We are 19

aware of the role of the safety 20

assessment in assessing safely 21

during the -- in assessing 22

safety during the operation of 23

the DGR as well as the long 24

term. 25

206


In addition to the ongoing 1

education we have undertaken in 2

conjunction with OPG during the 3

DGR project, we also contracted 4

Hutchinson Environmental 5

Sciences Limited and Terra-6

Dynamics Incorporated to 7

provide us with a third party 8

review of the documents related 9

to the hydrology and surface 10

water quality, geology and 11

groundwater and the follow up 12

monitoring program. 13

Initially the consultants 14

expressed concern about the 15

unavailability of information 16

to support the conclusions of 17

the Hydrology and the Surface 18

Water Technical Report and 19

Geology Technical Support 20

Document, but subsequent 21

discussions between OPG and the 22

consultants and staff from the 23

County of Bruce which allowed 24

for the sharing of additional 25

207


information and analysis 1

resolved all outstanding 2

issues. 3

At this point in time, the 4

consultants have concluded that 5

the assessment is based on 6

accepted methodology and 7

support a Proponent’s 8

methodology application and 9

conclusions, documented in the 10

Hydrology and Surface Water and 11

Geology technical support 12

documents. The consultants are 13

also satisfied that the follow-14

up monitoring actions in the 15

DGR EA monitoring report are 16

generally acceptable. 17

The County of Bruce supports 18

OPG’s proposed DGR for low and 19

intermediate level waste. Our 20

decision to support this 21

project is an informed decision 22

based on many years of 23

consultation with OPG and our 24

own third party review of 25

208


specific documentation. 1

We believe the DGR will provide 2

safe, long term isolation and 3

containment of the existing and 4

future low and intermediate 5

level waste from OPG’s 20 6

reactors. 7

We also offer these points for 8

consideration. The DGR will 9

support and enhance the 10

existing nuclear industry which 11

has a significant role in our 12

local economy. 13

The DGR will provide additional 14

learning and employment 15

opportunities for our area. 16

The DGR provides sustained 17

storage for low and 18

intermediate level waste on 19

behalf of future generations. 20

OPG has provided extensive 21

engagement opportunities 22

throughout Bruce County for 23

more than a decade to ensure 24

our resident are informed, 25

209


updated and have the 1

opportunities to discuss areas 2

of concern and interest and are 3

aware of participation 4

opportunities in the process. 5

And we believe the majority of 6

our residents support this 7

project.” (As read) 8

At this point in time, I’m pleased 9

to introduce to you our peer review project lead, 10

Mr. Neil Hutchinson, who is also accompanied by Mr. 11

David Slain, who shall present the Panel with a 12

summary of their findings. 13

MR. HUTCHINSON: Neil Hutchinson, 14

for the record. Thank you, Warden Inglis. Welcome 15

to the Panel. 16

Just by a way of starting, just to 17

reaffirm our overall conclusion, that we support 18

the conclusion of the environmental statement for 19

the DGR project, that the project is not likely to 20

result in any significant adverse environmental 21

effects on the environment. 22

We made that recommendation to the 23

County of Bruce following our review of the three 24

documents: The Hydrology and Surface Water 25

210


Technical Support document; two, the Geology 1

Technical Support document; and three the DGR EA 2

Follow-up Monitoring Program. 3

Now, I say that but of course that 4

goes -- sells short the process that was involved 5

in undertaking this review. 6

We were retained, as Warden Inglis 7

said, in January. We submitted our first draft of 8

our review to the County of Bruce at the end of May 9

2012, May 29th, and at that point it was quite an 10

extensive list of concerns. But I think there was 11

three major concerns we had identified relating to 12

the geology aspects of the project and the 13

hydrogeology aspects, and one major concern 14

relating to the surface water management of the 15

project. 16

And of course, this is typical 17

with these things, many smaller concerns that we’d 18

expected too were just information requests. 19

We met with the County of Bruce, 20

myself and Mr. Slain, at the NWMO offices in July 21

of 2012. At this time we had hoped to hear answers 22

to the many questions that we’d raised but we only 23

heard background information from the project at 24

that meeting and we did not get specific answers to 25

211


the questions that we had raised. 1

We then, the next day July 20th, 2

resubmitted our letter with specific questions for 3

the NWMO. Over the course of that summer, through 4

August and September, Mr. Slain reviewed an 5

abundance of additional information. I met several 6

times with the consultant team and NWMO to refine 7

our concerns and resolve issues. 8

And then in October we submitted 9

our draft peer review, our second technical peer 10

review, to the town for consideration. At that 11

point Terra Dynamics had been satisfied that their 12

issues with geology and hydrogeology had been 13

resolved but there were still issues outstanding 14

with respect to water quality and surface water 15

management. 16

Council then requested that NWMO 17

respond to those concerns and over the course of 18

November and early December in 2012, we went back 19

and forth several more times exchanging 20

information. 21

Finally, on December 5th, 2012, we 22

submitted the -- a disposition table and a letter 23

were provided by NWMO to address our final concerns 24

and we issued our final report to the county. So 25

212


it was a long process. 1

So I’ll repeat, our conclusions, 2

they were made on the basis of our review of the 3

relevant documents, our discussions with the 4

OPG/NWMO representatives and resolution of issues 5

that we raised during the course of our review. 6

For geology, our conclusion is 7

formed by three major concerns that were addressed 8

following Terra Dynamics’ input. 9

First, was that the geological 10

environment of the project -- proposed DGR, is 11

stable from the geotechnical and seismic point of 12

view. 13

Second, the DGR is to be located 14

at great depth below stable geological structures 15

that separate it from Lake Huron. 16

Next, that there are no pathways 17

for groundwater within the DGR to escape to the 18

surface, except by pumping and treatment, where 19

necessary, under the control of the operator. 20

The geology review, completed by 21

Mr. Slain, focused on these three areas requiring 22

further information and those were the location of, 23

and any seismic activity associated with the 24

Grenville Front Tectonic Zone. David asked 25

213


specific questions regarding that. 1

David had also asked specific 2

questions relating to over pressures of groundwater 3

in the Cambrian formation located beneath the 4

proposed DGR in the presence of any potential 5

vertical basement fault structures extending upward 6

to the DGR level and the freshwater aquifer. 7

And the effects of constructing 8

two vertical access shafts on opening up a new 9

fracture network in the rock around the perimeter 10

of the shafts, potentially providing a preferential 11

flow pathway to the freshwater aquifers above. 12

The NWMO provided Terra Dynamics 13

with responses to these concerns and directed Mr. 14

Slain to 13 additional documents for review of 15

additional technical information, which he did. 16

In the end Mr. Slain agreed with 17

the NWMO conclusions that the Palaeozoic 18

sedimentary rocks at the site are seismically 19

quiet. We don’t have to worry about earthquakes. 20

There is no evidence supporting transmissive 21

vertical faults at the site, by which deep 22

groundwater could migrate upward. That is, the 23

groundwater would remain stable at the DGR level. 24

And any fracture network created 25

214


through the construction process could be 1

mitigated, managed and monitored, so that it should 2

not provide a preferential pathway between the DGR 3

and overlying structures. 4

In the end, Mr. Slain concluded 5

that based on the review of all the geoscientific 6

and engineering information provided for our peer 7

review, the Palaeozoic sedimentary rocks beneath 8

the Bruce nuclear site, should provide for an 9

appropriate geologic repository to successfully 10

contain and isolate low and intermediate level 11

radioactive waste for the long-term. 12

That is my summary of Mr. Slain’s 13

findings and I would refer the Panel to Mr. Slain 14

should they have any, more specific, geological 15

questions regarding that. 16

Coming back to surface water, 17

however, the final question that I had -- or the 18

big question that was raised by myself for surface 19

water was that, any surface water that would be 20

contaminated by the project activities will be 21

collected at a central facility which the Proponent 22

has termed the stormwater management pond and can 23

ultimately be treated to the requirements of the 24

Ontario Ministry of the Environment prior to 25

215


discharge. 1

I say this acknowledging that 2

there are three sources of potential contaminants 3

in water from the project that would be collected 4

in the stormwater management pond. 5

The first is small volumes of 6

highly saline groundwater brought to the surface 7

and pumped to the surface from the DGR. We heard 8

this morning about the high levels, 10 times the 9

salinity of seawater, which is of course quite 10

toxic to freshwater aquatic life. 11

The second source is run-off and 12

seepage from the rock that will be excavated to 13

make the DGR. This will be put in a large waste 14

rock pile that will contain seepage and leachate 15

containing trace metals and residues of nitrogen, 16

such as ammonia and nitrate that are left from the 17

blasting process to excavate the DGR. 18

And finally there would be surface 19

run-off of water from the site, what I would call 20

conventional stormwater, you would see around most 21

industrial facilities. 22

So in my opinion, these are the 23

types and sources of contaminants that you would 24

see from a conventional mine built into deep rock. 25

216


So those are the sources of 1

contaminants that would come to this stormwater 2

management facility. 3

I do not agree however with the 4

NWMO conclusions on how they will manage the 5

stormwater, and elaborated that -- on that in my 6

review. 7

The EA documents have not provided 8

assurances and substantiation that the collected 9

water will be safe to discharge to surface water 10

without treatment. 11

Instead, the Proponent says that 12

they will negotiate the terms of this discharge 13

with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment at the 14

regulatory stage of the project and, if necessary, 15

will treat the stormwater or components of it to 16

meet the water quality limits that would be 17

approved by the MOE. 18

They also submit that this 19

stormwater management pond will be operated in the 20

open position, that is, any contents of it will be 21

allowed to drain freely to McGregor Bay and, hence, 22

Lake Huron unless it is shown to be unsafe. 23

It is my conclusion that in spite 24

of the conditions regulated by the Ministry of 25

217


Environment, which are not known at this time, 1

operating the stormwater management pond in the 2

open position poses a threat to the receiving 3

waters of McGregor Bay and Lake Huron when the 4

waters make their way down there. 5

This is the major and only 6

effluent stream from the project. 7

In my review, I recommended that 8

the stormwater management pond be operated in a 9

closed position so that water would only get 10

discharged after it had been shown to be safe. 11

This places the risk and the onus for management on 12

the operator, and not on the environment. 13

In my final submission to the 14

County of Bruce on December 7th, 2012, I stated that 15

my discussions with NWMO: 16

“...have not resolved my key 17

concern, that the [stormwater 18

management] pond be designed 19

for operation in the closed 20

position, with no 21

uncontrolled discharge to 22

surface water until such time 23

as the quality of the 24

discharge is confirmed.” 25

218


End of quote. 1

The NWMO have stated they will 2

rely on the regulatory process to confirm the 3

operation of the stormwater management pond and 4

will obtain the necessary environmental compliance 5

approval from the Ministry of the Environment which 6

is a standard process. 7

They also note that a public 8

review process normally accompanies the exercise of 9

seeking environmental compliance approval. 10

As such, my final conclusion was that the final 11

expected discharge quality, operating configuration 12

and monitoring protocol cannot be confirmed until 13

the -- any environmental compliance approval is 14

approved. 15

I therefore recommended that the 16

County of Bruce submit these concerns to the 17

Ministry of the Environment for consideration 18

during any ECA process if and when that occurs, and 19

that they review any draft ECA for the stormwater 20

management pond when it has been prepared by the 21

Ministry of the Environment. 22

So in closing, the project can be 23

built and operated safely, but additional 24

documentation is required to confirm the conditions 25

219


under which that could occur. 1

Thank you very much. 2


Given the time, Mr. Inglis, Mr. 4

Hutchinson, I will now call a short break and when 5

we reconvene, the Panel will have some questions. 6

So let us reconvene at 10 minutes 7

past 4:00. 8

--- Upon recessing at 3:53 p.m./ 9


--- Upon resuming at 4:11 p.m./ 11


THE CHAIRPERSON: Welcome back, 13

everyone. 14

OPG, I believe you have some 15

information. 16


record. 18

I'd like to follow-up on three 19

items, if I may. 20

The first one was with regard to a 21

question that Dr. Muecke asked us with regard to 22

the property value protection plan. And I just 23

wanted to come back to that because there was some 24

conversation about property value with respect to 25

220


contamination on individuals' properties. 1

In fact, it's with -- and this is 2

in 7.1, Section 1, subsection (a). It's with 3

respect to radioactivity that is a result of DGR 4

operation that is at the DGR site or beyond the 5

site boundaries. 6

So those -- that is covered, so I 7

just wanted to clarify that comment from earlier. 8

I have also two other matters. We 9

have two undertakings, Undertaking 42, which we 10

would provide a completion date of October 7th. And 11

Undertaking 43, a completion date of October 4th. 12


DR. THOMPSON: Dr. Swanson, I 14

understood that 43 was for CNSC staff, so maybe the 15

number is wrong. 16

(LAUGHTER/RIRES) 17

DR. THOMPSON: I understood that 18

43 was the temporal distribution of tritium in 19

drinking water supply wells. Maybe I got the 20

number wrong. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Haddon, if 22

you could clear this up, please. 23

MR. HADDON: Yes, I think I can. 24

OPG's two undertakings were 41 and 42. 25

221



record. 2

Item 41, we'll say, is due October 3

7th and Item Number 42 is October 4

th. Thank you for 4

the clarification. 5

THE CHAIRPERSON: We will now 6

proceed to questions from the Panel regarding the 7

intervention from the County of Bruce. 8

Dr. Archibald? 9


MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Warden Inglis, 11

my question concerns your statement that OPG 12

provided extensive engagement opportunities 13

throughout Bruce County. 14

Could you provide the Panel with 15

an assessment of opportunities that have been given 16

to both discuss the concepts and inform homeowners 17

in the County of Bruce concerning this proposal 18

that led you to believe, as you say in your last 19

bullet, that a majority of residents support this 20

project? 21

MR. INGLIS: For the record, David 22

Inglis. 23

As we have already heard, there 24

has been ongoing consultation, and I did mention 25

222


this in my previous presentation, the second day, 1

that both in the local communities and in the 2

municipalities there was consultation going on and 3

information provided from NWMO at different venues, 4

many venues. I can only speak regarding my local 5

municipality, certainly, in Brockton. 6

We had open houses with -- on a 7

number of occasions at the Walkerton region and 8

other events throughout the municipality. And I 9

know the same thing was going on in other 10

municipalities. 11

But it -- in our mind, in the 12

county's mind, this was going on in all of the 13

communities and was considered extensive. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a follow-15

up to that, Warden Inglis. 16

The Panel have heard repeated 17

references to the number of open houses that have 18

taken place throughout Bruce County, but the Panel 19

would appreciate if you could provide us with a 20

little bit more back-up for your final bullet where 21

you say, quote: 22

"We believe the majority of 23

our residents support this 24

project." 25

223


So for example, at the open houses 1

were there records kept regarding the number of 2

people who expressed support for the DGR or were 3

there other methods whereby the -- either the 4

elected officials or the administrative staff in 5

the County of Bruce collected evidence that a 6

majority of residents supported the project? 7

MR. INGLIS: David Inglis, for the 8

record. 9

My recollection is that there 10

weren't any records kept. Some of that would be 11

information that we would be gathering personally 12

on the number of people that attended and the 13

comments that they made. 14

I know that myself, as the Mayor 15

of Brockton, I have had -- I've had hardly anyone, 16

and I would say maybe no one, approach me and say 17

that they were opposed to the DGR, the low level 18

and intermediate level waste. So that's personally 19

in my office and by phone call or delegations to 20

council. 21

And I don't -- I don't recall and 22

I'm sure we have not had anyone come to County 23

Council in opposition to the DGR that I can recall. 24

So the interest and opposition -- 25

224


I'm making that statement because I believe the 1

majority are not opposed because we haven't heard 2

any that -- a large number that are saying they are 3

opposed to it. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: So Mr. Inglis, 5

to paraphrase you, I think what I’m hearing you say 6

is the absence of evidence of opposition is, in 7

your mind, being equated to the evidence of a 8

majority in support? 9


record. 11

Yes, I think that is what I’m 12

saying. 13


Dr. Muecke, did you have a 15

question? 16

MEMBER MUECKE: No, it answers 17

mine. 18

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Panel would 19

like to address a request from Mr. Gibbons in the 20

previous presentation, where Mr. Gibbons indicated 21

that he had been unable to obtain a copy of a 22

November 10th, 2004 agreement between OPG and Bruce 23

County. 24

Warden Inglis, would you be 25

225


willing to accept an undertaking to provide the 1

Panel with this document? And this was in 2

reference to Mr. Gibbons’ assertion that there is -3

- was indeed an agreement dated November 10th, 2004. 4

MR. INGLIS: I’m not aware of any 5

agreement so it would be difficult for me to 6

present that document. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: So Mr. Inglis, 8

to be clear, the agreement referenced in Mr. 9

Gibbons’ written submission and oral submission, to 10

your knowledge, does not exist? 11

MR. INGLIS: That’s correct. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hutchinson, 13

the Panel would like to know if you would be 14

available for tomorrow’s proceedings as well, 15

because we note your -- with interest, your 16

comments on the stormwater management pond. 17

However, tomorrow is when we were 18

– had planned to mostly focus on those issues. So 19

would you be available tomorrow or do we have to 20

deal with some of our questions today? 21


for the record. 23

I could be available tomorrow. It 24

was not in my plans but between myself and my wife, 25

226


I could make that happen. 1

(LAUGHTER/RIRES) 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: With -- in 3

advance, thanks to your wife. The Panel would very 4

much appreciate that because as you can imagine, 5

there’s still a lot to discuss on other matters 6

today. 7

And in the interests and fairness 8

of the people who still have not presented, we 9

would prefer that very much. 10


for the record. 12

It’s the understanding that I 13

would be open for more questions tomorrow or you 14

want me here as an observer for MOE’s presentation? 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: It would be open 16

for more questions tomorrow. Given that 17

understanding, and we’re very grateful, Mr. 18

Hutchinson for that, the Panel will now proceed to 19

proposed questions from the floor. 20

We have seven people listed for 21

questions. Before you proceed to the microphone, I 22

would ask each of you to please think whether or 23

not you need your question addressed today or 24

whether you would be willing to defer your question 25

227


to the willing host community special day, which is 1

October 10th. 2

The reason I am asking you to 3

think hard about this is we still have one 30-4

minute oral intervention plus four 10-minute oral 5

statements, including two from people who have 6

travelled a long distance, from Michigan, to appear 7

in front of us. 8

So with that, I would simply ask 9

you to consider whether or not you really require 10

your question to be addressed today. 11

And I will call each of you to the 12

microphone and if you still would require your 13

question answered, you can proceed, beginning with 14

Mr. Storck. 15


MR. STORCK: Thank you, Madam 17

Chair. My -- I have a two part question arising 18

from a statement by the Warden of Bruce County. 19

Just a quick background, in the 20

EIS statement on socio—economic impact, the DGR, 21

its stated that -- this is not a quote but a 22

paraphrase -- skills and expertise for underground 23

work would not likely be available in the local or 24

regional study area. 25

228


The Warden’s letter specifically 1

mentions the DGR would provide additional 2

employment opportunities. My two part question is, 3

was the socio—economic impact statement of OPG -- 4

did Bruce County commission a third-party, 5

independent peer review of that socio—economic 6

statement? 7

And the second part of my question 8

is was the DGR ever examined within the context of 9

the official plan? 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Inglis? 11


record. 13

I believe to answer both those 14

questions with one word, no. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Storck? 16

MR. STORCK: Madam Chair, I’d just 17

like to -- I’m not quite sure how to express this. 18

I would simply like to note that county counsel is 19

composed of mayors of all the municipalities in 20

Bruce County, which is pertinent to what we’ve 21

heard today about the hosting agreement. 22

Thank you. 23

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Robertson? 24

MR. ROBERTSON: Madam Chair, 25

229


through you to Mayor Inglis or Warden Inglis. And 1

that is my question deals with a property value 2

assessment. 3

In the property value protection 4

plan in Port Hope, there’s a comprehensive section 5

dealing with loss to the municipality, resulting 6

from a drop in property value assessment. 7

In our concern with the agreement 8

signed in October of ’04, is the property value 9

assessment in that plan has no allowance for losses 10

associated to property value assessment. You’re 11

still supporting that agreement, on that basis, 12

Mayor Inglis, to you? 13


MR. INGLIS: For the record, David 15

Inglis. 16

Yes, I don’t really believe there 17

will be a drop in property values. Several of us 18

went to the WIPP site in New Mexico, and the mayors 19

and the governor told us that property values have 20

gone up, employment is strong and a very successful 21

community. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Robertson, 23

you may want to continue pursuing your concerns on 24

the socio—economic days in our schedule, because at 25

230


least the consultant for Kincardine, who did the 1

peer review of the socio—ec portion of the EIS will 2

be back those days. 3

MR. ROBERTSON: Thank you. And if 4

I could just -- one final clarification on Mr. 5

Gibbons’ question, does the county of -- since 6

there will be no payment for losses in property 7

value assessment, does the – Bruce County get any 8

funding as a result of this project? 9



record. 12

No, the county does not receive 13

any funding. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Dailey? 15

DR. DAILEY: Thank you, Madam 16

Chair. Ellen Dailey, for the record. 17

In his presentation, Warden Inglis 18

mentioned that the project was safe from a health 19

perspective. I’d like to know if OPG gave a 20

specific presentation about the potential health 21

risks of the proposed project to the County 22

Council? 23



231


record. 1

I believe it was mentioned in 2

presentations to County Council that the health to 3

the community would be safe. That it’d be a safe 4

project. 5

THE CHAIRPERSON: So I think the 6

question, Mr. Inglis, was did the County Council 7

receive a specific presentation from OPG focusing 8

on health? 9

MR. INGLIS: Not -- I don’t 10

believe so, not in my time on County Council. 11


Dr. Dailey, one quick additional 13

--- 14

DR. DAILEY: No, thank you. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 16

Mr. Gibbons? 17

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, I have a 18

question but I also need some clarification. I 19

have two newspaper articles that state that Mr. 20

Squires, from OPG, is stated saying that there was 21

an agreement with Bruce County. 22

So I’m not sure whether I should 23

present that as a -- present those articles as 24

documents or whether we could have some 25

232


clarification? 1


Gibbons. 3

OPG, can you help us with this 4

please? 5


record. 7

I'm sorry –- Mr. Gibbons, if he 8

could provide the date of the article –- I just, 9

something... 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gibbons 11

would you please provide the date of that article? 12

MR. GIBBONS: Yes. I want to 13

start by saying, I actually got these documents 14

from the environmental impact statement Volume 2.2, 15

and it's page -- one of them is on page 102 of 900. 16

I read them all. 17

(LAUGHTER/RIRES) 18

MR. GIBBONS: That would be great. 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: So OPG there, 20

you've got the specific reference? 21


record. 23

There was funding provided for the 24

International Ploughing Match of $100,000, the 25

233


Lindsay Tract Trail Development at $50,000 and 1

these were provided as part of the normal outreach 2

program that OPG has. 3

THE CHAIRPERSON: So is that what 4

is referred to in terms of this quote unquote from 5

Mr. Squires? 6

MR. GIBBONS: Could I read one 7

sentence? 8

“A new agreement with OPG was 9

reached Thursday” –- this would have been -- 10

Saturday was the 13th –- whatever the date would 11

have been the previous Thursday –- “and it 12

guarantees the county receives $250,000 a year 13

through a combination of taxation or direct funding 14

from OPG”. 15

That's a sentence from this 16

article that OPG provided to the Joint Review 17

Panel. 18


record. 20

Again, could I ask for the year of 21

the article? 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gibbons? 23

MR. GIBBONS: The article was 24

Saturday, November 13th, 2004, in the Owen Sound Sun 25

234


Times. But there were also articles in other 1

newspapers. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms. Swami, 3

and also Mr. Gibbons did provide you with the 4

precise page in your appendix. 5


record. 7

May I suggest we take an 8

undertaking and just come back with some more clear 9

information? 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we have 11

got to that point, yes. Undertaking Number 45 will 12

be for OPG to provide the Panel with a resolution 13

of the issue around whether or not there was an 14

agreement as referenced in an article in the Owen 15

Sound –- what's the name of the newspaper again? 16

MR. GIBBONS: Sun Times. 17

THE CHAIRPERSON: --- Sun Times as 18

it appears in the EIS Volume 2.2, page 102. 19

---UNDERTAKING NO. 45/ENGAGEMENT No. U-45: 20

By OPG to the JRP to provide 21

resolution of issues around if 22

there was an agreement as noted in 23

the November 13, 2004 Owen Sound 24

Sun Times article on page102 of 25

235


900 in Volume 2 of the DGR 1

Environmental Impact Statement. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Gibbons? 3

MR. GIBBONS: Yes, my question to 4

Mr. Hutchinson. 5

The Hutchinson Report was based on 6

the present plan for the DGR or an earlier plan, 7

knowing that the hosting agreement allows for 8

doubling the size of the DGR, and that would mean 9

doubling the size of the rock pile, doubling the 10

size of the contaminants that would be removed and 11

leeching into ponds, does Mr. Hutchinson have an 12

opinion on whether these additional pollutants 13

running freely into Lake Huron could be a problem? 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hutchinson? 15


for the record. 17

Our assessment was based on 18

documents that were prepared and submitted in March 19

of 2011. So I am not aware of any documents that 20

talk about expanding the size, so I think that 21

might just be speculation. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG can you 23

provide additional information? 24


236


record. 1

As we've talked about through the 2

number of weeks that we've been here, this project 3

is for the low and intermediate level waste for the 4

operations and refurbishment from OPG owned and 5

operated facilities. 6

We did consider addition of waste 7

arising from decommissioning as part of the 8

cumulative effects. It's mentioned in various 9

places in our EIS. 10

However, that's not the project 11

that we're seeking approval for at this point in 12

time. 13

Should we proceed with that, which 14

we expect to do, we’ll go through the regulatory 15

approvals that are required, which could include 16

another environmental assessment for this same type 17

of process or a similar process. 18

And it would be through a normal 19

approval that we would seek to make that type of 20

change to this facility. 21


Mr. Preston? 23

MR. PRESTON: Madam Chair, through 24

you, I'd like to address this question to the 25

237


warden. 1

Mr. Warden, when did you become 2

aware that decommissioning waste was going to be 3

included in the DGR project, and if so, was it a 4

subject of discussion at the County Council 5

meetings? 6



record. 9

I would say just within the last 10

few months I became aware of that, and it was never 11

discussed at County Council. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Preston, is 13

that all you needed to know at this point? 14

MR. PRESTON: Yes, Madam Chair. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Gibbons? 16

MS. GIBBONS: Madam Chair, my 17

question is with respect to -– we believe the 18

majority of residents support the project –- was 19

there a county-wide vote or referendum for all 20

residents of Bruce County which would substantiate 21

this statement? 22


MR. INGLIS: No there was not. 24


238


So with that, I will conclude the 1

presentation and questions from the County of 2

Bruce. Thank you very much Warden Inglis and Mr. 3

Hutchinson, Mr. Slain. 4

We will now proceed with our next 5

30-minute intervention which is from the Canadian 6

Environmental Law Association. 7

Please proceed. 8

--- ORAL INTERVENTION BY THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL 9

LAW ASSOCIATION: 10

MS. NADARAJAH: Good afternoon, 11

Madam Chair, and Panel Members. My name is Ramani 12

Nadarajah on council with the Canadian 13


With me today is Mr. Wilf Ruland. 15

Mr. Ruland was retained to do an independent review 16

of the environmental impact statement for the 17

proposed Deep Geologic Repository. 18

Mr. Ruland is a hydrogeologist and 19

a professional geoscientist with over 25 years of 20

experience. He was assisted and advised in his 21

work by Dr. Chris Smart of the University of 22

Western Ontario. Dr. Smart is an expert in the 23

field of karst hydrogeology as well as glacial 24

erosion. 25

239


Mr. Ruland will be taking you 1

through a PowerPoint presentation which summarizes 2

his key findings. During his presentation he's 3

also going to be referring to his report dated 4

August 10th which was filed previously with the 5

Panel. 6

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. 7

Ruland. 8

MR. RULAND: So, it's Wilf Ruland 9

for the record, and good afternoon Panel Members. 10

Very glad to be here. 11

The focus of my review of the DGR 12

proposal was to look at the overall merits of the 13

proposal from a perspective of hydrogeology, the 14

adequacy of the site investigation, potential 15

groundwater quality impacts, and potential surface 16

water quality impacts. 17

And again, from a hydrogeology 18

perspective, the adequacy of the EIS can be 19

measured by the degree to which it provides a 20

comprehensive description of the local geology, 21

hydrology, and hydrogeology, a comprehensive 22

assessment of potential ground and surface water 23

impacts at all stages of the project, detailed 24

proposals for mitigation and appropriate monitoring 25

240


and contingency plans. 1

So these are the things that I was 2

looking for, together with my colleague Dr. Smart, 3

as we went through the documentation for the site, 4

and there certainly is a lot of documentation. 5

We found quite early on that we 6

got bogged down in what I'm going to call process 7

issues. And I don't want to spend too much of my 8

precious time on this, but I just want to say it 9

was frustrating and it hampered us. 10

The IR process was the worst 11

either of us have ever encountered, and the fact 12

that new documents were being submitted by the 13

Proponent and the Canadian Nuclear Safety 14

Commission at a very late date made our work very 15

challenging. 16

We weren't able to do as thorough 17

a review as we might have because of these issues. 18

We do have some recommendations on 19

a go-forward basis, and these are provided on page 20

6 of my report. I'm not going to go into those in 21

detail now though, we're going to move on. 22

In terms then, about the site 23

characterization. 24

I talk about the site 25

241


characterization on page 4 of my report and will be 1

getting to my opinion about the site 2

characterization overall when we get to slide 45. 3

But I just want to say at this point that, overall, 4

my opinion is the site is potentially suitable from 5

a hydrogeology perspective, but there are a number 6

of issues which could and should have been 7

investigated or explained more thoroughly in the 8

documentation before us to provide better 9

assurances about viability. 10

And the issues requiring further 11

investigation or explanation are summarized in the 12

bullet points on the slide. We have high hydraulic 13

heads in the Cambrian sandstone which underlies the 14

DGR repository and a lack of information about 15

hydraulic heads in the pre-Cambrian basement. 16

And one might ask, why does this 17

matter? The reason it matters is because, as 18

things stand right now, when I look at the DGR 19

proposal as a hydrogeologist, there are two things 20

that are necessary pre-conditions for contaminants 21

from down at that depth to make it back up to the 22

ground surface. 23

The one is we have to have a 24

pathway, and the other is we have to have a 25

242


hydraulic potential strong enough to push 1

contaminants all the way back up to the ground. 2

Remember, we’re down deep below 3

the ground surface. 4

And as things stand right now, 5

when I look at the DGR host horizon, I’m not seeing 6

that hydraulic potential. I’m not seeing a push 7

that could ever get contaminants from there back up 8

to the ground surface. 9

But what surprised Dr. Smart and 10

myself was, down below the DGR host horizon in the 11

Cambrian sandstone, we do find that hydraulic 12

potential, and it’s a rather dramatic one. 13

I go into the details at the top 14

of page 7 of my report. But the overpressures are 15

such that hydraulic heads of 165 metres above 16

ground surface are present down there. And that 17

means that if you were to drill a well into these 18

units below the DGR host horizon, they’d be 19

artesian wells. 20

The water would just flow all the 21

way back to the ground surface and if you extended 22

your well casing, you’d have to go up to 165 metres 23

before that well stopped flowing. There’s a lot of 24

pressure down there. 25

243


It’s an unusual condition, it’s a 1

difficult to understand condition, and we didn’t 2

really find any good explanation for it in the EIS 3

documentation. And we’re concerned that it might 4

extend downward into the pre-Cambrian basement as 5

well. 6

So this is a concern in the event 7

that we ever have a hydraulic connection 8

established between these deeper layers and the DGR 9

host horizon that, all of a sudden, we could find 10

ourselves with the hydraulic potential that’s 11

needed to push contaminants up to the ground 12

surface. 13

And so we’ve got a couple of 14

recommendations on this point. Unfortunately, the 15

way the presentation is structured -- let me see. 16

Yes, okay. 17

The first is, we’d like to see the 18

Proponent provide more information on the shut-in 19

pressure hydraulic conductivity and water quality 20

at the pre-Cambrian contact. 21

And secondly, we noted with 22

concern that the ventilation shaft for the proposed 23

DGR facility is to go well below the depth of the 24

facility itself. The facility itself is at about 25

244


680 metres below ground surface. The ventilation 1

shaft is proposed to go another 60 or so metres 2

deeper. 3

And that’s getting us a whole lot 4

closer to that over-pressured layer down deep. And 5

we’re just wondering if that’s really necessary and 6

we’re thinking that the Proponent should provide a 7

discussion on that point. 8

Okay. The second issue that was 9

of concern to us had to do with deep oil gas 10

exploration boreholes which are found in the 11

vicinity of the site. 12

We just would have liked to -- we 13

would have liked to find more information on them 14

in the EIS and the supporting materials and we’ve 15

got a recommendation that more information be 16

provided and explicitly addressed. 17

The third concern is that, in the 18

documentation, we’re finding that we consider, I 19

guess, a non-conservative approach being taken to 20

the description of the formations between the 21

ground surface and the DGR host horizon. And 22

there’s talk of the Silurian formations, which 23

extend from 170 to 450 metres below ground surface, 24

as being barrier formations. 25

245


And when we think of barrier, I’m 1

thinking of a hydraulic barrier. And we’re 2

concerned that, although those formations give the 3

appearance of being a barrier formation right now, 4

under the conditions that they’re in right now, the 5

hydraulic barrier that these formations provide 6

right now might not be present at a future date 7

given the disturbance that the DGR excavation is 8

going to impose on the system. 9

The Salina formation is 10

predominantly composed of carbonates and 11

evaporates, and these are geologic materials whose 12

permeability increases in the presence of flowing 13

water. And we’re concerned that the big shafts 14

required for the main shaft and the ventilation 15

shaft are potentially going to expose those 16

formations to flowing water up and down the sides 17

and in the disturbed bedrock around the shafts and 18

that this could increase the permeability of them 19

significantly. 20

So our recommendation is that 21

further work on the project should be premised on a 22

more prudent assumption that the Silurian bedrock 23

down to a depth of 450 metres below ground surface 24

will not necessarily provide an effective hydraulic 25

246


barrier over the long term and that the Proponent 1

should model DGR performance using worst case 2

permeabilities. And to derive those worst case 3

permeabilities, we’re recommending long-term leach 4

testing of anything that’s being considered a 5

barrier formation. 6

Now, that’s not to say that we 7

don’t have a good barrier formation in place. We 8

do. 9

Below 450 metres below the ground 10

surface, we’re into a solid 200 metres of shale. 11

We do feel that that will provide a very effective 12

hydraulic barrier. 13

What we take exception to is 14

classing the overlying units as barrier formations 15

as well when the very nature of them could be 16

affected by the DGR excavation and water that might 17

be flowing through it. 18

I heard with interest that there 19

was discussion about tritium and tritium 20

contamination in the area of the Western Waste 21

Management Facility when I was sitting in on the 22

proceedings earlier today. This was certainly a 23

concern for Dr. Smart and myself as well, partly 24

because it speaks to workplace practices and how 25

247


spills and other incidents are handled, partly 1

because of worker exposure, partly because the DGR 2

excavation is going to be a disturbance of the 3

local hydrogeology and we could see the existing 4

plume around the Western Waste Management Facility 5

being drawn towards the DGR excavation. 6

So we have a number of 7

recommendations that pertain to the tritium that’s 8

-- tritium contamination that’s found in the area, 9

and these are outlined in bullet points here. And 10

there’s a bit of a typo in the first bullet point 11

there. 12

There was a first phrase that was 13

cut off. It should read that the Proponent should 14

provide full disclosure regarding workplace 15

practices and incidents which led to the tritium 16

contamination observed in groundwater throughout 17

the area of the the Western Waste Management 18

Facility. Then the distribution of tritium on the 19

subsurface should be mapped by integrating all 20

monitoring data and it should be communicated to 21

site operators, regulators and the public. 22

It was clear to us from our review 23

of the EIS and the supporting documentation that 24

the Proponent had a lot of information available to 25

248


them. 1

We could not find enough 2

information to really get a full picture ourselves 3

of where the tritium was and wasn't, what the 4

sources might be, and what its distribution might 5

be vertically and laterally. And that's not good. 6

That's not good. Powers -- sorry, information 7

should be shared broadly and equally in a process 8

like this. 9

We do think the migration of 10

tritium in the subsurface should be modelled a bit 11

more prudently than was done to date in the work 12

carried out by Mr. Sykes, or Dr. Sykes, I'm not 13

sure of his title, and we think that the potential 14

for karst to move groundwater very quickly should 15

be considered in that modelling. 16

We'd like to see full descriptions 17

of what measures are going to be undertaken to 18

ensure that workers in the stormwater management 19

pond don't become contaminated by tritium or other 20

radiological contaminants during construction and 21

operation of the DGR. 22

Again, the concern is the massive 23

excavation for the DGR shafts could be drawing this 24

contaminated water towards them. 25

249


Then we're looking for targets to 1

be specified for tritium, gross beta, and carbon-14 2

in the surface water monitoring program. The 3

Proponent has indicated that they'll be monitoring 4

for them, but we couldn't find the actual targets 5

for that monitoring. We'd like a rationale to be 6

provided for each as well. 7

And finally, obviously, workers 8

who are in an environment like this need to be 9

briefed properly on what they're going to be 10

facing. 11

Okay, in terms of the 12

hydrogeological impact assessment, we looked at two 13

timeframes and we felt that things could be broken 14

up really into two timeframes. The first was 15

during construction and operations and the second 16

then was during the postclosure period. 17

Our feeling is that for the 18

construction operations period, the proposed 19

groundwater monitoring program is adequate and we 20

don't think that there should be problems from a 21

groundwater quality perspective, assuming we've got 22

a well run site, and in particular, assuming that 23

spills are promptly reported and thoroughly 24

addressed. And we can't stress this enough. 25

250


At the Western Waste Management 1

Facility obviously something went wrong and 2

contaminants have had a good amount of time to get 3

into the ground there. We can't have that happen 4

at the DGR site. Things need to be reported 5

quickly and dealt with quickly. 6

There are overburdened layers that 7

provide some containment and protection of the 8

groundwater flow systems beneath the site, but if 9

you dawdle too long it's going to break through 10

that into the bedrock. The bedrock is karstic, and 11

then it's a matter of just a few days before that 12

water could find itself in Lake Huron. Flows in 13

the karstic bedrock are very fast. 14

So we've got some time, if a spill 15

occurs, to deal with it, but we need to be upfront 16

with it and we got to do it fast. 17

In terms of postclosure impacts, 18

the Proponent’s impact assessment concluded that 19

there shouldn't be any long-term groundwater 20

impacts based on two key assumptions. The first, 21

assuming the DGR facility and the bedrock remain 22

intact and second, that the shaft seals and 23

backfill are effective in eliminating vertical 24

hydraulic connections. 25

251


We think the first assumption is 1

fairly reasonable; we have significant concerns 2

about the second assumption, the assumption that 3

the shaft seals and backfill are going to eliminate 4

vertical hydraulic connections up and down these 5

shaft tunnels. I'm going to speak about that a 6

little bit more. 7

So as a hydrogeologist, when I 8

looked at this proposal, if we could somehow 9

magically take the wastes that are proposed to be 10

deposited down there and just get them into the 11

bedrock at 680 metres deep, I would have no 12

concerns at all. My concerns pertain to the fact 13

that we have to blast two tunnels all the way down 14

there in order to get the wastes down. 15

In the long-term the biggest weak 16

part -- the biggest weak point of the whole 17

proposal is the disturbance that's being caused by 18

these two major tunnels that are going to be 19

blasted into the bedrock. That's the weak part of 20

the whole undertaking, not the geology itself. The 21

geology itself is very good, but these shaft 22

tunnels are an issue. 23

The first issue is that as the 24

shaft tunnels are being sunk there's going to be 25

252


efforts made to seal them off to prevent 1

groundwater from coming in, but outside of those 2

seals there's going to be a disturbed area of rock 3

that will be very hard to monitor and on which 4

water will be potentially be moving down from the 5

surface to depth; very challenging to do anything 6

about that while the tunnels are open. 7

During the closure period when the 8

tunnels are being backfilled and sealed, is going 9

to be the best opportunity to try and deal with 10

that concern, but it's going to be very, very 11

challenging to create an effective seal that's 12

going to last for hundreds of thousands of years. 13

I took a look at the documentation 14

that was available around the study of excavation 15

damage zones and remediation of these. And I 16

understand that the Proponent is committed to 17

minimizing the excavation damage zone and to seal 18

these things as effectively as they can, but I'm 19

not seeing that the science is there to allow the 20

Proponent to say with confidence that that can be 21

done. 22

I think vertical permeabilities in 23

those backfilled shafts are going to be much, much 24

higher than they are in the host rocks. 25

253


So we're not going back to a 1

scenario where we dig our shafts, we place our 2

wastes, we seal our shafts and we're back to the 3

way things were before. We're not going back to 4

the way things were before. I don't think so. 5

I think it's much more likely that 6

we're going to be about a fracture of a thousand 7

more permeable in the vertical direction around 8

these shafts. 9

One of the reasons that I bring 10

this to your attention, the Proponent has 11

acknowledged that there's a potential vulnerability 12

there, and they certainly seem committed to doing 13

what they can. 14

The one thing I was really 15

missing, when I looked at the monitoring proposals 16

for the site, was a proposal to actually have 17

monitoring wells right on and along the course of 18

these shafts, which is where any contaminants 19

coming up from down deep are going to be moving. 20

They're not going to be moving through the intact 21

bedrock up into the vicinity of the sight, they're 22

going to be moving right up those shafts, and 23

that's where I'd like to see monitoring wells. 24

I'd like to see a monitoring well 25

254


nested atop each of those vertical shafts. They 1

should be installed after all the work on the 2

shafts has been done. The bottom well should be at 3

the top of the low permeability shaft, seal and 4

backfill materials, and then they should go all the 5

way up to the ground surface from there. Minimum 6

spacing of 40 metres. 7

Okay, moving on to concerns about 8

design and operations. 9

For the most part this was well 10

done. The main concerns we have, echoing the last 11

presenters, have to do with the surface water or 12

stormwater management pond. 13

And it's important that this be 14

gotten right, because when it comes to the entire 15

undertaking, we have to keep in mind that when we 16

talk about groundwater contamination and the 17

potential for the nuclear wastes that are down in 18

the proposed DGR facility ever getting back up 19

close to the biosphere and causing impacts here, 20

those are theoretical possibilities. They’re not a 21

certainty. 22

What is certain is that the 23

construction operations here are going to cause 24

water quality impacts. All of those impacted 25

255


waters are going to be collected into the storm 1

water management pond, and that pond is going to 2

discharge to Lake Huron. 3

So this is the one area where 4

we’re sure there’s going to be impacts on water 5

quality on site and we need to make sure that we do 6

what we can to prevent those impacts from going off 7

site. 8

And I’m looking at time, and time 9

is tight. But there’s four recommendations 10

pertaining to the storm water pond that I would 11

like the Panel and the Proponent to think hard 12

about because these do matter. 13

Again, the storm pond is the area 14

that is going to be collecting contaminated water. 15

One of the things we’re missing 16

are any sort of commitments regarding discharge 17

limits for organic chemicals on things like 18

benzene, toluene, xylenes, polynuclear aromatic 19

hydrocarbons. These are things that I expect to 20

find on site. We’ve got no proposed discharge 21

limits for them. 22

On the site tour, I pushed the 23

representatives from OPG to do what they could to 24

develop these criteria so that we could review them 25

256


in time to report to the Panel. And we got a 1

sympathetic listening, but that was all. 2

And I don’t think it would cost 3

the Proponent anything to disclose minimum targets 4

for organic chemicals in the surface water pond. 5

That doesn’t take away from the 6

fact that they’ll have to negotiate things with the 7

Ministry of the Environment, which ultimately is 8

the regulator, but they could voluntarily come up 9

with their own recommended targets. 10

The capacity of the pond is a 11

concern. The current capacity proposed is for a 12

hundred-year storm. 13

We’d like it to be sufficient to 14

contain what’s called the regional storm, the 15

equivalent of Hurricane Hazel. That would be a 16

much greater amount than just the hundred-year 17

storm. 18

One of the reasons this is 19

important is because the Proponent has made a 20

commitment to “close the gate” if they have adverse 21

surface water results in the pond. And if you’re 22

closing the gate, effectively what you’re doing is 23

reducing the capacity of the pond because you’re 24

allowing water to store up in there. You need to 25

257


have some redundant capacity if you’re going to be 1

doing that. 2

Finally, aside from sort of grab 3

sample sampling of the surface water pond, we’d 4

like to recommend continuous measuring of 5

conductivity to assess ongoing changes in pond 6

water quality. And this in particular if the pond 7

is -- if the pond gate is going to be left in an 8

open position. 9

Okay. With regards to monitoring, 10

we looked very carefully at the monitoring proposal 11

for the site. One of the things that struck us was 12

the 300 year post-closure monitoring period. That 13

seems very arbitrary. It seems very short. 14

Even at landfills in the Province 15

of Ontario, municipal waste landfills, they’re 16

required to monitor for the contaminating lifespan 17

of the facility. And in the province, that’s 18

generally acknowledged now for a landfill to be on 19

the order of three to 500 years. 20

So we could end up with a scenario 21

where the province’s municipal waste landfills have 22

to be monitored longer than the DGR facility if the 23

Proponent’s proposal is accepted here. 24

We’d like to recommend that the 25

258


Panel impose an open-ended, as long as possible 1

monitoring period for the minimum monitoring period 2

of 1,000 years. 3

In order to make sure that robust 4

monitoring programs are developed, we’d like the 5

details to be made available to the public, 6

including all EA stakeholders, for review and 7

comment. We would have liked to have seen that 8

made available to us so that we could have informed 9

the Panel as to what we thought of the monitoring 10

proposals, but it’s never too late. 11

We think monitoring programs 12

should be developed and made available for public 13

review and comment through this process. Arm’s 14

length review of the data is important and should 15

be established by the Proponent. 16

And when it comes to monitoring 17

over the timeframes that we’re talking, which is 18

300 years, that’s just an eternity in my 19

profession. Three hundred (300) years ago, there 20

was no field of hydrogeology. And so we need to be 21

making sure that this monitoring program isn’t 22

static, that it’s evolving as best practices and 23

technologies evolve. 24

Finally, when it comes to 25

259


contingency plans, there really should have been 1

rudimentary contingency plans provided in the 2

documentation. And we can think of a number of 3

scenarios that are conceivable where it would have 4

been helpful to see what the Proponent was 5

thinking. 6

The scenarios are outlined on page 7

18 of my presentation. I’m not going to have time 8

to take you through those, but I just want to draw 9

your attention to those. They’re in bullet points 10

mid-page. 11

And my time is up. I just want to 12

thank you for the opportunity of speaking today. 13


much. 15

Panel Members, do we have some 16

questions? Dr. Muecke? 17


MEMBER MUECKE: Yes. First of 19

all, could you explain to me your recommendation 20

that OPG should obtain additional drilling 21

information by going into the pre-Cambrian? 22

Are you expecting higher 23

overpressures in the pre-Cambrian, or what would be 24

the purpose of drilling further into the pre-25

260


Cambrian? 1

MR. RULAND: Wilf Ruland, for the 2

record. 3

I very much appreciate that 4

question. My report obviously wasn’t as clear as 5

it should be. 6

We are not hoping to see further 7

drilling at the site. There’s a real risk when it 8

comes to things like this of over drilling and 9

basically increasing the risks through the drilling 10

that you’re doing. 11

We were hoping there might be more 12

information out there in the data collected by the 13

Proponent that just hasn’t made its way into the 14

reports. And so we were basically urging that they 15

glean through their -- the information available to 16

them to see if there’s more information there. 17

We’re not proposing another 18

borehole be drilled all the way down there. 19

MEMBER MUECKE: Okay. Thanks for 20

clarifying that. 21

Talking about drilling, and your 22

recommendation six states -- if I understand you 23

correctly now -- clarify it, please, if I’m wrong. 24

You’re stating that after the shaft seal has been 25

261


emplaced, you would like to see a nest of 1

monitoring valves installed on the shaft seal. Am 2

I right? 3


record. 5

Just to be clear, this would be in 6

the shallow horizons. Not all the way down to 7

depth, but in the shallow horizons where the 8

impermeable shaft seals end. This is in the 170 9

metres -- the upper 170 metres of the formation. 10

The attempts to seal off that 11

shaft are going to be much less rigorous once we 12

get above what OPG considers its barrier horizons. 13

And in that upper area, we would 14

like to see detailed monitoring done. And we’d 15

like to see it done in the shaft because that’s 16

where we foresee contaminant to be moving, in or 17

immediately around. 18

MEMBER MUECKE: Would these valves 19

not compromise the seal? 20

MR. RULAND: If they went deeper, 21

yes. But from 170 metres back to the ground 22

surface, our read of the documentation was that 23

there wasn’t going to be a rigorous attempt made 24

any more to make that shaft impermeable. 25

262


Maybe we’ve got that wrong, but 1

that was our read of the documentation. 2

MEMBER MUECKE: Well let us hear 3

from OPG about that. 4



So in the upper formations, 7

approximately 170 metres, the rock is permeable. 8

And as noted, there’s not intent to try to put a 9

very highly permeable seal in the middle of a low 10

permeability rock. 11

The exact match of it and the 12

depths would go with the actual characteristics of 13

the rock at the site. 14

MEMBER MUECKE: But what are your 15

thoughts about putting nested monitoring wells into 16

it? 17



So we haven’t developed detailed 20

monitoring plans, in part, because that’s some 21

decades from now but I would think that that is a 22

very reasonable suggestion, that we should be able 23

to put some monitoring wells in the shallow system 24

close to the shafts. 25

263


So it’s certainly be a technical 1

possibility that we would consider. 2

MR. KING: Frank King, for the 3

record. 4

If I could just add, the -- as 5

part of the decommissioning licence application, 6

which would be -- as Dr. Gierszewski said, many 7

decades from now. 8

There would be a comprehensive 9

proposal with respect to one, shaft sealing, what 10

is the final design of the shaft seal, and two, any 11

monitoring not only around the seal but any 12

monitoring around the site that would be -- have to 13

be proposed in detail, of course, at the time of 14

applying for the decommissioning licence. 15

MEMBER MUECKE: My next question 16

is to OPG. In terms of the Silurian as a hydraulic 17

barrier, could you comment on that? 18


record. 20

The Silurian represents a 21

thickness of around 280 metres. It’s characterized 22

as an aquitard, largely because of its rough mass 23

permeabilities or, excuse me, hydraulic 24

conductivities of 10 to the minus 11 metres per 25

264


second or less. 1

There are only two units in there 2

that we discussed earlier today, four metres at the 3

A1 and the Guelph formation, another four metre 4

thick confined aquifer. 5

Only the A1 appears to have been 6

influenced by events at surface and that only 7

during glacial events when boundary conditions 8

change and allow water to recharge to depth. 9

So I guess the feeling is is that 10

those units would maintain a barrier integrity over 11

the postclosure period. And I think certainly 12

during construction, the sealing of those units, as 13

we pass through them, would prevent excessive flows 14

in the two permeable units within that 280 metre 15

section. 16

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Two of the 17

concerns are the same as those from Dr. Muecke. 18

Mr. Ruland, you stated that you 19

were concerned about the deep drilling of the 20

ventilation shaft near the pre—Cambrian contact 21

zone and possible interaction with high over 22

pressures. 23

My question to OPG is, is it 24

really necessary to drill the ventilation or to 25

265


construct the ventilation shaft to that depth? 1

2


record. 4

The ventilation shaft is designed 5

as the main transport shaft for the waste rock 6

removal during the DGR development. As such, we 7

have the skipping, the transport, we have the raise 8

down into the area that will transfer the waste 9

rock, as it’s coming out from development, into the 10

shaft, into the skips and up to surface. 11

So there is -- there’s an 12

infrastructure requirement below the grade of the 13

repository to allow for the efficient and the 14

movement of waste rock up from the shaft. 15

The design has been trying to 16

optimize as much as we can to limit the amount of 17

the raise and to allow for enough room to give us 18

some flexibility in that area and therefore, that’s 19

what’s driving the 746 metre depth. 20

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Thank you very 21

much. 22

My second question, again about 23

the Silurian bedrock. You stated that it should be 24

modelled using more conservative hydraulic 25

266


conductivity values because, in your opinion, it 1

will decrease in permeability with time. It will -2

- sorry increase with permeability with time. 3

My question to OPG is, would leech 4

testing be an effective way of assessing 5

permeability change in these formations? 6


record. 8

I believe over the long geologic 9

times -- excuse me -- these formations have 10

possessed these low permeabilities over geologic 11

time periods and it’s unlikely, during the 100 12

years or less of operation of this facility that 13

they would change. 14

So I do not think leech tests 15

would be representative of changes in permeability 16

with time, no. 17


Thank you, Mr. Ruland. 19


question for OPG based on Mr. Ruland’s listing of 21

his primary concerns with respect to potential 22

pathways to the surface. 23

And I would ask OPG to confirm 24

whether or not the safety case was based on 25

267


calculations that included worst case 1

permeabilities and included a pathway up the wall 2

to the shaft? 3



The reference case for the safety 6

assessment did include an extensive damage zone in 7

the rock around the shaft. It was -- the thickness 8

of it was based on mechanical analysis for the 9

worst location of the shaft and we assumed that 10

thickness applied throughout the entire length of 11

the shaft. 12

And then there was a further 13

region of the same radius outside that, of a 14

somewhat lower permeability. The -- we looked at a 15

number of sensitivity cases. 16

So there was a base case where 17

that was -- where that EDZ over that thickness was 18

100 times the background rock, there’s other cases 19

where it was 1,000 times the background rock. 20

And also just for clarity, the 21

properties of the shaft seal itself are certainly 22

not as good as the surrounding host rocks. So the 23

speaker’s point that we recognize that the shaft 24

seal is not as effective as the host rock, that is 25

268


part of the model. 1

And the -- also, just the point 2

about the Cambrian pressure being a driver on this 3

system, that is included in the models in a number 4

of the calculations. Most of the calculations we 5

actually ignored the under pressure, we just had 6

the Cambrian overpressure in there as a driver. 7

So I think between the reference 8

cases and the varying cases, we’ve reasonably 9

looked at the variation in these parameters. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: CNCSC, are you 11

in agreement with OPG’s assertion that the 12

reference case and the additional cases used in the 13

sensitivity analysis or the safety case encompass 14

an adequate level of conservatism, such that we 15

truly have worst case permeabilities represented? 16

DR. SHIZHONG: Lei Shizhong, for 17

the record. 18

We are in agreement with the 19

conservativeness assumed in the safety assessment 20

from OPG. With respect to the extent of the EDZ 21

around the shaft and in extreme situation, like in 22

one of the disruptive scenario, the shaft seal 23

itself, it’s assumed to deteriorate by two orders 24

of magnitude below design. 25

269


The intact shaft seal, when it’s 1

fully functional, is 10 to the minus 11 metre per 2

second, which is lower than the surrounding host 3

rock and shale cap and this was taken into account 4

as well. 5


This is also for CNSC. Mr. Ruland 7

made reference to targets for tritium gross beta 8

and Carbon-14. Can CNSC provide the Panel with 9

some information with respect to those three 10

constituents of concern, whether you have specific 11

targets? 12


the record. 14

Perhaps Mr. Ruland can remind me. 15

If I remember correctly, he was speaking about 16

worker protection. And so what I’d like to say is 17

that the licensees of the CNSC, including OPG for 18

the Western Waste Management Facility, have a 19

detailed radiation protection program for workers. 20

As part of the program, OPG has to 21

review all work practices and identify the work 22

that people have to undertake and assess the 23

potential exposures to workers, and identify the 24

measures that will be taken for protection. 25

270


The program also have ALARA 1

targets and other targets that are well below the 2

worker dose limits, to make sure that the workers 3

are -- the work assignment to workers is monitored 4

so that people don’t exceed that target. 5

And also by doing the assessment, 6

there's a realization that some work practices 7

would result in doses above that target, then the 8

licensee is required to review work practices and 9

implement mitigation measures. 10

So I don't have those targets 11

right in my mind, but that process is well 12

established. The CNSC reviews the proposed 13

programs, accepts them, and we also conduct 14

inspections as well as to review records. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Ruland, did 16

that address the context of your comment, or was it 17

a different context? 18


record. 20

No, it was Slide 31. The 21

proponent's radiological surface water monitoring 22

parameter list includes tritium, gross beta and 23

carbon 14, but we don't have proposed maximum 24

target levels, and that's what we're seeking, just 25

271


like for the organic contaminants. 1

THE CHAIRPERSON: So this is 2

specific to the discharge from the storm water 3

management --- 4

MR. RULAND: Yes. 5

THE CHAIRPERSON: --- pond. 6

Right. 7

MR. RULAND: Yes. 8

DR. THOMPSON: My apologies. 9

There was another slide that dealt with spills and 10

bad work practices that related to worker exposure. 11

And so in relation to discharge, 12

there are release limits, but there are also action 13

levels and intervention levels. So the action 14

level is a fraction of the release limit, and the 15

intervention levels are even lower than that. And 16

that process is in place, it's documented and it's 17

also audited and inspected. 18

THE CHAIRPERSON: So Dr. Thompson, 19

were -- are those relatively standard action levels 20

and targets that would also apply to this 21

particular storm water management pond? 22


the record. 24

The process for establishing them 25

272


is pretty standard and so the outcome is that those 1

targets are also pretty standard, but they're also 2

based, for the intervention levels, on monitoring 3

experience and they can be adjusted with -- 4

essentially to make sure they reflect a tight 5

control over the operation. 6

THE CHAIRPERSON: My last question 7

is with respect to Mr. Ruland's point that there 8

needs to be full disclosure of what led to the 9

tritium contamination issue associated with the 10

Western Waste Management Facility. 11

We have heard quite a bit of 12

discussion of that already today, and OPG and CNSC 13

have both provided the Panel with a list of 14

potential sources and an explanation of the 15

monitoring data. 16

My question, though, to both OPG 17

and CNSC is how might an interested member of the 18

public readily access information about this 19

situation? 20


the record. 22

And just before I respond to your 23

question, I'd like to correct one of the statements 24

made on Slide 13 that says that workplace practices 25

273


and incidents. And Mr. Ruland mentioned spills led 1

to the tritium contamination, and so it's neither. 2

It's -- as Mr. Howard described 3

this morning, it's with the -- not the holes. 4

That's not the proper word. But the manholes 5

around the buildings, and so it was a design issue 6

that has been fixed. 7

In terms of public disclosure, 8

this issue has been tracked by the CNSC for more 9

than 10 years, and I would say probably around 15 10

years because it was like several jobs ago that I 11

started being involved in this. And this has been 12

presented to the Commission during license 13

renewals. 14

So it's documented in many CMDs 15

that were public, but going back in past records is 16

probably not very easy. So I would say the best 17

way to do it is to request the reports and we'll 18

make them available. 19



record. 22

We've talked earlier in this 23

hearing and in other hearings that OPG is looking 24

at a better way of providing information for public 25

274


use. We recognize that people and interested 1

stakeholders are wanting to see data, so we've 2

already initiated that project and we'll be working 3

with the CNSC to understand the best way to do that 4

in the best format. 5

We're looking at how quickly we 6

can do that, and I agree with Dr. Thompson. At 7

this point, it's really a request for information, 8

but we recognize there's got to be a better way. 9


That ends the questions from the 11

Panel. We have one question from a participant. 12

Mr. Hazell. 13


MR. HAZELL: Thank you very much, 15

Madam Chair. 16

Through the Chair, what is the OPG 17

logic regarding the open gate approach to discharge 18

of effluent and storm water into Lake Huron? 19

And there are two other parts to 20

this. Under what circumstances would the gate be 21

closed? I believe it's a manually operated gate. 22

Would that be a storm event or an incident-based 23

event? 24

And third, is it possible to have 25

275


a closed gate approach, as has been suggested, as a 1

more conservative approach to controlling effluent 2

into the lake on the site? Is it possible to have 3

that, or is it that the site isn't sufficiently 4

large to allow for that form of containment, storm 5

water management containment, opportunity? 6

Thank you. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hazell, I'll 8

ask OPG to comment very briefly, but we're going to 9

get into the details of this tomorrow. So in case 10

you can't be here physically tomorrow, I will ask 11

them to briefly respond, but I do guarantee that we 12

will be getting into the details tomorrow on this. 13


record. 15

The rationale for the open gate 16

operation to the storm water management pond is 17

because of the modelling that we've done and the 18

conservative assumptions that we've done around the 19

various storm water contributing factors leads us 20

to believe that we will have a discharge quality 21

that meets regulatory requirements and will operate 22

in a standard format to continue that with a 23

monitoring program to keep it in place. 24

We also have multiple monitoring 25

276


stations and ability for the various in-flow 1

parameters to be able to determine if we are 2

trending well or if there is an upset condition in 3

any one of the contributing factors that allows us 4

to then again make decisions as to whether or not 5

there is a potential for concern, and then a close 6

of the gate is required, which is on a manual 7

basis. 8

But as you said, tomorrow we'll go 9

through the various contributing components to the 10

storm water management system, look at the 11

management system pond, look at how it performs, 12

how it functions. 13

I think it's important to state 14

that a closed gate would require a closed gate all 15

the way down the stream. So the downstream 16

impacts, if you hold and you hold for a design 17

element, you really have to be able to hold at 18

every one of those contributing points until such a 19

time or you'd have to operate, say, two storm water 20

management ponds, one in open, one in closed. 21

So I think tomorrow we'll be able 22

to go through that in a bit more detail. 23

But it is -- with a monitoring 24

program and the very conservative assumptions that 25

277


we've had in terms of our discharge water quality, 1

we feel that there's no risk in operating in an 2

open format. 3


Before I proceed to the next 5

presentation, Mr. Wilson, you just reminded me that 6

because you're here we had a leftover question from 7

the other day on noise. 8

And it was around whether, if 9

surface operations were suspended at night because 10

of concerns raised by citizens, might there be 11

sufficient volume underground, for example, in an 12

ore pass, to accommodate for this? 13

In other words, would you have 14

room underground until you could resume hauling to 15

the surface the next morning? 16


record. 18

I can respond to that now, if 19

you'd like. 20

The waste rock discharge system is 21

designed in such that we operate the skipping 22

features for 16 hours per day, which allows us for 23

time for down time and maintenance. 24

There is also -- as part of the 25

278


design, there is ream up bays, there's availability 1

underground in the emplacement rooms to stockpile 2

waste rock. And as well, there is a small ore 3

pass, but its capacity is limited right now to 4

about 300 tonnes. 5

However, the operational or the 6

efficiency of bringing waste to surface in the 7

evening and the nighttime is really a conventional 8

safety issue for us. 9

The highest volume of traffic in a 10

facility is typically during daytime, which is why, 11

in most mining operations, skipping operations are 12

held to the afternoon and the evening or overnight 13

periods to be able to remove a lot of the concerns 14

around congestion. 15

The point where we’re actually 16

dumping into the ore path or the waste path system 17

is the highest traffic area that we have in the 18

DGR. So there are some of those considerations 19

built into that. 20

Also at the surface, specifically 21

at the dump point, at the ventilation shaft, the 22

design takes into account the receptor locations 23

and the design actually mitigates the noise impacts 24

for that. 25

279


Also, if we can pick it up and 1

handle the waste rock once underground, pick it up 2

and handle it once on surface, we’re actually 3

eliminating a lot of the noise for picking up, re-4

handling, moving and so on, as well as dust and 5

some of the other effluent discharges. 6

So the design is such that we 7

would prefer to keep that in the evening. We feel 8

that we can mitigate noise impacts on surface, that 9

we can build the pile in such a way that we can 10

look to maintaining some protection against the 11

three receptors that have been identified and I 12

think the whole system works in a much better way 13

if we can do that. 14

I have personal experience in very 15

large coring operations in Southern Ontario where, 16

you know, operating 40,000 tonnes a day, 24 hours a 17

day, with residences within a couple hundred metres 18

and it’s manageable. 19

So I think in this particular case 20

with the volumes that we’re talking about that we 21

won’t see the nighttime nuisance noise complaints 22

being brought forward. 23


Thank you to the Canadian 25

280



We will now proceed to four 10-2

minute oral statements. The Panel will hear from 3

two presenters before considering proposed 4

questions from registered participants. 5

We will begin with the oral 6

statement on behalf of the Toronto Conference, 7

United Church of Canada, by Ms. Vitoria Obedkoff. 8

Ms. Obedkoff, the floor is yours. 9

And by the way, when you see the little amber light 10

come on, it means you have one minute left. 11

--- ORAL STATEMENT BY THE UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA: 12

DR. OBEDKOFF: Thank you very much 13

for the opportunity. You have my written 14

statement. I’ll just try to pull out a few 15

comments. 16

The United Church of Canada has 17

had a long-standing engagement with issues of 18

nuclear waste and our most comprehensive study 19

Forever Yours is Always Changing it’s on our Web 20

site. 21

I think most would agree with our 22

belief that the Great Lakes are a sacred gift of 23

creation and it’s our sacred trust and collective 24

responsibility. We all know they hold 21 percent 25

281


of the world’s fresh drinking water and 40 billion 1

people and other biota depend on the lakes. 2

We believe it’s incumbent on us to 3

take extraordinary measures to protect fresh water 4

in this globe which is increasingly under threat. 5

And so we urge a precautionary approach to any 6

course of action which could irreversibly harm our 7

Great Lakes. 8

To sum up our presentation, we 9

believe the risk of burying low and intermediate 10

level nuclear waste out of sight and potentially 11

out of mind of future generations is simply an 12

unacceptable risk to take. It’s prudent to assume, 13

based on other historical examples, that breaches 14

of containment will occur. 15

So I’ll just blue sky a little bit 16

here. I grew up on the Columbia River, five hours 17

of the Hanford Nuclear Installation. The best 18

brains of the United States, of engineers and 19

scientists were thrown at the decommissioning and 20

disposal of waste. I think the price tag is about 21

$30 billion so far. 22

And yet, contamination is in the 23

groundwater. It’s creeping closer to the Columbia 24

River. It’s estimated within 15 years -- some 25

282


estimate sooner, that the river to all intents and 1

purposes will be ruined. This was the best 2

modelling made available at the time. In fact, 3

some of the wastes were double shelled. Even so, 4

the containments are being breached. 5

I know that’s a very different 6

situation than this proposal, but the point here is 7

the best engineering and modelling and money still 8

hasn’t prevented irreparable harm being done, and 9

once the contamination is in the groundwater and 10

gets into the Columbia, it’s out of control. 11

I did some research on other 12

supposedly permanent waste sites. There’s been 13

problems in all those places. We can look to 14

Scotland where there was an explosion in 1977; 15

there was a site in France where water supplied in 16

the aquifer have become contaminated; there’s a 17

salt mine in Germany with numerous safety programs 18

or problems. 19

There’s been nothing that’s proven 20

yet that can contain for the number of years 21

required safety. Why would we think that human 22

societies will maintain adequate resources and even 23

caring about this. 24

In the Ukraine, just 20-30 years 25

283


after the explosion at Chernobyl, already the 1

sarcophagus has to be replaced. That’s $2 billion 2

minimum and already, the public didn’t want to pay 3

for it. It took an international community to help 4

raise the money and make sure that thing got safely 5

dealt with. 6

Three hundred (300) years from 7

now, how do we know that we’ll have tax dollars or 8

even a public that cares? Maybe we’ll have other 9

problems that are bigger than nuclear waste that’s 10

buried out of sight and perhaps out of mind? We 11

simply don’t know these things despite our best 12

predictions and our best modelling done now. 13

What we don’t know, we think is 14

simply too great a risk to take given the 15

importance of one of the world’s great wonders and 16

irreplaceable one-time gift of fresh water. 17

I’m going to fast forward to the 18

OPG proposal. My confidence is not enhanced when 19

even I, who is not a scientist, read in the OPG’s 20

environmental assessment, comments like this. OPG 21

consultants suggested that: 22

“Radionuclides and low and 23

intermediate level waste have 24

half-lives general to or less 25

284


than 30 years.” (As read) 1

And I’ve taken this directly from 2

the document. But later we’ve heard that in fact 3

decommissioning products will be part of what’s 4

considered to be intermediate waste and my 5

understanding as a layperson is the radioactivity 6

is much greater than 30 years. So which is it? 7

And if the environmental 8

assessment was done, assuming a lower radioactivity 9

risk, then it wasn’t adequate and we’re waiting for 10

a ruling. I’m not sure who makes the ruling, but 11

we’re waiting for a ruling to perhaps have another 12

environmental assessment based on OPG’s recent 13

statements that in fact, decommissioning materials 14

will be present. 15

The other thing that I’m concerned 16

about is, in Sellafield in Great Britain, the 17

public thought that it was going to be low and 18

intermediate waste that was being considered, but 19

given change of governments, it seemed that there 20

was flip flops about exactly what was being 21

considered. These things are fluid. So promises 22

can be made by one government and yet other 23

proposals come. 24

So what’s to say that there 25

285


wouldn’t be higher level wastes considered in the 1

future or at least in the vicinity, given other 2

explorations going on? And what do they know what 3

the cumulative result of all of this is? 4

So we have some deep ethical 5

concerns about what we cannot know and what we 6

cannot project into the future. 7

Unfortunately, we do have the 8

weight of what’s going wrong in some parts of the 9

world. Fukushima is on everybody’s minds and we 10

would consider it prudent then to accept the fact 11

that there is no proven way to isolate nuclear 12

waste for the time required for, quote “it not to 13

cause harm”. 14

And therefore, we would recommend 15

that in the absence of permanent safe solutions, 16

society can best meet its obligations to protect 17

the biosphere from existing nuclear waste through 18

longer term management based on surface or near 19

surface monitored and retrievable storage. 20

In other words, in sight and in 21

mind with visible institutional controls and 22

monitoring, that in fact, the average public could 23

take an interest and have some ownership in as well 24

to ensure that we have adequate funding, adequate 25

286


care. 1

We believe that permission should 2

not be given for any permanent waste disposal site. 3

It should be done within the context of a national 4

public inquiry in fact around national energy 5

policy and the future of the whole nuclear fuel 6

cycle. 7

We think that transparent 8

Parliamentary debate and procedures should occur 9

first. The stakes are simply too high with such a 10

sacred gift of the world’s 21 percent fresh 11

drinking water and all the creatures that depend on 12

it for something to go wrong. 13

And we simply don’t know or can’t 14

say even with the best engineers here possible 15

today that something can’t go wrong. And when it 16

goes wrong in terms of stuff getting into water, 17

that goes really wrong. 18

We’re seeing that now in 19

Washington State. Anyone can go to the website and 20

see statements from the governor elevating this to 21

a very serious concern that, in fact, is out of 22

control. 23

I have a question for the OPG. 24

Why was it only this site that’s been proposed? 25

287


Were there, for example, alternative sites explored 1

such as the Canadian shield? 2

Again, I’m not a geologist, but it 3

just -- is that my warning sign? 4

I’m wondering why this is the only 5

potential solution. Are there other places, 6

perhaps away from large bodies of fresh water? I 7

think most lay people wonder this. 8

And I’m not saying that even in 9

the Canadian shield it would be considered 10

technically safe, but why here as opposed to 11

somewhere else away from large bodies of water? 12

I’ll end with that question. 13


much, Dr. Obedkoff. 15

As I mentioned, we’ll proceed 16

directly into the 10-minute oral statement on 17

behalf of Algonquin Eco Watch and then we’ll have -18

- may have questions for both of you. So if you 19

could stay at the table, that would be great. 20

So Mr. Mike Wilton is representing 21

Algonquin Eco Watch. 22

Mr. Wilton, please proceed. 23

--- ORAL STATEMENT BY ALGONQUIN ECO WATCH: 24

MR. WILTON: Thank you for this 25

288


opportunity. 1

My name is Mike Wilton. I worked 2

for the province for 35 years as a fisheries and 3

wildlife biologist, during which time I developed a 4

very strong concern regarding the protection of 5

headwaters and groundwater, the two most precious 6

resources that we hold the sole responsibility for 7

handing on to future generations. So far, we are 8

not doing a very commendable job. 9

Specifically regarding hearing 10

conversations today, I’m concerned with the 11

frequent use of the phrase “no significant negative 12

effect” and the apparent lack of consideration 13

regarding cumulative effect. I would suggest that 14

any time somebody talks about significant effect, 15

they should define the term "significant" because I 16

think everybody has a different meaning for that 17

term. 18

I’m not sure how -- oh, there. 19

Thank you. Magic. 20

Water always seeks its own level. 21

Those of us who have ever had problems with water 22

coming into our basement would probably agree with 23

this. 24

There we go. This is a rock face 25

289


in Highway 6 going from the Manitoulin Island up to 1

Highway 17 on the north shore. And this 2

illustrates what’s happening beneath the ground, 3

but it’s opened up to us because of this rock cut. 4

And you can see the layered effect 5

in the limestone and you can see how the 6

groundwater is flowing. And if the rock cut hadn’t 7

been there, that groundwater would have kept on 8

moving. That’s fractured limestone. 9

This is fractured granite. This 10

is a rock cut on Highway 11 near Trout Creek. And 11

even in granite -- I’m no geologist, I’m not a 12

hydrogeologist, but I find it hard to believe that 13

there are any locations shallow or deep where 14

there’s not some sort of fracturing which allows 15

for the free movement of groundwater. And that, I 16

think, is what concerns me most. 17

Lime -- and I understand that this 18

situation is in fractured limestone, but I’m not 19

positive about that. 20

Limestone is always created in 21

layers, which then fracture as the earth’s crust 22

shifts. Granite is subject to pressure cracks and 23

shifts as well. Therefore, since water always 24

seeks its own level, there will be a tendency for 25

290


groundwater to seep or flow into these caverns. 1

It will be virtually impossible to 2

permanently, possibly 1,000 years, waterproof the 3

caverns against a downward pressure exerted by the 4

extreme depth below the water table. 5

The need to pump in-flowing water 6

from the caverns is inevitable. Deep mining, 7

example as the Adams Mine near Kirkland Lake and 8

the Helen Mine at Wawa, are proof of this fact. 9

What provisions have been made to deal with in-10

flowing groundwater at the Bruce Nuclear site? 11

The Province Bay landfill situated 12

over fractured limestone on the Manitoulin Island, 13

which is also part of the Niagara escarpment -- 14

actually, we Manitouliners consider that the 15

Niagara escarpment is part of the Manitoulin 16

Island. This provides an excellent example of the 17

need to fully understand groundwater as follows. 18

The groundwater plume -- this is 19

at Province Bay landfill. The groundwater plume 20

passes through and beneath the Province Bay dump 21

site in a westerly direction -- and this is a 22

quote: 23

“...at the rate of between 0.8 24

metres per year and 8.2 metres 25

291


per year directed towards Lake 1

Huron, which is less than 0.5 2

kilometres to the west.” (As 3

read) 4

This is from a study by Waters 5

Environmental Geosciences Limited in 2009. That 6

report is available. 7

That plume carries and will 8

continue to carry for an indeterminate period 9

dissolved chemical metals -- dissolved chemicals, 10

metals and solids into the waters of Province Bay 11

Lake Huron. 12

I put to you that the only safe 13

solution, which carries its own set of problems, is 14

to store the waste at Bruce Nuclear above ground, 15

thus reducing exterior pressure where leakage can 16

be adequately monitored and subsequently dealt 17

with. 18

It’s ironic to me that the 19

previous speaker and myself have both suggested 20

that the only safe way to do this and monitor 21

adequately is by keeping it within sight and within 22

mind. 23

The task facing OPG would then be 24

to ensure that no leakage from the aboveground 25

292


containment facility takes place, but at least it 1

would be possible to identify and swiftly act upon 2

problems if and as they occur. 3

I’ve asked a series of questions 4

which I believe the Panel Members would already 5

have. I’m not sure about that, but I suspect 6

that’s the case. 7

But I’m just going to run through 8

them quickly, but in the interests of time I don’t 9

ask for or expect answers at this time. But what I 10

would appreciate is some sort of a written 11

communication from someone, possibly OPG, answering 12

these questions. 13

How many test wells have been 14

sunk, and is this sufficient to establish plume 15

direction and velocity? Characteristically, the 16

Ontario Ministry of the Environment requires that a 17

sufficient number of test wells be sunk to clearly 18

establish the direction, depth and velocity of 19

groundwater past a site. 20

What is the groundwater depth and 21

annual variation? What is the direction and 22

velocity of the groundwater plume? 23

Are you conversant with the Adams 24

Mine controversy and decision? 25

293


In spite of the Environmental 1

Assessment Board’s decision stating that, “The 2

proposed hydrologic containment design would be an 3

effective decision for collection and containment 4

of leachate”, public pressure eventually caused 5

that plan to be abandoned. 6

What do you propose to do in the 7

event of similar public pressure in this case? 8

Do you have a reliable method of 9

sensing underground leakage from the containment 10

facility? If so, please describe. 11

What method will be employed to 12

remove/treat/store groundwater in-flow to the 13

containment facility? Please describe. 14

What is the life expectancy of the 15

storage facility? 16

How would you deal with an event 17

such as presently unfolding at the Fukushima 18

nuclear facility? 19

The Japanese government now says 20

that 71,895 gallons of radioactive water is leaking 21

into the Pacific Ocean every day. Is such a fate 22

possible for Lake Huron and, if not, why not? 23

I think I’m finished. Thank you 24

very much. 25

294



much, Mr. Wilton. 2

Panel Members, do we have 3

questions for either one of the presenters? 4


MEMBER MUECKE: Both of you 6

advocate aboveground storage. And one question 7

that arises is societal change is fairly -- can be 8

fairly rapid. And so how do you find comfort in 9

that society may, within a fairly short time, not 10

have adequate funds or to be -- to adequately care 11

for these wastes? How do you balance that against 12

underground storage which we take care of at the 13

current time? 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Obedkoff, 15

could you start perhaps? 16

DR. OBEDKOFF: Sure. I go back to 17

the Ukraine, because even a relatively small sum 18

like $2 billion to replace a sarcophagus, there was 19

a lot of public disagreement about that. It took a 20

lot of pressure. 21

And why would we think that 22

taxpayers and citizens in the future, and other 23

demands upon us, we don’t know what climate change 24

is going to bring and what other major pressures 25

295


are going to come. 1

Why might we think that future 2

generations would have the resources to deal with 3

problems if they developed underground? 4

To our thinking, something at 5

surface level or near surface level, under the eye 6

of existing nuclear facilities could at least 7

provide some institutional monitoring. 8

I’m not reassured from what I’ve 9

heard previously that we’d have the monitoring to 10

know what is going on underground, be it shaft 11

tunnels or unexpected things. 12

And how would we know we would 13

have the resources to deal with problems that got 14

out of control? I’m not assuming that just because 15

it was buried deep underground it would be safe. 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Wilton? 17

MR. WILTON: I guess I would just, 18

more or less, put the question back to yourself. 19

You asked whether or not society 20

would be able to deal with problems that developed 21

in aboveground storage. Would the same question 22

not hold for below ground storage as well? 23

If it is not possible for tax 24

dollars, or taxpayers, or public interest to be 25

296


able to adequately care for above ground storage 1

what’s to stop society from forgetting about, 2

worrying about, what’s happening underneath the 3

ground? Because that is indeed out of sight and 4

out of mind. 5

Seems to me that it would be 6

easier for society to neglect underground storage 7

than it would be for society to neglect above 8

ground storage. 9

MEMBER MUECKE: Thank you. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: I’d like to 11

follow-up, Dr. Obedkoff, because the Panel has been 12

hearing the phrase “out of sight, out of mind” a 13

lot in previous presentations to us as well. And 14

we’ve heard a number of organizations call for 15

maintaining surface. 16

And the Panel would very much 17

appreciate a bit more of the rationale from the 18

point of view of the United Church of Canada, where 19

you, in your written submission, make the point 20

that you are approaching this issue from an 21

ethical, moral point of view, not a scientific one. 22

And we value that. And -- so our 23

question is has the United Church of Canada and the 24

specific group that you are a part of, which is 25

297


Justice and Global Issues Committee, had a chance 1

to really do a comparative analysis from an ethical 2

point of view, of surface and near surface storage 3

versus the Deep Geologic Repository idea? 4

DR. OBEDKOFF: I wish we had. The 5

answer is no. I wish we had the expertise and the 6

resources right now still at our disposal. 7

For a long time we did have those 8

resources at the National Church level. We were 9

able to engage scientists like Dr. Mary Lou Harley, 10

a chemist who did a lot of our writing, and other 11

scientists. 12

We’re in a place at the life of 13

our own institution where that’s not -- that study 14

that you are talking about, we simply haven’t done. 15

So we are going with the wisdom of other 16

organizations whose research we do respect. 17

And in standing with our long -- 18

in keeping with our long-term policy, which can be 19

found on our Web site, that there simply isn’t any 20

proven permanent depository or disposal for nuclear 21

waste. 22

And given that there’s nothing 23

known or proven, we would rather go with something 24

that can be institutionally monitored either below 25

298


surface or on surface, using the expertise that 1

currently exists rather than some of the unknowns 2

that remain unknowns, by something that is 3

absolutely unprecedented. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: So Dr. Obedkoff, 5

the Panel would appreciate you helping us make sure 6

we understand the position. 7

What I’m hearing is, and what we 8

are hearing, is that peoples deep discomfort is 9

really based primarily on what we don’t know; the 10

word proven or unproven. 11

Would you please help us 12

understand what, in the opinion of the United 13

Church of Canada at least, would be sufficient 14

proof? 15

DR. OBEDKOFF: To my mind, my last 16

reading of our study, our comprehensive study, it’s 17

called -- the study is called “Nuclear Waste: 18

Always Changing, Forever Yours” by Dr. Mary Lou 19

Harley. 20

And the conclusion was there 21

simply isn’t anything proven and it doesn’t exist 22

right now. We haven’t any historical examples 23

because of the long generativity of radioactivity. 24

And so in the lack of any 25

299


historical precedents, we just can’t -- we can’t 1

say that. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: So am I to 3

understand that in your opinion, in the United 4

Church’s opinion, you would require demonstration 5

and real world examples and that you don’t 6

necessarily agree with or buy into the use of 7

highly conservative predictive modelling? It just 8

does not -- convincing to you? 9

DR. OBEDKOFF: No, no. I don’t 10

believe that geology is a predictive science, nor 11

is anything necessarily predictive to the level of 12

assurance we need where the risks are so great. 13

Our overall position as the United 14

Church is we should have a moratorium on the entire 15

nuclear fuel cycle. In other words, no new 16

facilities, manage the waste we do have through 17

current management practices until we look at the 18

whole shebang, if you like. 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that 20

was helpful. 21

Are there any further questions? 22

Apparently there are no questions 23

for participants at this time. Thanks very much 24

for your time. 25

300


We’ll allow the chair shuffle to 1

take place while we wait for our next two 2

presenters. 3


THE CHAIRPERSON: Our next 10-5

minute oral statement is by Senator Hopgood, of the 6

Michigan State Senate. 7

Senator Hopgood, I would ask you 8

to remain at the table after your presentation in 9

order to be available for proposed questions. 10

Please begin. 11

--- ORAL STATEMENT BY MICHIGAN STATE SENATE: 12

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Thank you. My 13

name is State Senator Hoon-Yung Hopgood and good 14

afternoon. 15

As the Michigan State Senator for 16

the 8th District in Wayne County bordering the 17

Detroit River I represent 260,000 residents in the 18

Great Lake State. 19

I’m proud to share that Michigan 20

boasts more than 3,000 miles of Great Lakes 21

shoreline, more freshwater coastline than any other 22

state with 40 of its 83 counties touching a Great 23

Lake. 24

The Great Lakes define Michigan 25

301


literally and figuratively. The Great Lakes are 1

Michigan. 2

According to the 2011 Jobs Economy 3

and Great Lakes Report, more than 1.5 million Great 4

Lakes related jobs, generated $62 billion in wages 5

in the region in 2009. 6

In 2009 Michigan’s Great Lakes 7

jobs report found that 23 percent of all Michigan’s 8

payroll depends on the lakes. Therefore, it is no 9

surprise that adverse impacts to the Great Lakes 10

adversely impact Michigan. 11

Our industries, from 12

manufacturing, to agriculture, to tourism, 13

recreation, boating and fishing are critically 14

dependent on our waters. Threats to our lakes 15

including contamination, invasive species, and 16

water withdrawals, endanger not only Michigan’s 17

environment but also its livelihood. 18

Ontario Power Generation’s 19

permanent nuclear waste burial facility proposed 20

off the shores of Lake Huron is no different. 21

Despite all the computer modelling 22

in studies, no one has, can, or will guarantee that 23

contamination from this unproven, untested method 24

will not occur. 25

302


As such they cannot guarantee that 1

our drinking water will remain safe and Michigan’s 2

economy and its vast industries will not be harmed. 3

These and other concerns are 4

reflected in letters attached to my written 5

testimony from Michigan Organization’s United 6

Conservation Clubs, Boating Industry Association, 7

Charter Boat Association, Steelhead and Salmon 8

Fishermen’s Association, Environmental Council, 9

Clean Water Action. 10

Unfortunately, these 11

organizations, like most Michigan residents, were 12

not made aware of this proposal on the July 5 13

deadline to request participation. 14

Note the Panel’s own guiding 15

principles state that public participation is a 16

critical objective of the overall review process. 17

Further meaningful involvement in the environmental 18

assessment can only take place when all parties 19

have a clear understanding of the proposed project 20

as early as possible. 21

Finally, the guidelines clarify 22

that Canadian Environmental Assessment Act does not 23

exclude the public outside of Canada. 24

In an attempt to detail its 25

303


Michigan outreach, OPG notes brief 20-minute 1

presentations with a few organizations and a 2

handful of closed door private meetings with select 3

politicians and bureaucrats some four years ago. 4

This is hardly public outreach. 5

Still, of those who are briefed, the State Senator 6

has co-sponsored my resolution raising concerns 7

about this project. The Congressman has signed a 8

letter to the U.S. Department of State requesting 9

their involvement. 10

The County Commission has also 11

approved a resolution raising concerns about the 12

DGR and two of the three environmental 13

organizations have submitted letters of concern. 14

And the third is reportedly taking action through 15

the IJC. 16

In addition, my resolution was 17

fully vetted with Governor Snyder’s staff and the 18

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality prior 19

to the votes in committee and the full Michigan 20

Senate, and neither opposed this legislation. 21

Regardless, no general public 22

outreach has occurred in Michigan. There has been 23

no public participation process. OPG did not host 24

one public event in Michigan. Our citizens were 25

304


never notified, and their input was never sought. 1

But it’s not just about Michigan. 2

All citizens living in Great Lakes states have a 3

right to know about this proposal and should have 4

been consulted. How can people raise concerns 5

about something they don’t know about? 6

This highly controversial proposal 7

with potential grave impacts is largely unheard of. 8

Bringing awareness to the situation remains one of 9

my primary goals. I have communicated through 10

media, social networking, videos, written 11

correspondence. 12

Last month, I hosted a standing 13

room only town hall with my colleague, Rep Roberts, 14

to educate and inform our citizens. Of course, 15

people’s reactions were virtually the same; 16

passionate opposition. 17

They are shocked that anyone would 18

even consider such a threat to our Great Lakes and 19

that they had not heard of this before. While I 20

continue to do all I can, I am still reaching too 21

few Michigan citizens. 22

In May of this year, after 23

learning about the DGR, I introduced SR-58. The 24

resolution was passed unanimously and was co—25

305


sponsored by 26 other senators. Collectively, the 1

sponsors represent more than seven million Michigan 2

residents. 3

As you know, SR-58 raises six 4

specific concerns that were formally brought to the 5

Canadian Prime Minister's, the Ontario Premier's, 6

the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions and the 7

Panel’s attention. 8

They were detailed in the June 14 9

assessment that the Joint Review Panel requested of 10

Mr. Neal Burnham of the U.S. Trans=Boundary Affairs 11

Division. 12

The resolution also includes 13

specific recommendations and requests regarding 14

these concerns. To date, there has been no 15

response. 16

Mr. Burnham’s assessment suggested 17

a number of actions, including confirming that the 18

approach currently being proposed for the DGR is 19

consistent with Michigan regulations. 20

On this point, Mr. Glen Sutton 21

erroneously commented during his testimony that the 22

Michigan law would allow the DGR in Michigan. A 23

closer look at Michigan statute demonstrates that 24

this is not correct. 25

306


First, Low Level Radioactive Waste 1

Act establishes nine minimum siting criteria, 2

including locations within the -- 10 miles of the 3

Great Lakes and other connecting large bodies of 4

water. 5

Ultimately, the law charges the 6

authority with establishing the final siting 7

criteria. The authority developed 31 comprehensive 8

siting criteria used to identify three possible 9

locations for a disposal site. 10

These criteria eliminated 97 11

percent of Michigan, including all locations 12

adjacent to a nuclear facility. Such sites were 13

determined to be unacceptable for low level waste. 14

Regardless, Michigan’s Radioactive 15

Waste Act explicitly prohibits the underground 16

storage or disposal of radioactive waste. OPG’s 17

DGR would never be permitted under current Michigan 18

law. 19

Mr. Burnham also recommended that 20

the Panel confirm that OPG and the Canadian Nuclear 21

Safety Commission have or will fulfil the 22

requirements set out in the Joint Convention on the 23

Safety of Spent Fuel, the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes 24

Water Quality Agreement and any other relevant 25

307


international agreements. 1

This was in SR-58. However, it is 2

not known if these verifications have been made, 3

nor have they been shared with me. 4

Mr. Burnham also noted that the 5

Water Quality Agreement requires that Canada and 6

the U.S. notify each other of planned activities 7

that could lead to a pollution incident or that 8

could have significant cumulative impact on the 9

waters of the Great Lakes, such as the storage of 10

nuclear waste or radioactive material. 11

It seems like Canada has not 12

provided any official notice regarding OPG’s DGR, 13

an apparent violation of this agreement. 14

Additionally, Mr. Burnham suggests 15

that the Panel consider the adequacy of existing 16

scientific data to support the appropriateness of 17

the geological formation in response to the 18

resolution's concern about the unprecedented and 19

unproven nature of the proposed use of the water 20

soluble limestone formation. 21

As you know, the methodologies 22

used in OPG’s studies have been called into 23

question by professionals. 24

The Michigan Department of 25

308


Environmental Quality provided limited comments on 1

the Environmental Impact Study, never stating 2

support for the project itself. 3

However, the comments repeatedly 4

note shortfalls in OPG’s studies. In particular, 5

it cites a failure to answer the two questions 6

posed as part of the study’s report objectives. 7

It also notes that some figures do 8

not accurately reproduce the pressure distribution 9

and that figures for dissolved solid concentrations 10

are high for some formations. 11

Finally, the MDEQ says that some 12

of the related studies may be incomplete or 13

inaccurate. This is not an impressive review for 14

an entity seeking to be a pioneer with underground 15

nuclear waste disposal. 16

Furthermore, the Panel’s own 17

consultant, Dr. Peter Dunker, solicited to evaluate 18

OPG’s approach and method and its environmental 19

assessment, gave a very damning report, concluding 20

that OPG’s analysis was not credible, not 21

defensible, unclear, not reliable and 22

inappropriate. 23

What confidence can the people 24

have in OPG and the entire environmental assessment 25

309


process with this highly critical evaluation? 1

Of course, the Panel's own 2

guidelines identify specific factors that must be 3

included -- considered, including need for the 4

project alternatives to the project, an alternative 5

means of carrying out the project that are 6

technically and economically feasible. 7

My concern, only one site, a site 8

that poses a serious and direct threat to our Great 9

Lakes, OPG clearly fails to address these factors, 10

is a glaring and unacceptable omission that a site 11

away from the Great Lakes was never even 12

contemplated, an omission you should not tolerate. 13

Other locations must be 14

considered. Even Michigan’s laws pertaining to low 15

level radioactive waste explicitly require three 16

alternatives. 17

Finally, one of the looming issues 18

is scope of DGR. It is proposed to include low and 19

intermediate waste. However, OPG has repeatedly 20

referenced plans for decommissioned wastes, 21

effectively doubling the facility, a major 22

expansion of the project that deserves to be 23

addressed in this process, not later. 24

OPG addressed this matter in the 25

310


’05 hosting agreement with Kincardine and adjacent 1

communities by including specific provisions for 2

decommissioned waste and related payments for their 3

support of including this waste at the DGR. 4

So if OPG claims it is not 5

prepared to do so now, then the entire project 6

should be put on hold. 7

Again, OPG is proposing to build a 8

facility that is unprecedented anywhere in the 9

world. Its full potential scope must be evaluated 10

before it is permitted to do so. 11

The possibility of high level 12

waste is a concern as well. Despite claims that 13

this facility will not accept such waste, there is 14

nothing to ensure that will not occur in the 15

future. 16

The people of Michigan have 17

extensive concerns about this project and the 18

process that has effectively excluded us from 19

protecting the resource that is our life and 20

livelihood. 21

If you have been told otherwise, 22

you have been misled. On their behalf, I implore 23

you to recommend its denial. More questions are 24

being raised than can be answered. 25

311


There is simply far too much in 1

jeopardy to move forward on a project that clearly 2

deserves greater scrutiny and broader public input. 3

Thank you very much. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, 5

Senator Hopgood. We will proceed directly into the 6

presentation by Representative Roberts and then 7

we’ll start asking our questions. 8

So Representative Roberts, please 9

begin. 10

--- ORAL STATEMENT BY MICHIGAN HOUSE OF 11

REPRESENTATIVES: 12

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: Good 13

afternoon. I am State Representative Sarah Roberts 14

serving in the Michigan House of Representatives. 15

I’m not a geologist, a scientist, 16

nor an expert on nuclear waste, but I am elected to 17

be the voice of 90,000 Michigan citizens and the 18

communities of East Point, St. Clair Shores and 19

Grosse Pointe Shores located in Macomb County. And 20

I’m a passionate advocate for our Great Lakes and 21

protecting the public’s health. 22

I want to thank the Joint Review 23

Panel for the opportunity to provide testimony 24

today and for your truly thorough and open process 25

312


with this set of hearings. 1

I also want to thank Frank and 2

Beverly Fernandez and the staff at the Great Lakes 3

Nuclear Dump Organization for their passion and 4

commitment to providing information and facts about 5

this issue to the general public throughout Canada, 6

Michigan and the entire United States and for 7

working with me in such a collaborative fashion to 8

engage more citizens in the process. 9

My hometown is St. Clair Shores. 10

My community’s and Macomb County’s entire eastern 11

border is Lake St. Clair. 12

This lake defines us. People live 13

on the lake and its connected canals. We have 14

restaurants and parks on the lake, and many marinas 15

line the shore. 16

Where I come from, we consider our 17

neighbours on the east side of the lake our good 18

friends. We have much in common; commerce, the 19

water we drink, boating destinations, fishing, and 20

other quality of life activities connected to the 21

water. 22

The United States and Canada share 23

many miles of beautiful shoreline and we both care 24

about protecting this valuable natural resource. 25

313


We also share a deep commitment to 1

collaboration when it comes to protecting our Great 2

Lakes, which is evidenced by our involvement in the 3

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the 4

International Joint Commission. 5

We know it is in our best interest 6

to protect our water and to work together and with 7

the other Great Lakes states. I am here today to 8

share my concerns with you, and to be the voice of 9

many concerned Michigan residents regarding a 10

potential critical threat to our Great Lakes, 11

connected waterways, the public's health, and our 12

local and state economy. 13

This threat, we consider is 14

Ontario Power Generation's proposed nuclear waste 15

site, which is roughly 120 miles upstream from my 16

district's drinking water source. 17

Although I first learned about 18

this proposal in 2007, since about 2009 I’ve heard 19

nothing about it moving forward until recently. 20

Once I learned things were moving 21

forward, I again became involved in trying to stop 22

the proposed site from going forward. I have come 23

here today to oppose this dangerous plan, to 24

encourage you to oppose it as well, and to ask OPG 25

314


to seek an alternative safer location. 1

The longevity and dangerous nature 2

of the low and intermediate level radioactive 3

wastes that would be buried in OPG's DGR concerns 4

me greatly. Intermediate level waste can be 5

radioactive for approximately 100,000 years. 6

It is impossible for any scientist 7

or geologist to guarantee the geological safety of 8

the proposed location for that many years in the 9

future. Especially when one considers the fact 10

that the Great Lakes were formed only about 10,000 11

years ago. 12

In order to make predictions about 13

the repository, OPG used computer modelling. 14

However, many have raised concerns about this type 15

of modelling use. 16

Allison McFarlane an MIT trained 17

Professor of Geology, and the present chair of the 18

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated that, 19

quote: 20

“Many assumptions go into 21

these models. The problem 22

though, is that one cannot 23

make assumptions about the 24

processes or features that 25

315


one is not aware of.” 1

And that, quote: 2

”Others have explored the 3

use and misuse of models in 4

the earth sciences and 5

technical policy decision 6

making. One of the main 7

conclusions from these works 8

is that these models cannot 9

be validated or verified.” 10

Unquote. 11

The bottom line is, it's 12

impossible to guarantee the geologic integrity of 13

the proposed location of the DGR. There will 14

always be unanticipated or unpredictable natural 15

occurrences that take place. 16

The disaster at the Fukushima 17

nuclear power plant demonstrates the devastating 18

effects of these occurrences. The earthquake and 19

subsequent tsunami that occurred in Japan in 2011 20

damaged several reactors and reactor cooling system 21

which has caused severe radiation leaks. 22

In addition, the Tokyo Electric 23

Power Company reported in August, that about 300 24

tonnes of radioactive contaminated water was 25

316


escaping into the Pacific Ocean every day. 1

We should learn from Fukushima and 2

do everything in our power to deter a catastrophic 3

nuclear incident, whether from a reactor or from 4

storage challenges. We should be especially 5

cognizant of the potential for an earthquake to 6

cause a nuclear disaster in this particular 7

situation due to the fact that Ontario is no 8

stranger to earthquakes. 9

In fact, it's my understanding an 10

earthquake in Ontario occurred in May of this year. 11

I worry that even the slightest systemic shift 12

could compromise the safety of the repository and 13

have severe consequences. 14

The construction of the DGR would 15

set a dangerous precedent which has been mentioned. 16

Nowhere in the Great Lakes Basin is there currently 17

a DGR for nuclear waste. In fact, there is only 18

one in the United States, and at the present time 19

there are none in Canada that I’m aware of. 20

I believe the reason for their 21

rarity and widespread scepticism is a possibility 22

of dangerous outcomes if any releases occur. I am 23

deeply concerned about the potential for 24

devastating effects that the storage of nuclear 25

317


waste underground might have on the Great Lakes and 1

the drinking water for many Michiganders. 2

Millions of Michigan citizens live 3

downstream from the proposed repository, and this 4

could be a serious risk to the public safety and 5

the quality of our water. There are several 6

drinking water intakes downstream from the proposed 7

site, and what happens if we can no longer drink 8

the water? 9

And drinking water isn't the only 10

thing that could be impacted. Tourism and 11

agriculture are two of Michigan's top industries 12

that could also be devastated if the waste site 13

leaks. 14

Roughly 96 million travellers 15

visit Michigan each year, and Michigan's 16

agriculture industry adds more than 91.4 billion to 17

our state's economy. Radioactive contaminated 18

Great Lakes water would be devastating to our two 19

top industries in Michigan. 20

Lake St. Clair is vital to our 21

economy in Macomb County. Referred to as the heart 22

of the Great Lakes, it represents 46 percent of the 23

entire Great Lakes recreational fishing industry. 24

It is internationally known as the U.S. premiere 25

318


Musky fishery and ranks high nationally for its 1

small mouth bass and walleye fishing. All of this 2

accounts for over 36 million annually into our 3

economy. 4

Recreational boating accounts for 5

1.7 billion, and Lake St. Clair on the U.S. side 6

has the highest number of registered boats anywhere 7

in the United States. Macomb County has over 60 8

marinas and ranks highest in the U.S. in the number 9

of boat slips available. 10

As we work our way out of a 11

depression in Michigan, Macomb County is targeting 12

our water as a key economic driver. What would 13

happen if our jewel of a lake was contaminated? 14

The Great Lakes define us as a 15

state. We are the only state in the U.S. that is 16

located entirely within the Great Lakes Basin. So 17

much of who we are and what we do is connected to 18

water. 19

My concerns became elevated when I 20

read that the consultant you hired to review OPG's 21

analysis of the proposed site, stated the report 22

was not credible or defensible. Those are strong 23

statements. 24

And I hope they, along with the 25

319


thousands of concerned citizens who have voiced 1

their opposition, weigh heavy in the decision 2

you'll be making about this proposal. 3

Although I wish the members of the 4

Michigan Legislature were more proactive in 5

protecting our lakes, we do have some good laws on 6

the books. 7

In 1978 Michigan passed a law 8

which prohibits radioactive waste from being 9

deposited in Michigan, with a few very limited 10

exceptions. Public Act 113 of 1978 allows above 11

ground storage of radioactive waste in nuclear 12

power plants until the plant is decommissioned. It 13

does not allow for the material to be permanently 14

stored underground. 15

As stated in the Great Lakes Water 16

Quality Agreement between the United States and 17

Canada, it is important to acknowledge the vital 18

importance of the Great Lakes to the social and 19

economic well-being of both countries. 20

Both nations have an obligation 21

not to pollute boundary waters, and to recognize 22

that near shore areas must be restored and 23

protected because they are the major source of 24

drinking water for communities within the basin, 25

320


are where most human commerce and recreation 1

occurs, and are the critical ecological link 2

between watersheds and the open water of our Great 3

Lakes. 4

In conclusion, I again ask you to 5

oppose this proposal. The radioactive material 6

that you anticipate being placed here will be 7

contaminated for thousands of years. 8

We simply don't know the 9

challenges natural disasters will bring, nor the 10

long term geologic integrity of the DGR. 11

We do know that far too often we 12

simply have not been careful enough and have not 13

planned well enough. I am asking you to be more 14

careful and to plan better. 15

I think we often take our Great 16

Lakes for granted because we're so close to them. 17

But they are fragile. They give us food and water 18

and enjoyment and life. The lakes take really good 19

care of us. We have a moral obligation to return 20

that favour. 21

Thank you for allowing me to speak 22

today and to share my thoughts and concerns with 23

you. 24

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you 25

321


Representative Roberts. 1

I would ask that personnel 2

representing the Federal Department of Foreign 3

Affairs and International Trade come to the table. 4

Ms. Becker, if you could also join 5

your colleague at the table. 6

Thank you. 7




MEMBER ARCHIBALD: If I could pose 11

a question to the Department of Foreign Affairs and 12

International Trade. 13

How will the department confirm 14

how Canada has or will fulfill the requirements of 15

any international agreements to demonstrate how 16

Canada can meet its agreements for reporting? 17

This is one of the concerns that 18

Senator Hopgood had stated. 19

MR. WILKIE: Thank you, Madam 20

Chair. 21

My name is Christopher Wilkie. 22

I'm Director of the U.S. Trans-boundary Affairs 23

Division at the Department of Foreign Affairs. As 24

you know, I'm accompanied by my colleague, Marilyn 25

322


Becker, of the Canadian Consulate in Detroit. 1

I think I'd like to answer this 2

question by giving a little bit of background about 3

the mandate of the Department of Foreign Affairs 4

vis-à-vis these hearings. 5

As you probably know, the Minister 6

of Foreign Affairs is responsible for managing the 7

conduct of the external affairs of Canada, 8

including international trade and commerce and 9

development as set out in the most recent 10

Department of Foreign Affairs Act in June of this 11

year. 12

Within the Department, the U.S. 13

Trans-Boundary Affairs Division works 14

collaboratively with other government departments, 15

our network in the U.S., including our Consulate 16

General in Detroit, and U.S. colleagues to manage 17

and resolve a wide range of trans-boundary issues 18

related to our shared border and environment. 19

At this stage of the Joint Panel 20

Review's work, departmental officials have been 21

monitoring your proceedings. We note that, among 22

other interests, views of U.S. stakeholders are 23

being considered by the Panel. 24

I note in particular the 25

323


presentations today of Michigan State Senator 1

Hopgood and State Representative Roberts, and we're 2

pleased that they have been given the opportunity 3

to speak and to be considered as the Panel 4

considers its recommendations. 5

In answer to your question, more 6

specifically, the mandate -- the strict legal 7

mandate for our work in this area is governed by 8

the International Boundary Waters Treaty, and that 9

governs water levels and flows more specifically. 10

The Department of Foreign Affairs, 11

Trade and Development has the lead on this, and 12

within the IBWT, the International Joint 13

Commission, which is a body that operates to help 14

governments administer the trans-boundary waters, 15

it also considers requests by governments to issue, 16

for instance, a reference that would be a 17

recommendation that would be followed by 18

governments. 19

But what has -- so in that it 20

considers water levels and flows, it's perhaps less 21

relevant than another agreement, which has been 22

mentioned here today a little bit more often, which 23

is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. And 24

that, yes, pollution and -- it is part of the 25

324


mandate. 1

This -- two things I should 2

mention about this. First of all, it's a framework 3

agreement. It's not a treaty. So it's a framework 4

agreement that relies on domestic regulations to 5

meet the objectives. 6

And secondly, Environment Canada 7

has the lead and understandably because they have 8

the expertise in this regard. 9

I think I'd like to leave it 10

there, Mr. Chairman -- Madam Chair. 11


I do have a question for both 13

Senator Hopgood and Representative Roberts. And so 14

if both of you could answer the question from your 15

experience. 16

Have you been briefed on the 17

technical aspects of the proposed DGR Project by 18

state or federal agencies such as your Michigan 19

Department of Environmental Quality or the 20

applicable region of the U.S. Environmental 21

Protection Agency? 22

And did those briefings, if they 23

occurred, include whether or not information 24

requests submitted to OPG that were based upon 25

325


comments received by the Panel from those two 1

agencies were, in fact, answered adequately? 2

Senator Hopgood, can you start, 3

please? 4

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Thank you, Madam 5

Chair. 6

You know, that direct briefing, 7

the technical aspects of the project we certainly 8

have reviewed, as included in the testimony, the 9

comments by our state Department of Environmental 10

Quality. 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: Representative 12

Roberts? 13

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: No. 14

THE CHAIRPERSON: So further to 15

that, in particular Representative Roberts, the 16

Panel has received your testimony regarding the 17

many and varied socio-economic concerns as well as 18

environmental quality concerns that have been 19

raised by the proposed DGR in your mind and in the 20

citizens'. 21

So again, is your assessment of 22

the level of risk to drinking water, tourism and 23

agriculture posed by the proposed DGR Project based 24

on any technical review by anyone on your staff or 25

326


any of your state advisors, or is it -- does it 1

depend upon your own personal knowledge of the 2

project? 3

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: Well, I 4

think I would say a couple of things in regard to 5

your question. 6

As I mentioned in my testimony, 7

you know, I'm not an expert, you know, on these 8

issues. And again, I was never briefed by our 9

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, our 10

governor's office or -- we have a Michigan Office 11

of the Great Lakes. 12

So it is based on research that my 13

own staff has done and just from articles that I 14

have read and documents that I have seen. And even 15

here today, there's just a lot of questions about 16

the geologic integrity of the DGR throughout time. 17

And that's where my concerns are raised from. 18

THE CHAIRPERSON: Senator Hopgood, 19

did you have an opportunity to delve into the level 20

of risk posed by the proposed DGR Project? 21


Chairwoman. 23

And you know, with respect to the 24

level of risk, my concern lies with the 25

327


consideration of a sole site. And so we didn't 1

have an opportunity to consider alternatives and 2

the risks that they posed. 3

Low level process in Michigan, 4

municipal landfill considerations require a greater 5

opportunity to compare impacts and risks and 6

whatnot. 7

So from the standpoint of, I 8

suppose, you know, a public policy question of 9

thinking about what could we do to mitigate the 10

risk and simply comparing one to one other 11

alternative would inform us all and would serve us 12

very well. And so I think that's why these 13

processes have requirements such as that. 14

And so that's what we would ask 15

for. I think it's a fair thing. 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: And to follow 17

up, Senator Hopgood, I am understanding that what 18

you would be calling for is a comparison of one 19

other alternative Deep Geologic Repository, not, 20

for example, Deep Geologic Repository versus the 21

alternatives that OPG did, in fact, analyze in 22

their EIS. 23

SENATOR HOPGOOD: What I would 24

look to is the requirements of this process and, 25

328


you know, it lays out what is asked of this 1

consideration. And so comparing one DGR to another 2

DGR would be informative. Comparing multiple 3

things to multiple things would, perhaps, be more 4

informative. 5

So I certainly wouldn't want to 6

rest at the low level in terms of looking at this 7

issue from the economic standpoint, from the health 8

and welfare and all of the other things that have 9

been expressed. 10

I think that this deserves a high 11

level of review in terms of potential alternatives. 12

THE CHAIRPERSON: The next 13

question is directed to the Department of Foreign 14

Affairs. 15

We noted in Senator Hopgood's 16

testimony just a few minutes ago that he was not 17

made aware of the proposed DGR until very recently. 18

Am I correct, Senator Hopgood? 19

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Yes. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: So my question 21

to the Department of Foreign Affairs is, would you 22

confirm whether official notice was provided to 23

Michigan state officials as per any applicable 24

agreement between Canada and the United States? 25

329



Chair. Christopher Wilkie, for the record. 2

I can confirm that U.S. 3

authorities were notified as per the Great Lakes 4

Water Quality Agreement on June 21st of the Deep 5

Geologic Repository hearings, and there has been 6

communication as well with Senator Hopgood from the 7

Department of Foreign Affairs, but the formal 8

notification was made in June on a government to 9

government basis. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And 11

this was June of this year. So just to be very 12

clear, prior to that there had been no official 13

notification? 14

MR. WILKIE: That’s correct. 15

THE CHAIRPERSON: So further to 16

that, Senator Hopgood and Representative Roberts, 17

what we’ve heard from you is that there was little 18

engagement with stakeholders in Michigan, including 19

yourselves, and that to your knowledge there was no 20

-- I’m trying to look and see what exactly you 21

said, Senator Hopgood -- OPG did not host one 22

public event in Michigan. 23

So further to that, OPG, can you 24

please inform the Panel of exactly what OPG did 25

330


with respect to engaging the stakeholders in 1

Michigan? 2


record. 4

Our engagement with Michigan began 5

in 2005 with the Department of Environmental 6

Quality. In 2007 we provided a briefing to Detroit 7

and Washington consular and embassy officials 8

around the DGR and provided them with further 9

information on that. 10

In 2009 we had a number of 11

briefings in the -- in Michigan that included 12

briefings with four state politicians and their 13

staffs, the Michigan Department of Environmental 14

Quality, a representative from the County Board of 15

-- Macomb County Board of Commissioners, as well as 16

members from the Michigan Chapter of the National 17

Wildlife Federation which represents 100 18

conservation groups, the Michigan Environmental 19

Council and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 20

In 2011 we returned to Michigan 21

for further briefings. There we briefed five 22

different representatives, as well as the 23

Governor’s Office. We also briefed again the 24

Department of Environmental Quality and the 25

331


Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 1

In 2013 we returned and briefed 2

the Energy and Technology Senate Committee and did 3

a number of media interviews in 2013, as well as 4

prior to that with the Detroit Free Press as well 5

as National Public Radio and others. 6


So given what we’ve just heard 8

from OPG, Senator Hopgood and Representative 9

Roberts, the Panel would appreciate further 10

understanding, if you can provide it to us, about 11

why you two personally were not in recipient of 12

these kinds of -- this type of information, in 13

particular from your own state agencies, such as 14

the Department of Environmental Quality? 15


Chairwoman. 17

You know, I think if you look at 18

the 13 communications, those were in response to 19

us. So, you know, I think that informs us of why 20

that outreach happened. 21

We introduced the resolution. It 22

was taken up in that committee. There were media 23

questions at that time and quite frankly, following 24

that process is when the resolution passed 25

332


unanimously on the Senate floor and the 26 1

colleagues of mine co-sponsored the measure 2

including people who had previously interacted with 3

OPG in terms of their outreach in the specific 4

closed door private meetings that we were not made 5

aware of. 6

So we’re certainly concerned with 7

our state level’s interaction on this issue and, 8

you know, their consideration of it. We’ve 9

certainly taken the opportunity to review the 10

comments as I’ve expressed. 11

But the extents or the degree of 12

sort of the lack of awareness is evident by this 13

list of groups that I’ve mentioned. This is -- was 14

received in very short order. 15

We’re just getting started in 16

terms of the outreach to broad based organizations, 17

groups within Michigan that may be concerned about 18

an issue such as this. And so, again, even in the 19

organizations who attended these sorts of 20

briefings, they have concerns. 21

Specifically, I emphasize the 22

public participation outreach efforts, the lack 23

thereof which are a concern because I feel that 24

we’re doing the outreach that, you know, could be 25

333


done. And maybe to the degree the responsibility 1

falls with OPG, I believe it does, but we would 2

also press our agencies on our side of the lakes to 3

do due diligence and make sure that concerns are 4

addressed as well. 5

Thank you. 6


Roberts? 8

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: Thank 9

you, Madam Chairwoman. 10

I guess I would simply say I think 11

it’s a complete failure of our current Governor to 12

make us aware that some of these briefings took 13

place in 2013, particularly for the representatives 14

and senators that are along the shoreline of Huron, 15

the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, all the 16

bodies of water downstream from the proposed site. 17

I think it’s actually -- it’s 18

quite disappointing that they would not think that 19

a matter that is so important to us as elected 20

officials in terms of our role of education and 21

responsibility to our constituents that they didn’t 22

think it was important enough to, at a minimum, 23

send us an email or a letter about these 24

communications. 25

334


But I can tell you that from the 1

Town Hall meeting that Senator Hopgood and I held, 2

to some media work that we’ve done, to the social 3

media outreach we’ve done, every single person that 4

I have talked to about this, regardless of age, 5

gender, political affiliation, it terrifies them. 6

And they just wonder how could they consider doing 7

this? 8

And that may be a result of not 9

having enough information on the project. But that 10

is the reality of the situation. 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: So 12

Representative Roberts, if I could follow-up with 13

you, I noted with interest that Mr. Powers did 14

refer to a meeting that was attended by a 15

representative from Macomb County. Can you remind 16

me again exactly who that was, Mr. Powers? 17


record. 19

I might get his pronunciation 20

wrong but it’s Paul Gieleghem. 21

THE CHAIRPERSON: So 22

Representative Roberts, I think you know where I’m 23

going here. 24

And what date was this -- did this 25

335


occur, Mr. Powers? 1


record. 3

This was September 24th, 2009. 4

THE CHAIRPERSON: So this was 5

2009. So I’m assuming that you would occasionally 6

have opportunity to meet with such representatives 7

of the county that you have referred to a couple of 8

times in your presentation. 9

So just -- the Panel would be very 10

interested in finding out why the subject just did 11

not come up. 12

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: State 13

Representative Sarah Robertson, for the record. 14

It’s Paul Gieleghem. But that’s a 15

tough one to pronounce. 16

First, I will say that, as I wrote 17

in my testimony, I first learned about this in late 18

2007 while I was a county commissioner on the 19

Macomb County Board of Commissioners. I also 20

served on the Macomb County Water Quality Board. 21

A brief conversation I had today 22

with a representative from OPG stated that they 23

came to the Water Quality Board and provided a 24

presentation. I do not recall that. It’s possible 25

336


that that was a meeting that I did not attend. 1

But the Water Quality Board in 2

fact passed a resolution opposing it. And while I 3

was a county commissioner we passed a resolution 4

opposing it. 5

But then again, probably early 6

2009, I didn’t hear anything about this. And it is 7

true that Paul Gieleghem served as the Chairman of 8

the Board of Commissioners but at that time I was 9

in the State Legislature. 10

And I would assume that he knew 11

that I had some awareness of it given my work on 12

the Commission and the Water Quality Board. 13

But I think part of the problem 14

here is when you’re looking at a project over such 15

a long period of time, that to simply say we talked 16

to them in 2007 and then you’re moving forward 17

again in 2013, I just don’t think it’s adequate 18

communication because how would I know or anyone to 19

know if in fact it was continuing to move forward 20

when you don’t hear anything about it? 21


I have some more questions for the 23

Department of Foreign Affairs. 24

For the benefit of the Panel, can 25

337


you please explain what the resolution passed by 1

the Michigan State Senate means to Canada and also 2

to the Panel? 3


Chair. Christopher Wilkie, Department of Foreign 5

Affairs, Trade and Development. 6

It’s our understanding that the 7

Michigan State Senate unanimously passed a 8

resolution on the OPG’s Deep Geologic Repository 9

proposal. The Michigan Senate resolution is non-10

binding, but it is a formal expression of Michigan 11

State Senate’s opinion. 12

Unlike earlier drafts, we 13

understand the final resolution does not express 14

its opposition to the project. Rather, it requests 15

Canadian officials to review the proposed 16

repository and calls on the U.S. Congress to ensure 17

that Michigan’s concerns are fully addressed. 18

And if I may, Madam Chair, just to 19

expand on my earlier reply, strictly speaking under 20

the International Boundary Waters Treaty, which 21

governs flows and levels, it wasn’t incumbent on us 22

to formally notify the U.S. government of the 23

Panel’s work. 24

Secondly, of course, we respect 25

338


the mandate and role of the Panel as you consider 1

OPG’s proposal. Nonetheless, it is of course a 2

proposal of some public concern, so we did decide 3

in the end to formally notify our U.S. colleagues 4

of these proceedings. 5


Senator Hopgood, I think you 7

covered this a little -- of this question, so 8

forgive me if I’m asking you to go over the answer 9

to this question again. But you had a lot of 10

information in your submission and so the Panel 11

would appreciate further clarification. 12

So as was pointed out in the 13

written advice provided to the Panel by the 14

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and 15

Development, the siting criteria described in the 16

Michigan Low Level Radioactive Waste Authority Act, 17

contains an exception that does not appear in the 18

resolution. 19

The Act provides such siting 20

criteria shall not apply to a site that is located 21

at or adjacent to a nuclear power generating 22

facility. Can you explain why this part of the 23

provision was excluded from the resolution? 24

SENATOR HOPGOOD: I would just 25

339


suggest that the weight of the Act and the 1

fulfillment of the requirements of the Acts, 2

including the authority and the additional siting 3

requirements, in addition to the issue of burial 4

and underground storage or disposal of nuclear 5

waste makes it crystal clear that this will not be 6

allowed in Michigan. 7

So maybe we wanted to err on the 8

side of making sure that we understood what we were 9

putting in that resolution. We had different 10

people looking at it, including, as I mentioned, 11

the Governor’s Office and the Department of 12

Environmental Quality. 13

And so we perhaps didn’t want to 14

be ambiguous about the language of the resolution, 15

but certainly the reading of the Act and what has 16

become of it has produced a result that suggests 17

that the DGR would not be permitted in Michigan nor 18

would low and intermediate level waste in terms of 19

siting in Michigan. It simply is the case that 20

hasn’t been allowed through the additional criteria 21

that the authority developed. 22


if we could please acquire just a bit more clarity 24

here. 25

340


This is in fact a repository for 1

lower and intermediate level waste and it is for a 2

Deep Geologic Repository for said waste, so are you 3

saying to me that, in Michigan, the application of 4

the regulations under that Act would prohibit a 5

Deep Geologic Repository for low and intermediate 6

level waste at or adjacent to a nuclear generating 7

station? 8

SENATOR HOPGOOD: I am, because 9

the Act, for low level waste directs the authority 10

to develop additional final criteria for site 11

selection which excluded 97 percent of Michigan. 12

It required the consideration of three sites for 13

above ground low level consideration and no sites 14

adjacent to or on a nuclear facility were allowed 15

to move forward. 16

And the other Act, the Michigan 17

Radioactive Waste Act would prohibit the 18

underground storage or disposal of nuclear waste. 19

So, you know, you can always look at our policies 20

and make sure that we’re trying to cover 21

everything, but in this instance, it covers it. 22


Senator Hopgood, you, in your 24

testimony referred to quote “closed door private 25

341


meetings” end quote. Which would those be, please? 1

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Those would be 2

meetings with specific either agency staff or 3

politicians or even organizations which were not 4

open to the public, that there was no public 5

outreach, there was no public Town Hall events or 6

meetings or notification. 7

These were all meetings which were 8

at individual meetings or invited sorts of meetings 9

where the general public, aside from you could make 10

an argument in terms of a politician, you know, it 11

wasn’t noticed to the general public. 12

What’s interesting about that, 13

again, I want to emphasize is that of the 14

politicians and of the groups, they’ve all 15

expressed concerns that they have not said this is 16

okay, that they’ve said we should be concerned 17

about this, almost to an organization and a 18

politician. 19

So I think that the outreach, you 20

know, didn’t secure support. In fact, those people 21

and those entities remained concerned. 22

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG, the Panel 23

would appreciate any additional information you 24

could offer us regarding the quote, “closed door 25

342


private meetings” unquote, and whether or not, in 1

fact, there was just an invitation list or whether 2

some or all of the meetings were open. 3


record. 5

The meetings were arranged and 6

they were meetings that were not -- we did not 7

advertise to the public that we were having these 8

meetings. 9

The meetings though were -- the 10

subjects of the meetings, the people that we were 11

meeting with, the organizations that we were 12

meeting with were picked because they had large 13

reach that they had, for example, with the National 14

Wildlife Federation 100 conservation groups 15

represented. So we tried to reach those groups 16

which had the largest reach and could communicate 17

to their members what we had communicated to them. 18


Panel Members, did we have any 20

further questions? 21

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: I just have one 22

question, Senator Hopgood. 23

In the exclusion regulations for 24

nuclear sites, you shall not place low level 25

343


nuclear waste within 10 miles of Great Lakes or 1

other water bodies, this shall not apply to locally 2

adjacent nuclear power generating facilities, does 3

your regulatory system allow for long-term above 4

ground storage of nuclear waste when nuclear power 5

units are decommissioned? 6

SENATOR HOPGOOD: I’m not --- 7

MEMBER ARCHIBALD: Sorry, what 8

long-term options are available? 9

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Yeah, I’m not 10

aware of that. I think that clearly this is an 11

issue that we all have to deal with and we have 12

nuclear power generation in Michigan. And 13

currently, we have temporary storage onsite, of 14

course, and most everyone else does. 15



Roberts? 18


you, Madam Chair. 20

There’s just one thing that I 21

would like to add regarding, you know, our concerns 22

with meetings, and that is, over this time period, 23

from 2005 and 2013, you know, we saw a change in 24

our Governor. We have 110 state representatives in 25

344


the Michigan House, we have 38 state senators and 1

we have term limits. 2

So a state representative can 3

serve a maximum of three two-year terms which is 4

six years and a State Senator can serve a maximum 5

of two four-year terms which is eight years. 6

So we have pretty consistent 7

turnover of politicians. And so it goes again to 8

our concern and I think it also helps explain 9

perhaps the break in channel of communication. 10

THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for 11

that. I appreciate that. 12

We do now have some questions from 13

participants, beginning with Mr. Hazell. 14


MR. HAZELL: Thank you very much, 16

Madam Chair. Through the Chair, my question has to 17

do with groundwater related to best practice. 18

And the preamble, a small 19

preamble, is that in the course of the work we did 20

to understand that, there were -- there was a 21

review of some studies that have occurred in the 22

United States, and in Michigan in particular. 23

One that was of very great 24

interest was the effect of aquifer depletion in 25

345


Michigan, notably in Chicago, where they've -- over 1

the past 100 years the water table has dropped by 2

1,000 feet. 3

The study by the United States 4

Geological Survey has produced an excellent report. 5

And my question to the OPG is have they, in their 6

consideration of groundwater issues and the 7

significance of that to reverse flow and aquifer 8

depletion and drawing down on the glacial waters in 9

Lake Michigan and, in our case, in Lake Huron, as 10

they are related to each other -- have they 11

considered any of those cutting-edge studies from 12

the United States as being important to our 13

understanding of groundwater here? Because it is 14

all related, of course. 15

Thank you. 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Hazell, I 17

wasn’t sure that that was related to the 18

presentations that we are now entertaining 19

questions related to. 20

MR. HAZELL: I guess it had to do 21

with the interest in international studies and the 22

relevance of that, specifically work being done in 23

Michigan having to do with groundwater. That’s 24

across the lake. 25

346


It’s related to our concern and 1

understanding of groundwater here, and notably 2

aquifer depletion. 3



record. 6

We were aware of those studies. 7

They did not play, really, a role in our 8

assessment, though. 9

The United States Geological 10

Survey was invited to look at our datasets and has, 11

for the last three years, had full access to those 12

datasets and, as a result of that, wrote an article 13

in Eos called “Can shales safely host U.S. nuclear 14

waste?” 15

And that was published in July of 16

this year, in 2013, and it kind of represents a 17

sense on the assessment that they made. 18


Ms. Martin? 20

MS. MARTIN: Good evening, I guess 21

I should say. Joanne Martin, for the record. 22

I would like to ask if the nature 23

of the communications or any communications that 24

was with Michigan and other states that might have 25

347


some concerns or stakeholder ideas in terms of the 1

DGR, was that the same kind of a program or PR type 2

of program that was done here? 3

In other words, were there any 4

pros and cons presented, or just the pros? 5

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG, can you 6

help the Panel understand the nature of the 7

interactions in the United States and compare them 8

with those in Canada? 9


record. 11

These were briefings of 12

politicians as well as conservation groups, 13

environmental groups, bureaucrats, et cetera. 14

Some of those had a high level of 15

technical -- highly technical aspect to them. Some 16

were more generally targeted, but all of them were 17

the beginning of a dialogue and questions in which 18

we would provide answers to those groups 19

afterwards. 20


Powers. 22

And can you help the Panel 23

understand exactly how the answers to those 24

questions were provided to those groups? 25

348



record. 2

We did have various experts on 3

hand for those meetings. And so we would have 4

scientists, et cetera, in those meetings to help 5

provide answers. 6


Ms. Martin? 8

MS. MARTIN: So I’m to understand 9

that there would be a meeting one year and then, 10

two years later or four years later, there might be 11

a follow-up meeting? 12

Like there was no continued public 13

relations and marketing and actual information 14

sharing and sharing the risks as well as the -- the 15

safety issues? 16

THE CHAIRPERSON: OPG, is that an 17

adequate representation? Mr. Powers? 18


record. 20

As I stated, our engagement began 21

in 2005. There was further engagement in 2007, 22

2009, 2011 and 2013. 23

In addition, in between there was 24

various media interviews and throughout all of that 25

349


time our website was available with all of the 1

information on this project. 2

THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Martin, are 3

you done? 4

MS. MARTIN: So if I went on to 5

that website, I would see all the risk issues as 6

well that I could then bring up to OPG? 7

Like dialogue has to be the contra 8

and the positive so that there's a meaningful 9

dialogue so people even know that there is perhaps 10

a risk. How do they know? 11

THE CHAIRPERSON: So I think the 12

question is, Ms. Martin, whether or not, by 13

accessing the OPG website, a person could get a 14

balanced view of the proposed DGR Project. 15

OPG? 16


record. 18

I think the number one risk that 19

came up through the course of our many, many 20

conversations on this and through the -- through 21

what we've heard from the current intervenors was, 22

for example, the safety of the lake. 23

With the -- with regards to the 24

safety of the lake, we recognized that it was an 25

350


issue of ongoing concern and something that people 1

viewed as a risk and, as a result of that input 2

from stakeholders, we produced a 30-page brochure 3

that went through all of the risks and all of the 4

mitigating efforts on that. 5

THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mann? 6


I’m seeking leave to ask Senator Hopgood and 8

Representative Roberts a question. 9

First of all, I thank them for 10

their hard work and presentations that they 11

presented here today. 12

My concern is related to the total 13

absence in this proceeding of the United States 14

federal government, particularly Congress and the 15

Senate -- United States Senate and the United 16

States Congress. 17

They haven’t -- they aren’t 18

participating, as far as I know, in this 19

proceeding. 20

They have either been left out of 21

the loop or they're happy that Ontario is taking 22

the ball and building a DGR because they can’t 23

possibly do it and it’ll be a destination for all 24

the nuclear waste in the United States. 25

351


But my concern is, the Great Lakes 1

are a major concern to the United States federal 2

government. Why on earth isn’t the United States 3

federal government, the United States and the 4

United States Congress, involved in these 5

proceedings and giving their input on something 6

that is the most important and dangerous thing -- 7

project ever to confront the Great Lakes? 8

And I wonder if Senator Hopgood 9

and Representative Roberts could comment on the 10

lack -- astonishing lack of any comment by the 11

United States government. Crazy. 12


I would ask -- I certainly won’t ask you to speak 14

on behalf of your federal government. 15

So I think what I would simply 16

seek is whether or not you could supply, to your 17

knowledge, an explanation or a description to the 18

Panel of what federal involvement there has been, 19

if any. 20


Chairwoman. 22

We will and have and continue to 23

ask our legislators at the federal level, our 24

agencies at the federal level to address the 25

352


concerns, to weigh in, to become engaged, and some 1

of them have. But we're going to continue to push 2

that more do so. 3

We think that if the general 4

public had a greater understanding and awareness of 5

this project that they would be knocking down the 6

doors of -- in terms of the politicians of these 7

agencies to make sure that our concerns were 8

addressed. 9

However, saying that, we do have 10

some interaction with a member of Congress, who, as 11

I mentioned, reached out to the U.S. State 12

Department and we will continue to follow up on 13

those proceedings to try to have issues addressed. 14


you, Madam Chairwoman. 16

I have personally spoken with my 17

Congressman and our two U.S. Senators. I've also 18

been in communication with their staff. There are 19

concerns. I will not speak for them, but I will 20

share that based on conversations there are 21

concerns, and they were aware of it. 22

And I think this goes back to the 23

point that we were trying to make earlier, that 24

when you have a project that's over such a long 25

353


period of time and you're aware of something but 1

you're not kept really up to date in terms of the 2

progress or at which point you're at making certain 3

decisions on the timeline, it's not immediately in 4

front of them. 5

Our federal legislators right now, 6

unfortunately, may be facing a government shutdown 7

on -- tomorrow, and so they have a lot of things on 8

their plate as well. And then when it's not 9

immediately in front of them I think there's many, 10

many issues that they're responsible for, that 11

Senator Hopgood and I have been, I would argue, 12

working very diligently in the past couple of weeks 13

to engage them. 14

And I know that our two U.S. 15

Senators will be writing letters to the Department 16

of State. I've asked them also to write letters to 17

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and to cc 18

their communications to the International Joint 19

Commission. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: Further to that, 21

Representative Roberts and Senator Hopgood, are you 22

aware that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 23

has in fact made a submission to this Panel and 24

that some actual formal information requests were 25

354


issued by the Panel on the basis of that evidence 1

put before us by your Environmental Protection 2

Agency? 3

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: Yes, I am 4

aware that they submitted some comments, but I 5

could not speak specifically to them today, but I 6

am aware. 7

THE CHAIRPERSON: Senator Hopgood? 8

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Thank you. 9

I am aware. Part of the 10

discussion is getting our federal legislators to 11

press the agencies to continue to do a full 12

consideration of the concerns. 13

And so, you know, we're 14

appreciative that they are aware and that they've 15

have weighed in, but we want to make sure that 16

they're understanding the full breadth and scope of 17

our concerns and we'll continue to do so. 18


Mr. Mann? 20

MR. MANN: Doctor, I wonder if I 21

could have leave to ask OPG what consultation they 22

did have with the United States federal government, 23

particularly, the United States Senate and the 24

United States Congress, regarding this massive and 25

355


critical project to the Great Lakes? 1



record. 4

As I mentioned, a DGR briefing was 5

provided in 2007 to Detroit and Washington consular 6

and embassy officials. And I'll leave it at that. 7


Mr. Mann, is that it for now? 9

MR. MANN: Thank you. 10


Okay, I think that brings to a 12

close the questions for both Senator Hopgood and 13

Representative Roberts. Thank you so much for 14

taking the time to come and appear in front of us. 15

SENATOR HOPGOOD: Thank you for 16

your time and indulgence today. 17

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTS: Yeah, 18

thank you so much for the opportunity. 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: Before we 20

adjourn, we will now read into the record some 21

written submissions provided to the Panel. 22

Over the last two weeks, the Panel 23

has repeatedly thanked those who have presented, 24

either here in person or by telephone. Equally 25

356


important to our review are the many written 1

submissions we have received from people who chose 2

not to make an oral presentation. 3

The Panel has carefully considered 4

all written submissions and will address some of 5

those submissions now. 6

--- WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/REPRÉSENTATIONS ÉCRITES: 7

MS. McGEE: As stated by the 8

Chair, the Joint Review Panel will now move to 9

consideration of some of the written submissions. 10

I will read the name of the writer and the Panel 11

Member Document number assigned to each submission, 12

and the Panel Members will then identify whether 13

they have any questions. 14

PMD13-P1.122 from Gayle Bettega; 15

PMD13-P1.27 and 27A from the Alliance for the Great 16

Lakes, Chicago; PMD13-P1.59 from Marilyn Biernot-17

Hess; and PMD-P1.174 from Lynn Township. 18

Do the Members have any questions? 19

THE CHAIRPERSON: The Members do 20

have questions for the following two written 21

submissions. 22


THE CHAIRPERSON: For the Alliance 24

for the Great Lakes, PMD Number 27 and Number 27A, 25

357


the Panel would like to know what is the Alliance 1

for the Great Lakes, including how many members 2

belong to this organization? 3

The Panel also requires the answer 4

to the question of whether the submission, the 5

written submission, was approved by the membership 6

of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. 7

We also have a question for Lynn 8

Township, PMD Number 174. The Panel would like the 9

answers to these questions. Number one, what is 10

the population of Lynn Township; number two, did 11

any personnel associated with Lynn Township 12

administration review any of the EIS materials and 13

then advise the elected officials? 14

MS. McGEE: Thank you, Madam 15

Chair. 16

The Panel Secretariat will contact 17

both the Alliance for the Great Lakes and Lynn 18

Township for the additional information requested 19

by the Panel. 20

THE CHAIRPERSON: That completes 21

today's agenda, rather late, but I think that was 22

worth it. 23

Thank you to everyone who 24

participated today, either by being here in person 25

358


or by watching the webcast. 1

We'll start tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. 2

with an afternoon session beginning at 2:00. The 3

subject for tomorrow's session is aquatic/surface 4

water habitat and aquatic biota. 5

And Tuesday's proceedings will 6

include presentations by Ontario Power Generation, 7

the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Environment 8

Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the 9

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority. 10

Thank you, and good evening. 11

--- Upon adjourning at 7:04 p.m./ 12

L'audience est ajournée à 19h04 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

359


1

2

C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3

4

I, Lynn Jefferson, a certified court reporter in 5

the Province of Ontario, hereby certify the 6

foregoing pages to be an accurate transcription of 7

my notes/records to the best of my skill and 8

ability, and I so swear. 9

10

Je, Lynn Jefferson, un sténographe officiel dans la 11

province de l’Ontario, certifie que les pages ci-12

hautes sont une transcription conforme de mes 13

notes/enregistrements au meilleur de mes capacités, 14

et je le jure. 15

16

17

18

___________________________________ 19

Lynn Jefferson 20

Court Reporter / Sténographe 21

22

23

24

25

JOINT REVIEW PANEL COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT · 9 --- Upon recessing at 9:14 a.m./ 10...

Documents

Transcript of JOINT REVIEW PANEL COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT · 9 --- Upon recessing at 9:14 a.m./ 10...