Community Question and Answers

How will South Bruce decide if we are a willing community?

For the Municipality, determining the willingness of our community to host the DGR will be an important decision for our future.

During extensive community consultation in 2021, many people said they preferred a referendum for determining willingness. Council approved using a by-election (referendum) to measure the community’s willingness to host the Project.

The referendum is to be after the NWMO and Municipality have completed several studies and negotiated a hosting agreement, which is anticipated to be done in the coming months.

Learn more about the Council decision and read a summary of this work Willingness: The Path Forward.

What steps are involved in calling and holding a referendum?

The public referendum will be a by-election, conducted in the same manner as regular elections and is subject to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996. According to the Act, more than 50% of eligible voters must participate for the outcome to be binding upon Council.

Council will need to pass a by-law submitting the wording of the question to the electorate. The referendum must be held at least 180 days after the by-law is passed.

Council wants to make sure that the Municipality has negotiated a hosting agreement with the NWMO before people vote. This way people can make an informed decision based on the benefits the Project will bring to the community and how the NWMO will protect people and the environment from the impacts of this project. 

What is a hosting agreement? 

The Municipality is negotiating a hosting agreement so the community will know the NWMO’s commitments and obligations, should South Bruce be willing and selected. It also lays out the wind-down of the Project if South Bruce is not the final site. 

What is the Municipality seeking in the hosting agreement?

The Municipality is guided by 36 Guiding Principles, developed with public input, that speak to community concerns, expectations and aspirations for the project.

These principles speak to three key pillars – that the project is safe for people and the environment, that it offers meaningful community benefits and that the Municipality will have a continued voice in decisions that impact the community.

The agreement will incorporate the commitments made by the NWMO in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Municipality and the NWMO in June 2022.

If the community is not willing to host or it is not selected by the NWMO, the process will wind-down according to the Agreement. 

What happens after the referendum?

The referendum is just one step in a larger NWMO process to ensure safe, secure storage in a willing and informed community.

Following the referendum, Council will inform the NWMO of the community’s decision on willingness to host the Project.

Three other communities will also inform the NWMO of their willingness. This includes the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, and in Northwestern Ontario, the Township of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake First Nation.

The NWMO plans to make its decision by the end of 2024.

Once the NWMO selects a host community, there will be a federal impact assessment and licensing process that will take several years.

What is the impact of the federal government’s acceptance of the Integrated Strategy for Radioactive Waste prepared by the NWMO?

Why is the Nuclear Waste Management Organization looking for a solution to store used nuclear fuel?

In Ontario, nuclear power is used to meet about half of our electricity demand.

For the past 60 years, nuclear power generation in Canada has created three million used nuclear fuel rods. Today, the used nuclear fuel rods are stored in seven temporary sites across the country – with approximately half at the Bruce Power site The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was created to find the solution. 

Why is South Bruce being considered?

It is believed that the geology found in South Bruce is suitable and safe for a deep geological repository. The borehole drilling work and other studies will further confirm the site suitability. 

Why bury the used nuclear fuel deep underground?

There is strong international, scientific consensus that storing the waste in a deep geological repository (DGR) is the safest way to manage used nuclear fuel. This involves securing the waste in a reinforced, multi-barrier facility in hard rock more than 600 metres below ground. 

What does the Project include?

In addition to a deep geologic repository (DGR) – a facility built deep underground for used nuclear fuel bundles, supporting surface facilities and a Centre of Expertise will be built near or at the site.

These facilities will also bring other industries to the region including those in the service, manufacturing and scientific research sectors. Related jobs in construction and infrastructure are also anticipated. 

What is guiding the Municipality’s decision-making process?

Between December 5, 2019 and February 18, 2020, South Bruce led a comprehensive visioning process to get input on what people cared about most. The community’s input through this process and beyond resulted in 36 guiding principles which focus on safety for people and the environment, ensuring the project brings meaningful benefits to the community, and ensuring the municipality has a voice in decision-making.

The Municipality uses these principles to guide its engagement with the NWMO and its consideration of the Project. 

How many boreholes did the NWMO drill?

The NWMO drilled two boreholes in South Bruce.

In March 2021, the NWMO presented its borehole drilling plan to the Community Liaison Committee (CLC).

Details about the borehole drilling process, are available on the NWMO website. 

Does the NWMO provide funding to the Municipality? 

Yes. Municipalities don’t have the financial resources to fund the costs associated with determining the feasibility and safety of the site. That’s why NWMO funding is needed to pay for Project-related studies, staffing and administrative costs.

To recognize the leadership of the community and to build capacity, the NWMO also contributes to the community while the site selection process is underway. For example, the Community Well Being funds support different projects/initiatives in South Bruce, such as upgrades to the Belmore Community Centre, and the purchase of new breathing devices for firefighters.

Who paid for the Willingness Study? 

The Willingness Study, and all other studies/peer-reviews related to the NWMO Project are funded through the Municipality of South Bruce’s Multi-Year Funding Agreement. The NWMO provides the funding for this Agreement, however, it is the Municipality independently that hires consultants and commissions the studies that take place.

The consultants and independent firms that are hired to lead/peer-review studies report to their client, the Municipality of South Bruce.

What is the purpose of the industrial park being planned in Eurajoki, Finland?

"We are planning industry park, but it has nothing to do with Onkalo or nuclear facilities. Our goal is to get more businesses and new companies to Eurajoki.

We want to be very active in business development area. Nowadays we have to be able to offer new areas for new companies and it's self-evident that the municipality wants new companies and jobs for people. In my point of view municipalit(ies) have to develop all the time, it never ends." 

How will noise caused by the project from the blasting activities, truck and vehicle traffic for not only the wildlife in the area but the people living adjacent to the site?

That hasn’t been determined yet. A noise monitoring program will begin in 2024. The work we will then complete as part of the Effects Assessment contributing to the Impact Statement will help determine if noise produced from the project will have any impacts on wildlife and people close to the site. The typical process in the assessment of these effects would start by reviewing a clear description of the project. That information would then be given to a subject matter expert in noise modelling. Pending results of the Effects Assessment to determine if there are any potential effects of noise on wildlife or people in the project area, the environment team would then work with the engineering team to determine if any additional mitigation measures would need to be incorporated into the design of the project to ensure noise is below required thresholds as different species respond to different levels of noise. As noise levels change during the lifecycle of a Project, the noise levels at the different project phases would be considered as part of the Effects Assessment. There are also Health Canada provisions for human occupied areas as well. The NWMO will also be completing a human health risk assessment that will include noise effects on human receptors.

The last Area of Interest map [shown in the presentation] looks very red (to me), why have a nuclear project in such a sensitive area and lose even more pristine habitat?

Adding to George's question, I specifically on one slide to radionuclides at a gamma level, in well water - Could Michelle please explain that reference? Thank you.

Gross alpha/beta were one of the contaminants of potential concern we analyzed in the drinking water program. Gross alpha/beta measurements are used as a screening procedure for determining radiological characteristics of a drinking water source. An exceedance from a single sample does not in itself imply that the water is unsuitable for consumption, just that further investigation is required to understand the individual radionuclides that are contributing to that radioactivity and whether this exceedance was a one-time occurrence or a long-term effect. Radionuclides may come from natural or human-made sources. They are present everywhere in our environment including the soil and water and their presence in the water does not necessarily mean that the water is unsafe for human consumption. Further investigation found that there was no immediate risk to the safety of occupants and follow-ups regarding these detections were completed with the landowners. 

RSIC, GHD & NWMO Response: It is recognized that opinions vary widely, and this is really outside the scope of the study.  For the first part of the question, a lack of being able to tell if radiation is present (cannot see, hear, feel, smell it) and a lack of early education could lead to fear.  The second part of the question really can’t be fully answered but includes factors such as trust, emotion and extent of knowledge - it is not fully known on a case by case basis why people are unwilling to accept facts that are contrary to a currently held opinion.

Would the guest speakers voluntarily live next door to the DGR?

What measures will be taken to assure safety to the people, the aquifer and the environment from acts of terrorism during the operation stage?

The environment around the facility would be monitored. While not expected, if there was a need for cleanup, the approach would depend on the issue.

This is a good response rate for this type of survey outreach, it surpasses many of the similar studies we have seen in recent years. The final sample size of 198 completed surveys provided more than enough of statistical accuracy to be able to confidently estimate the metrics in this survey. 

In regards to the 71 responses from the same device, is that something you commonly see when doing community surveys?

This is one of the highest number of duplicates by one device we have seen in our surveys.

Would you say that the number of responses received is typical of a community survey? Higher or lower?

For a community of this size, the number of responses was high compared to what we would typically expect with this type of mail-out methodology. The higher response rate was made possible by the flexible response options, the well-planned communications by the Municipality throughout the study, and the long surveying period.

I know several people owning property but not residing in (South Bruce that) never got (a) survey. Why?

Post cards were sent to all households in the Municipality’s rate payer database. Some were returned by the post office but were re-sent with names attached. The Municipal staff also put out advertising stating that residents/ratepayers who did not receive their post-cards could contact the Municipal office to receive their PIN codes to participate.

Can you explain the start and end time of valid survey responses? (The) length of survey, can you explain please?

The start and end time/date of the survey was used to calculate the length of time that it took a participant to complete their survey. In data validation, if an individual completed their abnormally quickly this was one factor that was considered when detecting invalid cases (in conjunction with all the other data validation checkpoints).

How come some people got personally addressed survey cards (when) most got only household mailing? This created (situations where) more surveys came into a household, and that you knew who was answering the survey; not giving (the) true number of participants.

The mailings were sent using a mail-merge from the Municipalities’ ratepayer database. Some of these addresses have an “ATTN:” field with individuals’ names. Also, some post cards were returned by Canada Post, and were re-sent with names included, in hopes of reaching the correct household. Every effort was made to ensure each household only received one postcard, and additional PIN codes were available for additional household members upon request.

Names were not attached to survey responses or used for data validation, only PIN codes and IP addresses. Once data validation was complete, we removed the PIN codes and IP addresses before proceeding with the data analysis.

Do you find that with surveys about controversial topics opposition groups attempt to create doubt in the survey results?

The incentive to try to cast doubt or manipulate survey results can certainly be elevated when there are controversial topics involved. From Deloitte’s perspective, we don’t invest much time speculating on the rationale for duplication or invalid cases. Our sole objective with these studies is to ensure all responses are valid and there is no opportunity for manipulation of the results. We’re confident our Quality Control process was able to achieve this for the data from this survey.

Why was a pin number needed to get a hard copy?  This indicated you know where the survey was coming from.

PINs were used to verify that the requestor was a resident of the Municipality but were not attached to the hard copy surveys. Once a resident requested a hard copy, their PIN was eliminated from the list so that there was no duplication. Hard copies were returned anonymously via pre-addressed envelopes to Deloitte’s head office and input into the database.

Was the statistical procedure of bootstrapping used in the analysis?

Bootstrapping was not used for this analysis.

Bootstrapping is an alternative way to compute various statistics including means, standard errors and confidence intervals. It works by taking many random sub-samples of the data (often hundreds or thousands) and re-computing the statistics based on each sub-sample. Statistics are then computed based on the distribution of the sub-sample statistics instead of directly from the response data. It can be helpful when you are conducting means comparisons or hypothesis testing (“Does group A behave significantly differently than group B?”), but for a study like this where we’re simply estimating means we generally would not recommend it. The main downside to bootstrapping is its level of complexity. It is not an easy concept to explain and so is often not very well-understood by the general population, which can ultimately blur how well the final results are understood.

How many responses of the 198 were not by the online method? How many hard copies, telephone surveys did you get?

There were 11 hard copy surveys received, and 4 surveys completed over the phone. The remaining surveys were completed through the online method.

Using IP address, if a neighbour came to your house and used my computer, (were) all (these) surveys declared invalid?

No, they would not be excluded. There are several legitimate reasons why two or more surveys could be entered with the same IP (such as a community member assisting a friend or family member by helping to fill in their survey using their phone). IP address was only one indicator that was used in the data checking process, and multiple flags were required before a case was considered a duplicate. Note that for any duplicates that were identified, only the duplicate entries were removed, not the first entry which was left as a legitimate case.

How many surveys do we have to do?

Please note these surveys are always voluntary.

Heard that neighbours did not get surveys and neighbour went and got copies to hand out. Seems they would not (be) counted.

The hard copy survey requests were all verified by the Municipal staff before they were sent to respondents. All mail-ins were verified to be envelopes that were provided by the Municipality to residents. All verified hard copy surveys were counted in the data.

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Response: At this time, IAAC has not received a project description for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO)’s proposed project and cannot speculate on project activities. The regulatory process will start after site selection and upon receipt of an Initial Project Description.

IAAC and CNSC’s current understanding of NWMO’s mandate is as follows:

• The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) established the NWMO as responsible for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. Under their current plan, called Adaptive Phased Management (APM), NWMO is selecting a site to develop a Deep Geological Repository facility for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. A central part of their plan includes identifying a willing and informed host community.
• The NWMO’s current project is focused on Canada’s existing inventory, which consists of used nuclear fuel from CANDU reactors.
• Under the NFWA, the NWMO is also responsible for used fuel generated from new or emerging technologies.
• NWMO’s current mandate as set out in the NFWA is only for used nuclear fuel and does not extend to intermediate or low-level waste.

Should in the future the NWMO, or any other organization develop a proposal for other types of waste – whether it is used nuclear fuel from next generation SMRs, low and intermediate level waste, or any other type of nuclear waste disposal, those projects would be subject to applicable IAAC and CNSC requirements over that given project or facility’s lifetime. At this time, there are no proposals (including pre-project proposals) associated with those types of wastes before the CNSC or IAAC.

Will a scope 3 assessment be carried out including the CO2 emissions footprint be done?

IAAC Response: The Strategic Assessment of Climate Change requires the calculation of Net GHG emissions as:
Net GHG emissions = Direct GHG emissions + Acquired energy GHG emissions − CO2 captured and stored − Avoided domestic GHG emissions − Offset credits.

The assessment of other indirect (Scope 3) emissions is not required by the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change; however, an assessment of upstream emissions may be required if upstream emissions are expected to exceed a set threshold (currently 500 kt CO2 eq/year).

Will the loss of farmland be a factor in your assessment of this project?

IAAC Response: The scope of the assessment will be determined once the NWMO has finished its site selection process and has submitted its initial project description to the IAAC and the CNSC. This begins the integrated assessment process. The scope of the assessment will be determined based on the information provided by the NWMO in its initial project description, as well as the issues raised by the Indigenous communities and the public. The assessment process would assess the potential positive and negative effects of a proposed project on environmental, health, social and economic conditions, which could include the loss of farmland.

When public formal environmental assessments are carried out regarding this DGR will representatives from the U.S. have any standing?

IAAC Response: Under the Impact Assessment Act, the impact assessment process is designed to ensure that opportunities are provided for meaningful public participation and to emphasize flexibility and informality in the conduct of public hearings. As such, participants do not have to apply for formal standing in the hearing. Representatives from the U.S. may be participants in the process, if they choose.

Will the assessment scope include other options for nuclear waste disposal including the current status quo of on-site storage?

IAAC Response: The exact scope of the assessment will be determined based on the information provided by the NWMO in its Initial Project Description, as well as the issues raised by Indigenous communities and the public. The acceptance of the Initial Project Description by the IAAC and the CNSC commences the integrated assessment process. The assessment of "alternatives to the project" and "alternative means of carrying out the project" are factors considered in the assessment process. The IAAC, in collaboration with CNSC, will scope the requirements for the alternatives assessment based on their relevance and importance, and if the IAAC determines that further assessment is required, IAAC will provide direction to the proponent in the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines, which will be drafted during the planning phase and finalized following a public comment period. Please see the IAAC’s webpage for further information: Policy Context: "Need for", "Purpose of", "Alternatives to" and "Alternative means" - Canada.ca

At what point in the assessment process will the SON be asked for their input?

IAAC and CNSC Response: Prior to the start of the planning phase of the impact assessment process for a project, IAAC and CNSC would reach out to potentially impacted Indigenous communities to discuss how to work together during the impact assessment process, and any comments they may have about the assessment process or proposed project. Once IAAC and the CNSC have accepted the proponent’s Initial Project Description, the IAAC and the CNSC will commence the planning phase through a formal comment period and consultation with potentially impacted Indigenous communities. During the planning phase, the IAAC and the CNSC would develop an Indigenous Engagement and Partnership Plan, which would outline opportunities and methods for meaningful engagement and consultation with potentially impacted Indigenous communities throughout the impact assessment process.

In relation to the NWMO’s APM Project, IAAC and CNSC would follow the process outlined above with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation and other potentially impacted Indigenous communities. Please see the IAAC’s webpage for further information: Participation of Indigenous Peoples in Impact Assessment.

Concurrently, the CNSC actively engage with Saugeen Ojibway Nation on nuclear projects in their territory as well as proposed projects (including NWMO APM project). Specifically, in regard to the NWMO APM project CNSC, in collaboration with IAAC, is actively engaging with several communities including the SON is a pre-consultation manner. If the NWMO goes forward with a licence application, then formal consultation activities will begin, as described above. If a licence to prepare site is obtained, all future consultation activities will be led by the CNSC. CNSC is the life-cycle regulator and during the entire life-cycle of the facility CNSC will engage with communities including the SON.

When the original Seaborn Panel was selected a member regarding ethical concerns was included. Will that be done when this panel is formed?

IAAC Response: Review panel members are selected on the basis of their knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous issues, experience and expertise. They must be free from bias or conflict of interest relative to the project. Potential review panel members undergo a rigorous vetting process to ensure that they meet those criteria. Integrated review panel members will also be cross-appointed to the Commission, which requires its members to follow a code of conduct: Code of Conduct for Members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Should members of the public have concerns about review panel members, they are encouraged to share their thoughts with the IAAC and the CNSC.

Is it within the mandate of the NWMO to advocate on behalf of the nuclear industry and future SMR developments by way of advertising done on major Canadian newspapers?

IAAC Response: IAAC cannot speak to the NWMO’s mandate. Further information on NWMO’s mandate can be found by contacting them or visiting their website: www.nwmo.ca.

A question for Mr. Anderson is, will the comments from Indigenous participants during consultation be available to the wider public and not limited only for proponent NWMO to see?

IAAC Response: Comments that are provided to the IAAC and the CNSC in the course of the planning phase and the impact assessment process will be posted to the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry (the Public Registry). Once the planning phase of the assessment begins, a project-specific page will be created and all submissions that relate to the assessment will be posted publicly. There are some exceptions made for confidential information, such as Indigenous Knowledge. Please see the IAAC guidance on Protecting Confidential Indigenous Knowledge under the Impact Assessment Act.

Would you ever not accept a project?

IAAC Response: IAAC does not accept or reject projects. IAAC, or the integrated review panel, provides its advice to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and in some cases, to Governor in Council, who will determine whether the proposed project is in the public interest. Once the public interest determination has been made, the Minister will issue a Decision Statement that includes the reasons for the determination.

Does Saugeen Ojibway Nation have the final say, as they did regarding the previously proposed OPG DGR?

IAAC Response: Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) decision not to proceed with the Low and Intermediate Level Deep Geologic Repository Project at the Bruce site was based on OPG’s commitment to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation to not proceed without their support. IAAC cannot speak to any understanding or commitments that NWMO may have with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. However, the NWMO notes on

their public website that one of the guiding principles in their site selection process is an “informed and willing host community”. Additional information about the NWMO and their mandate can be found on their website: www.nwmo.ca

Why does the public have to go through the CLC, the NWMO and the South Bruce Exploration Team to get to you. Can a group not connect with you on their own?

IAAC Response: Both the CNSC and the IAAC are available and can be reached directly. The IAAC can be reached at: NuclearWaste-DechetsNucleaires@iaac-aeic.gc.ca and the CNSC can be reached at: Julia.smith@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca.

NWMO is committed to the continued and ongoing research into how to safely develop a DGR in the two potential site areas. In addition to required studies and meeting regulatory requirements we continue to assess how we can provide positive impacts and benefits to local communities.
Our focus remains constant, implementing Canada’s plan while protecting people and the environment.

The regulations for the transport of nuclear substances apply a graded approach to packaging. Per the regulations, Type A packaging was required for the transport of the capsule that was lost in Australia in January, 2023. In this case, the packaging to ship a very small single sealed source was smaller in size than a garbage can and was only required to withstand normal conditions of transport.

In contrast, used fuel must be transported in Type B packaging. This packaging must be demonstrated to withstand severe accident conditions. Type B packaging for the transport of used fuel is typically large, heavy, and utilizes a complex closure system which must also incorporate tamper-indicating devices. Additionally, to meet security requirements, the shipment must be accompanied by security personnel, and incorporate real time tracking. From a content perspective, the small used fuel pellets are all sealed within fuel bundle assemblies, each approximately the size of a fireplace log. The fuel bundles themselves are contained within larger structures which hold multiple fuel bundles. All these additional features and requirements make a similar occurrence during NWMO’s transportation campaign very unlikely.

If other municipalities/counties choose not to capitalize on the opportunities facilitated by the Project, they will not receive the potential benefits that are spun off.

The municipalities in the local study area were determined by their proximity to the proposed site as well as their infrastructure capabilities in healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, procurement, education, etc.. 

In identifying work force demand did you interview local employers? There are many who have been seeking but unable to find help in the last few years.

There are currently two locations in the site selection process: South Bruce and Ignace. Canada’s deep geological repository to safely manage used nuclear fuel will only move forward with informed and willing communities.

Currently, the NWMO has about 1,700 acres of land owned and/or optioned. Should South Bruce not be selected, these lands would be sold at market value and/or optioned.

Why are there no in person CLC meetings? Will those public meetings be virtual?

Motion CLC-2022-35 Passed April 7, 2022 states: That the SBCLC continue to have meetings virtually using Zoom at least until fall. 

Why are "meet the experts" so limited? You can't get to ask all the experts unless you book a room. Not a good format.

The "Meet the Experts" sessions gave the public full access to speak directly to the consultants involved in the studies. Both study authors and peer reviewers available. Both public and private rooms were available. 

How much does the landowner along the route to the DGR have to pay for all these services? What if the landowners cannot afford them or do not want them? 

This study demonstrated that the necessary infrastructure could be supplied to the proposed DGR site.

If the NWMO requests municipal services (water/wastewater) be supplied to the site and the Municipality of South Bruce agree to provide it there will be no cost to local landowners for servicing of the DGR. Any requirements to local landowners to connect to those services and the costs for that connection will be a decision of the Municipality, not the NWMO. Any services provided by infrastructure owned by private companies (communications, natural gas) supplied to the DGR site, may be offered to local landowners by the private company, but that would be between that specific company and the landowner.

South Bruce held a comprehensive visioning process in 2019 and 2020 to get input on what people cared about most in relation to the Project. The process, in addition to other community input and feedback resulted in the creation of 36 Guiding Principles which focus on safety for people and the environment, ensuring the Project brings meaningful

benefits to the community, and ensuring the municipality has a voice in decision-making.
The principles were adopted by Council resolution and they have guided municipal activities
and engagement related to the Project. The content of some of the Principles had been previously raised with NWMO. South Bruce Council adopted them independently thorugh a motion of Council after engagement with the community.

When speaking of rental facilities, will there be incentives for current residents who may wish to build rental units? The overhead costs can be excessive, but incentives could help to keep the rental income local also, rather than having big companies or individuals from the city building the rental properties and getting the income.

This concept will be brought forward to the authors of the Housing Plan. 

Will there be opportunities to work with neighbouring municipalities to determine how much growth is desired or acceptable with each of them? That seems like a good way to ensure our neighbours can benefit from the growth as well.

We have been routinely meeting with members of the neighbouring communities from the Core Study Area (as defined in the Community Studies).

What are the implications to the municipality if the land is transferred to federal jurisdiction?

It could have land use planning and taxation implications (please see next question). 

Do federal jurisdiction land pay municipal property taxes?

It is common that upper orders of governments give payment-in-lieu of taxes to municipal governments. 

Principle 25 states: “The NWMO will fund the engagement of subject matter experts by the
Municipality to undertake peer reviews of the Project reports and independent assessments of the Project’s potential impacts on and benefits for the community as determined necessary by the Municipality.” Considerable investment is being made to secure accurate information to inform the community from experts in each subject matter field.

When are any of the study people going to actually come and speak to neighbouring owners of land, etc. which are directly affected by this project?

Study Authors conduct "Knowledge Holder Interviews" with some local members of the public in positions relevant to the study topic. All Knowledge Holder Interviews are listened in the appendices of the studies. Some studies, such as the Agriculture Business Impact Study, offered residents the opportunity to contribute their experiences to the study research. 

The argument you make that the volume of high-level nuclear waste is small is misleading. The waste creates a lot of heat and has to be spaced out. The spent fuel is extremely toxic for thousands of years. Why the sales pitch?

“Small” is not an empirical measure, but rather a relative term. In my presentation to the South Bruce CLC on April 7, 2022, I said that the volume of nuclear waste is small in volume relative to waste from other energy sources – specifically, the waste from fossil fuels, which becomes air pollution and causes millions of deaths per year, according to the World Health Organization, and also causes global warming; and waste from solar panels, for example, which is many times higher in volume per kilowatt hour of energy produced (and certain toxins in solar panels are toxic forever) than from nuclear energy. That is not intended as an argument against solar, but as an illustration of the fact that all energy sources have different characteristics to be weighed, including cost, land use, by-products, reliability for baseload, and carbon emissions, to name a few. 

There have been concerns raised about a repackaging plant that comes along with the DGR plan. I'm curious if the repackaging associated with potential "rolling stewardship" would be a different process, therefore eliminating those concerns?

The current assumption for used fuel is that the NWMO DGR will be developed for all used fuel in Canada, as envision in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act of 2002. The existing Dry Storage Containers are expected to serve their purpose until that DGR is in-service, and no repackaging is envisioned for interim storage, only for emplacement in the DGR. 

We are the grandchildren that have had nuclear waste passed onto us. It is just a continuation of what has already going on. The DGR concept has been around for years. Why do we hear the same thing over and over again?

As the International Atomic Energy Agency has noted, timelines can be long to develop a DGR, even decades from conception to implementation, in part due to the work required to obtain social license and a willing host community. It is fair enough to ask why processes to develop lasting solutions for permanent disposal were not initiated much earlier by a previous generation; however, we cannot change the past. We can accept responsibility in our own time, do the right thing, and ensure that we do not similarly pass along an unresolved issue to future generations. In this regard, progressing a DGR toward approval and implementation, in our own time, would be a positive step. 

Why don't we stop producing nuclear fuel until we "catch" up with disposing it?

In Ontario, about 60% of electricity comes from low-cost, reliable nuclear – and that is one of the reasons we have the cleanest (lowest carbon) electricity grids in North America. Running the reactors, of course, requires a continuous supply of fuel. Without the fuel, we would have to do without the majority of our electricity – which society could not accept, given the need to power our hospitals, refrigerate our food, light our highways at night – or we might face undesirable options such as returning to burning coal, which would reverse our progress toward fighting climate change.  Solar and wind are not a reliable source of continuous baseload needed to meet demand, but are intermittent – meaning that they rely on the sun shining, and the wind blowing; they cannot replace the nuclear baseload. Nor can we build enough new hydro dams to supplant all the existing nuclear, though possibly there may be room for some additional hydro. 

Since nuclear energy inception in Canada (began around mid 1940s - so this was started during many of our lifetimes), it seems that DGRs keep coming back around as the best solution.  In your opinion is this an indication of DGRs being viable and in fact the best solution? Or is it an indication of lack of research and options?

Options for permanent disposal for used fuel have been studied around the world, by the nuclear industry, governments, academics. There is worldwide consensus that a DGR is a scientifically sound solution for disposal. No other idea has emerged that is so feasible and practical – though you will sometimes hear fantastical, unsafe and cost-prohibitive ideas such as sending it into outer space. DGRs for used fuel are being built in Finland and Sweden, and a DGR for high-level transuranic waste exists in the United States; while several other countries are in the process of siting their own DGRs. 

There is no DGR for high level nuclear waste around the Great Lakes. This is not a comparison with nuclear storage sites in the U.S. around the Great Lakes.

The illustration of nuclear waste storage sites around the Great Lakes was shown during OPG’s presentation to South Bruce CLC to demonstrate that the majority of these sites are on the U.S. side. This includes sites in Michigan that are at the surface, very close to the lakes. While some Michigan politicians have criticized Canada’s plan for safe and permanent disposal, the U.S. has no existing plan for permanent disposal. Canada has a sound plan to develop a DGR that would protect the environment, including the Great Lakes, by emplacing the waste deep in the geosphere, isolated from the biosphere and any water. 

Would "rolling stewardship" be safe and sustainable without a functioning society, government and regulator?

No. Without a functioning society, there is little likelihood of any kind of stewardship, which requires people to do the work – engineers, inspectors, regulators, field workers, operators and maintainers, all working together in tandem, with checks and balances. 

If you were to do a risk analysis, which option would in fact be more risky? Perpetual above ground storage or deep underground?

How many acres are fenced off around the Bruce Power site? Will the repackaging facility and the site require the same level of security as the nuclear plant?

The Bruce nuclear site is about 930 hectares, or 2,300 hectares. That is 21 times larger than the conceptual design for a NWMO DGR for used fuel, as described in a 2021 report posted on the NWMO website. In that report, Section 3.1 Generic Site Layout describes surface facilities in an area of 625 m x 700 m, or just under 44 hectares, with a perimeter fence. 

One of criticisms of energy production is the amount of land it uses. Do you have statistics of the amount of land used per unit of energy produced by the many ways energy production systems including electricity, fossil fuel etc.

You can find a number of studies online about land use by energy source, but they agree in general that wind and solar both use far more land than nuclear. This website of the Nuclear Energy Institute in the U.S., for example, says: “A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate. NEI says wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.”

Do you know what the plan for the spent fuel will be once the Pickering power plant closes? There won't be an active nuclear site there anymore, and I wonder if the waste will remain on site, or be moved somewhere else? Lacking a DGR of course.

Used fuel from the Pickering site is currently stored on site. This remains the plan following the station’s end of commercial operations, pending the development of the DGR for used fuel. 

If a dry storage container needed to be replaced now, what is the process to move the fuel bundles to a new container?

No Dry Storage Containers need to be replaced – they have a minimum design life of 50 years, and in practice last much longer. A process will be developed, approved and implemented before it is needed, for the transfer of used fuel to other packaging – specifically, for emplacement in the used fuel DGR, which the NWMO has projected to be in service in the early 2040s. 

The scale of this DGR proposal will have an enormous impact on all pricing of real estate in South Bruce, simply because of the large transient work force it requires and the wage disparity issues. While the fear of property values decreasing in and around the proposed site are a legitimate concern, the expected inflammatory housing prices and shortage of affordable housing is of equal if not a more serious concern. What will the NWMO do to mitigate these impacts?

The Property Value Protection (PVP) program was developed to give property owners within a 5-kilometer radius of the site confidence that if the project moves forward, their property values will be protected.

There are currently many community studies underway to better understand the socio-economic impacts of the project. The NWMO is committed to working with the community to first understand potential impacts of the project and then second, to help work through challenges. 

As an adjacent property owner, how does the PVP work if no one is willing to purchase the property?

At the time of site selection, adjacent property owners have the added value of being able to sell their property directly to the NWMO at a fair market value, if they do not wish to go to market or cannot find a purchaser. Adjacent property values are also protected under the PVP program. Should an adjacent property owner decide to sell and the price is below market value because of the project, compensation would be available.

Is this not principle #10, NOT #11?

The PVP program works to satisfy community feedback regarding property values, as well as the Guiding Principle No. 11.

Principle 11: The NWMO, in consultation with the municipality, will establish a property value protection program to compensate property owners in the event that property values are adversely affected by the NWMO’s site selection process, and the development, construction and/or operation of the project.

Principle 10: The NWMO will identify the potential for any positive and negative socioeconomic impacts of the project on South Bruce and surrounding communities, and what community benefits we will contribute to mitigate any potential risks.

In the dispute resolution process, comparable properties are limited to Bruce County. The potential DGR site is 8 km from Huron County. Why are you eliminating that County? South Bruce properties are more similar to Huron County then north Bruce County.

Benchmark data has been collected from neighbouring municipalities, including North Huron. Essentially, the data is a guide for what the prices could be in the PVP program area. It should be noted, the most important data comes from the historical value of properties within the PVP program area.

There are no limitations to comparable properties in the dispute resolution process. There is a limitation to County of Bruce on the Appraisal Terms of Reference for the comparable properties but if a location adjustment of comparable properties is needed it should be explained within the appraisal report.  

Who proposed guiding principle #11 the NWMO or Council?

Neither. The guiding principles were developed out of a series of community workshops from December 2019 to February 2020 and represent the community’s expectations and aspirations for the project, should it be sited in South Bruce.

Who necessitated a group of landowners to come together and sell/option their lands?  How many offers did you receive throughout Bruce County?

The NWMO launched an open and transparent land access process in 2019 in order to access sufficient land for a potential repository site and to continue our technical site evaluations. As a result of numerous formal expressions of interest and commercial negotiations, in January 2020 NWMO announced that it had signed agreements with landowners in South Bruce that provided sufficient access to continue technical site evaluations. NWMO later announced it had aggregated additional lands following discussions with interested landowners. 

Why is the program end date only 5 years after the DGR operation commences?

The program begins at site selection and will carry through the 10-year regulatory process, the 10-year construction phase and the first five years of operation. In total, the PVP program will protect property values for about 25 years.

Over the 25-year period the market will have adjusted to the presence of the project. 

When you don't even have a license to bury this nuclear waste, why are you asking neighbouring landowners to move out in two years?  Is this being neighbourly?

Currently, the NWMO has more than 1,500 acres of land owned and/or optioned in the South Bruce area. This is enough land for the project. The adjacent property element of the Property Value Protection Program is for the benefit of the property owners, providing an additional option above and beyond the Property Value Protection claim process. 

What community members provided feed back for the program?

The PVP program was developed to respond to community feedback received and works toward satisfying one of the 36 Principles as set out by the community. It was developed based on feedback received from community members and was developed in consultation with the Municipality of South Bruce. 

The program review will be completed at the time when the deep geological repository construction commences.

Why are you only covering landowners for 25 years?  You don't even plan to bury until 2040!

The program begins at site selection and will carry through the 10-year regulatory process, the 10-year construction phase and the first five years of operation. In total, the PVP program will protect property values for about 25 years.

Over the 25-year period the market will have adjusted to the presence of the project. 

Why does the NWMO not expect significant impact?

In general, property values in the South Bruce and the region have been appreciating for several years now and we expect this trend to continue.

In Bruce County, the Major Component Replacement (MCR) project at the Bruce Nuclear Generation Station, gives us a very good illustration of how large-scale nuclear projects have the ability to increase property values and be a positive economic driver throughout the region. 

Will you make people sign non-disclosure agreements?

Confidentiality of details submitted through the claim process will be maintained.

Please inform us where we can find other programs and where did they occur?

The NWMO PVP Program is a unique program and was developed based on a comprehensive review of other programs and studies both domestically and internationally.

Perhaps the most well-known programs are the Port Hope PVP; City of London Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program; and Hydro One Networks Inc. Property Value Loss Assessment (including a study of Injurious Affection and High Voltage Transmission Lines).

Through our research we were able to take best practices and tailor a robust program to serve the property owners near the potential South Bruce site that goes above and beyond other programs.

OFA has stated in August 2021 that 175 acres of farmland is lost daily? Does this not concern you?

The nuclear industry has a long history of working safely next to agricultural land and communities.

The footprint of the repository surface facilities is expected to take up about 250 acres, leaving the rest of the land nearby open to agricultural operations.

The NWMO is committed to working with the community and local farmers for the betterment of the industry.

What if the DGR never becomes operational and all nuclear waste has been relocated to this site?

The transportation of used nuclear fuel will only happen once the site is operational.

Is there a penalty against the NWMO, if the NWMO does not meet their timeline dates?

The claim process timelines are for general reference and NWMO is committed to keeping within the defined timelines. The timeline does not include durations for claim dispute resolution (referee or arbitration), as this is outside of the standard claim process.

Is this a way for NWMO to grab more properties?

No. The Property Value Protection program, including the adjacent property purchase element is solely for the benefit of the landowner. NWMO has already acquired sufficient land for the potential deep geological repository. 

Why did the Land Access Process include a premium above fair market value and this program does not?

The NWMO currently has more than 1,500 acres owned and/or optioned in the South Bruce area. This is enough land for the project. The Land Access Process included premiums as an incentive for property owners to build out a potentially repository footprint. The adjacent property element of the Property Value Protection Program is for the benefit of the landowners, providing an additional option above and beyond the Property Value Protection claim process should it be desired by the landowner.

If a land owner sells land to the NWMO and it is zoned agricultural what assurances are there that a zoning change to industrial use won't be sought?

The Property Value Protection program, including the adjacent property purchase element is solely for the benefit of the landowner. The adjacent properties program is not for the purpose of acquiring additional lands for the potential deep geological repository project. NWMO has already acquired sufficient land for the potential deep geological repository.

Nuclear facilities have a long history of working safely next to and nearby agricultural operations.

When are you going to meet people face to face?

The South Bruce office will re-open in April and the engagement team is currently working on spring and summer engagement opportunities. 

Why can heirs not benefit in this program?

Transactions between family members are not considered ‘at arm’s length’ where parties act independently of each other or who are not related. Claims for the PVP program must have been arm’s length. 

Is the 5 km radius based on other national or international examples? Why 5 km vs. 8 or 4 km for example?

The NWMO examined similar national and international programs and studies focused on active nuclear power plants and fuel storage sites in developing the Property value protection program. While other programs decrease coverage with distance from the site, with different radius or determination criteria based on on-site activity, the NWMO has benchmarked and provided higher coverage than other PVP programs with equal coverage for all property owners within the coverage area. In comparison to other programs, the NWMO Property value protection program goes above and beyond.

I am curious if there will be a program put in to place to "control" inflation due to the facility?

The PVP program was designed to give local property owners peace-of-mind when it comes to property values. The program will run for about 25 years from the time a site is selection to after the first five years of operation. This is ample time for the market to adjust to the project.

Inflation is a broader concept and has many more pressures than any one project. The NWMO is committed to working with the community through the site selection process and beyond. 

Please explain how it is fair for the NWMO to have offered landowners who took part in the purchase and option phase of the project at least 25% premium but not adjacent properties. The landowners who were interested in selling and leaving according to the original land owner access package were promised 25% premium over the market price and several properties were purchased by the NWMO with higher premiums. Those who didn't want to sell but feel forced to leave because they don't want to live next to this experimental experiment you will "help" them by giving them market value. 

The Land Access Process included premiums as an incentive for property owners in order to build out a potentially repository footprint. The adjacent property element of the Property Value Protection Program is for the benefit of the landowners, providing an additional option above and beyond the Property Value Protection claim process should it be desired by the landowner.

The Land Access Program is still operational, up until the time of site selection. Used nuclear fuel will not be shipped to the site until operation begins in the 2040s.

The entire purpose of the deep geological repository is to protect people and the environment.

How much money is available to execute this program?

Funding will be available for all eligible/successful claims. 

Why is it only people who sell their properties are eligible? As farmers, selling and replacing land is not a simple process with current shortage of farms for sale. If I do not wish to sell, I have still been harmed because I have lost equity/ borrowing power as farmers balance sheets will be eroded. How will this be addressed? Effectively you are forcing people off their land to protect the financial position.

The Property Value Protection program compensates for any actual realized transaction losses attributed to the proposed Deep Geological Repository project. The program does not cover any speculated losses, only actual.

The nuclear industry has a long history of working safely next to agricultural operations. 

What compensation is there for loss of business?

The deep geological repository is a multi-generational project to safely store Canada’s used nuclear fuel for generations. It will provide significant stimulus to the local economy, should the project be sited in South Bruce.

How can non-Indigenous people support your work protecting the water? 

Have your own Spirit connection to Mother Earth and listen to her. We all need to ask ourselves “what is my place in the world?” All creation stories are true. In the very beginning the first Settlers who came were respected, they were shown about medicines and how to survive here. The next thing you know is we are living on reserves and our children are being taken away; that is the deception we faced. We are now in a different place. Learn your history, find out the truth about colonization, learn about the policies and legislation that are impacting Indigenous people. What the government has told the people is not the complete truth. I would be happy to meet with people, I am a teacher and willing to share. We are in this together. 

There are a lot of books and resources out there for those that want to learn more, such as:

The Dispossessed by Geoffrey York

Seven Fallen Feathers by Tanya Talaga

The Reconciliation Manifesto by Arthur Manuel 

Do any concerns exist amongst Anishinaabe people regarding leaving the nuclear waste indefinitely where it currently sits? I know there are concerns about the repository, and I'm curious if those concerns exist if we "do nothing"?

Are the cement casings used similar and to the same standard to those used in Alberta in casing fracking wells or those used for sealing abandoned walls?

Have you seen anything so far in your core sampling that is of some concern as to whether this would be an appropriate geological site for this DGR?

There are a lot of technical details regarding sampling from the borehole drilling. Do you think the average citizen of South Bruce can understand these reports? And does it matter one way or the other if they do?

A stated restriction of using any site for this DGR was that it would not be located in a location where possible long term future resource development (extraction) would be sought at the site. Is there anything found in core mineral samples that may be of value to future generations and may lead (when I'm dead and gone) to exploration of the site?

What made that bottom water sample unsuccessful?

Why are there only two boreholes being drilled here, yet there are six in the Ignace area?

Are there man-made products that match or exceed the permeability of this rock formation?

Some people have stated that baseline studies are not necessary for the repository safety case. Do you agree with that statement?

Will there be water samples in the spring to see what is in “run off” going into our waterways?

Is the SVCA staff being subsidized by the NWMO for costs incurred in the work they are doing?

There don't seem to be any baseline tests for Radionuclides

If there are some, can you please outline which ones are tested for?

Earlier this year I participated in an online public workshop with you regarding these studies. There were only two of us who took part, and you expressed some concern as to how to engage other members of the public in your study. Since that time have you found better public engagement of your study?

Artificial radionuclides were detected. How were artificial radionuclides introduced?

The NWMO has suggested to local residents that this DGR will bring extensive economic development to our municipality Including thousands of new jobs and work for local services. If a geologic survey carried out by the NWMO was done in your municipality and proved favourable to location of a deep geological repository, would you as a local political leader be in favour of hosting such a project? And if so, would you allow for a formal referendum to be held to allow your constituents a vote in the matter? 

What is your experience with nuclear waste repositories?

Our experience is with on site wet and dry storage.  We have had no issues or concerns with these facilities at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 

Having lived and now been involved in local government in a community that is home to a nuclear generating station, do you feel that Canada's nuclear industry is safe and well regulated?

Have other industries in your area ever been negatively impacted due to the nuclear industry being there? Specifically, has your agricultural industry ever been negatively affected?

No, there has not been any negative impact. Our population and industry have quintupled since the PNGS was commissioned 50 years ago. We do not have agriculture within 10 kilometers of the plant, and we have not had any expression of concern from that industry.  

You noted that stigmatization was one negative impact that came with your involvement with the nuclear industry. Do you think South Bruce would expect the same type impact should we choose to be a willing host? 

On further consideration, I think the word “stigma” may be too strong.

Again, I observe that our population has grown from 18K to over 100K during the operating life of the plant. And we continue to be one of the fastest growing communities in the GTA and Province. The population in Durham Region is planned to double to 1.4M by 2051 and Pickering is planned to be the largest, by population, Municipality.

There will always be a small number of people who have genuine concern or are opposed to Nuclear.

How do you ensure that your constituents understand the factual information, rather than being swayed by the misinformation spread by anti nuclear groups?

We rely heavily on OPG. Corporately, they are a visible and active participant in our community, through community events, fund raisers, environmental initiative (tree planting), active community sports fields on their property adjacent to the plant. They have an open information center at the plant and have regular tours and holiday open houses (pre-COVID). They have a robust communication program with regular mailings and online communications available to the community. Their employee’s resident in Pickering probably have been most effective in informal community education. And finally, they have been very effective ensuring the elected officials and senior staff at the City are prepared to answer questions that might come our way.

How close is the nearest household/school to the nuclear plant?

What kind of funding agreements/arrangements do you have with the nuclear industry? 

In 2021, OPG paid $4.1M in PILS (Payments in Lieu of Taxes); $2.6M to Pickering and $1.5M to the Region of Durham. In addition, we receive $250K, for Fire Training and backup support. 

Where is your decommissioning waste from Pickering going? 

Non-nuclear materials will go to recycling or landfills as appropriate. Nuclear waste will go to established repositories per NWMO/CNSC. 

Are your municipal staff/employees/first responders all trained for nuclear emergencies? 

We have an Emergency Plan that includes a nuclear incident and conduct an annual exercise to ensure it is current and all involved staff are aware of protocols/resources and are trained as appropriate. Our first responders are trained.  

What liabilities does the municipality cover in the event of a nuclear emergency for non-nuclear employees/residents?

Municipality is not liable. 

This is a proposed DGR burying ground community, not a nuclear plant community, so the nuclear waste is concealed, not visible. South Bruce is a farming community today with a population of 5600 residents and not a centralized community such as yours.  Does this present a different and more challenging for the South Bruce community than your communities? 

Why have these mayors not applied to be a host community for the NWMO DGR?

The local geology has been investigated and is not suitable. 

Under the dislikes processes, the combination "anything other than a referendum", 30 people stated that response and it shouldn't have been a separate bar. Those 30 votes should have been added to every option except a referendum. By creating a separate bar it gives the false impression that a referendum is the second highest process. (…) Will this area be addressed prior to the presentation to Council?

What area of South Bruce did the results come from - mainly Teeswater/Culross or Mildmay/Carrick or Formosa area. How far an area did the results cover?

Does the NWMO have any criteria on how clear a decision needs to be demonstrated or a deadline when one should be made?

Not everyone is on the phone book. How many surveys do you want to do before you make a decision?

Since you did collect addresses can you not interpret or map from that just where the strongest responses came from?

Can these results be generalized across the entire population like a survey or poll, or are they stand alone for the participants?

The data suggest that the choice of a referendum is also polarized (favourite vs. least favourite).  Can you comment on what people favour a referendum vs. those who oppose? (…) Just wondering if the referendum bias is correlated to for or against the project.

Would you not say that division of this community is not the first socio-economic impact of this proposal?

Since most people participated via online survey or mail in workbook, how is it ensured that people didn’t participate twice or that participants were who they said they were?

Why is a “series” of hot cells required?

Separating the equipment for each step into a series of hot cells allows certain processes inside the plant to continue while equipment in other cells is under maintenance or repair.

Workers repairing equipment in one cell are protected from the processes happening in the next cells in the series. This improves the ease of maintenance and repair inside the plant, and helps the plant operate more efficiently.

The exact number of individual hot cells in the series, and the grouping of equipment in each cell has not yet been determined.

What are you looking for during the inspection when it arrives?

We will be inspecting to make sure there were no changes during transportation. An inspection is performed prior to the used fuel being loaded for transport.

Why wasn’t this information available earlier in this process? This is a hypothetical world were everything is bliss. But in the real world there are problems. Hot boxes only work if everything is ideal, what about broken fuel rods from reactors. What happened to that fuel? NWMO only shows what is bliss to but not the whole story!!!

Everything we build begins with a conceptual design based on best practices at the time. Construction for Canada’s deep geological repository is more than 10 years away.

Hot cells have a long history of safely handling highly radioactive material. Hot cells are contiguously shielded enclosures that are specifically designed to block radiation fields and contain any potential contamination inside, protecting workers on the outside.

In the extremely rare cases when defective fuel bundles are discovered, they will be packaged with remote tooling and secured in appropriate containers. 

The video shows no people inside the facility, even though the fuel bundles move from place to place. How many people would work inside and which steps would they be involved in?

There will be people working inside the packaging facility. The building will be zoned to include barriers where workers can perform their work safely. The movement of used fuel or the packages that contain them will be within view of a worker at all times, whether through shielded windows or cameras. 

The number of people that will work inside this facility has not been established, but it will meet regulatory requirements for oversight of any fuel handling process that will be implemented in our facility.

The nuclear industry does not have a good reputation for coming in on estimated costs. Ten yrs. ago the projected cost was set by the NWMO at $24 billion for the completion of this dgr. However, just in the last year the cost of copper, identified by the NWMO has essential to protect the cylinders from corrosion, has doubled. Do you sincerely believe that the proposed estimate of $24 billion is realistic? And should the determination of costs be an issue of concern for this community before declaring our willingness?

The estimated cost spans the entire lifecycle of the project and includes the site selection process, designing/construction, operations, transportation and decommissioning. The estimation does take into account market fluctuations.  

The producers of used nuclear fuel are entirely responsible for funding this project—local tax dollars will not be used. 

The CNSC has told us that future spent fuel coming from next gen reactors (smr) will be disposed of at this one central dgr.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible for implementing Canada's plan for the safe, long-term management of all our country’s used nuclear fuel – including that created using new or emerging technologies. Canada’s plan will be implemented over many decades and a fundamental tenant of our approach is incorporating new knowledge and adapting to new technology.

New nuclear technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) or Very Small Modular Reactors (VSMRs) may result in different types of used fuel. We encourage organizations developing new concepts to work with us to identify the types of fuel waste that may result.

For clarity, the repository will not store liquid fuel.

Will the design of the process you are presenting to encapsulate spent fuel rods coming from CANDU ractors also be adaptable (as in Adaptive Phased Management) to accommodate future spent fuel from smrs? And should this be of concern to local residents before deciding on our willingness to this project?

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is responsible for implementing Canada's plan for the safe, long-term management of all our country’s used nuclear fuel – including that created using new or emerging technologies. Canada’s plan will be implemented over many decades and a fundamental tenant of our approach is incorporating new knowledge and adapting to new technology.

New nuclear technologies such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) or Very Small Modular Reactors (VSMRs) may result in different types of used fuel. We encourage organizations developing new concepts to work with us to identify the types of fuel waste that may result.

Would there be any windows in the hot cells?

Some hot cells do have thick windows made of lead glass to protect workers.

Why is there a need to repackage the used fuel after transport? Is the ceramic fuel being removed from the fuel bundle during the repackaging process?

How is it possible for air in the ventilation system in the Hot Cell to go in but not back out?

A hot cell nuclear ventilation system maintains a negative air pressure inside the hot cell relative to the adjacent rooms. It does this by constantly flowing air through the cell.

Fresh air flows into the cell from the adjacent rooms through inlet filters. The air is pulled out of the exhaust leg of the cell by multiple redundant nuclear ventilation system fans. These fans maintain the depression inside the hot cells in the same way a vacuum cleaner maintains a depression at the nozzle.

The air removed from the hot cell in this exhaust leg passes through multiple stages of HEPA filtration and activated charcoal filtration and radiation monitoring points before being exhausted from the plant.

Emissions from this stack are constantly monitored, and the system is designed such that the worst-case emissions will be well below the public safety action level threshold.

How long must fuel bundles stay on surface before they can be put in containers and sent underground?

The primary factor in selecting time above ground is heat load. Given our repository timeframe, most of the fuel will be older than 30 years by the time it comes to us, and we have therefore adopted 30 years as a conservative reference case for many calculations.  Older fuel has less heat and radioactivity so will be easier to handle.

However, we do expect that some fuel will be younger than 30 years, in particular from the last units planned to shutdown.  We can handle that fuel.  Where it matters, we consider fuel as young as 10 years out of reactor in our design and calculations. 

Currently, fuel comes out of the reactor and is placed in wet storage for 10 years before moving to dry surface facility. This is the fuel age that OPG uses for transfer of fuel from wet to dry storage.  

What is the source document for the “2021 conceptual design” and how do we access that document? Please provide an overview of how the ‘concepts’ have changed between the descriptions in TR-2018-08 (the 2018 post closure safety assessment of a used fuel repository in sedimentary rock)?

NWMO has recently published  “Deep Geological Repository Conceptual Design Report”. Within this report, there is a section on the Used Fuel Packaging Plant that describes the 2021 conceptual design. The key processes remain similar to the referred 2018 report with changes in the layout of modular duplicating packaging systems. 

What are the zones or areas where negative pressure is maintained? Is it just the hot cells, as you seemed to suggest, or is it also other fuel receiving and transfer areas?

Negative pressure will be maintained in the areas where there is a risk of contamination.  Each area will be classified according to expected hazard level as defined in ISO and other nuclear ventilation standards. The pressure will be more negative in areas with higher expected hazard according to these classifications, and increasingly negative moving closer to the areas with the highest hazards.

Would this facility accommodate fuel types other than those from OPG/Bruce/NB Power reactors such as the fuels generated by the federal government’s R&D reactors at Douglas Point, Whiteshell, Gentilly and Chalk River; or from small modular reactors?

Based on current nuclear power plant plans, the inventory for the repository will consist of more than 99.9% used CANDU or CANDU-like fuel bundles.

The remainder is a small amount of Canadian research reactor used fuel. There are also proposals for the construction of new small modular reactors in Canada; none of these have yet been accepted.         

Presently, this existing research fuel and possible new reactor fuel are being evaluated to determine how to ensure they meet the repository safety requirements. One option is to accept this used fuel directly. Another option may be to process this used fuel; in this case, the processed used fuel would be considered high-level radioactive waste. The nature of this high-level waste is still to be finalized, but the amount from research fuel would be a small fraction of the total repository inventory.

On slide 12 you identify Idaho National Laboratory as an example of operating hot cells. INL is a U.S. Superfund site and is highly contaminated through decades of nuclear operations. Do you have any examples of nuclear operations where hot cells have been operating for more than 20 years which are not also contaminated sites?

It is important to distinguish where the contamination is. Hot cells contain the contamination inside to protect people and environment.

A hot cell facility is not necessarily a contaminated site. Some facilities use hot cells for routine operations where the object in the cell is radioactive, but sealed, such that loose particulate contamination does not transfer from the object to the inside surfaces of the cell.

CANDU reactor fuel bundles are examples of such sealed objects.

The new ARIEL hot cell 1 at TRIUMF facility in Vancouver has been designed to handle an accelerator beam target kept within a sealed vessel. The Meson Hall target hot cells at TRIUMF also are relatively contamination-free and have been operating on sealed targets since the 1970s. Other cells with low routine risk of contamination may be routinely decontaminated and kept clean, such as the ISIS Neutron and Muon hot cell at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK. Some cells which are used to routinely perform contamination-intensive operations like disassembly, cutting and materials sample testing have high contamination hazard risk inside the cells.

The labour, exposure risk, and cost involved in decontaminating a cell must be weighed against the benefits. It is often more practical to leave the contamination in the cell until the facility is decommissioned. Once operations stop, the contamination will eventually decay to a level that allows the cell to be decontaminated safely and then decommissioned. 

How many years until this re-packaging is confirmed?

The packaging process is expected to be active for approximately 50 years.

How often are fuel rods or packages damaged? I am under the impression from my experience in the nuclear field that damaged duel is not that common of an issue.

It is extremely rare.

What are the pros and cons between the concrete hot cell and the stainless-steel hot cell?

Metal hot cells can be largely constructed off site and brought to site for final assembly. Concrete hot cells are constructed on-site. Both are dependable at protecting workers, the public and the environment. The size of the hot cells often dictates which material to construct the hot cells with. 

The following questions are based on reading the NWMO TR's  TR-2018-08 and TR 2017-02 regarding the repacking facility. 

These reports claim the DGR will be designed to allow retrievability of the Used Fuel Bundles. Why is this no longer a design requirement as noted in Derek (Wilson's) answer at a previous SB CLC meeting this year?

Based on input from Canadians, Adaptive Phased Management requires that used nuclear fuel be retrievable throughout implementation.

The plan is for the used nuclear fuel to permanently remain safe in the repository; there is no intent to retrieve it. However, if it is determined in the future that used fuel should be retrieved, we can safely access and remove it from the repository.

Safety is the priority, and we will ensure that any features designed to facilitate retrieval of used fuel will not compromise safety of the engineered-barrier system or deep geological repository.

The retrieval process will become progressively more demanding as used fuel containers are sealed in placement rooms, and then years later, when access tunnels and shafts are backfilled and sealed. Once the facility is closed, and the site is decommissioned, retrievability would no longer be an option. A future decision to close the repository will only be made once society and government institutions of the present time, agree it should happen.

These documents state the Used Fuel container shall provide containment for used fuel (as well as high level radioactive nuclear waste deemed acceptable for the Repository) .What is the nature of this other high level radioactive nuclear waste and how much will be stored in the DGR?

Based on current nuclear power plant plans, the inventory for the repository will consist of more than 99.9% used CANDU or CANDU-like fuel bundles.

The remainder is a small amount of Canadian research reactor used fuel. There are also proposals for the construction of new small modular reactors in Canada; none of these have yet been accepted.

Presently, this existing research fuel and possible new reactor fuel are being evaluated to determine how to ensure they meet the repository safety requirements. One option is to accept this used fuel directly. Another option may be to process this used fuel; in this case, the processed used fuel would be considered high-level radioactive waste. The nature of this high-level waste is still to be finalized, but the amount from research fuel would be a small fraction of the total repository inventory.

Is it possible for a current flow between the steel and the copper metal of the Used Fuel container? If so, will this increase the rate of corrosion on the steel or the copper of the container? 

Galvanic corrosion can happen when two dissimilar metals are joined and exposed to the same environment. The less reactive metal (also called the more noble metal) can support a chemical reaction that increases the oxidation reaction of the other metal. Two things work against this process in the deep geological repository.

1. The environment has no oxygen, so there is no drive to corrosion that we sometimes see in our personal experience (for example, where bolts sometimes corrode faster than the metal they hold together).

2. More importantly the copper completely surrounds the steel of the container, so they don’t see the same environment. The copper sees the outside, while the steel sees the inside. The chemical reactions cannot couple so this corrosion cannot occur.

During the cool down period of the steel manufacturing process for the Used Fuel container, there is a possibility of Hydrogen flacks occurring.  Is this a concern regarding the corrosion factor and the stability of the container over an extended period? 

Hydrogen can be taken into steel during manufacturing. If there is a lot of it, it can make the steel more brittle, or less elastic. However, it is not a concern for us because:

1. The steel we use is a low carbon steel, which has a lot of elasticity. 
2. Manufacturing of our type of steel is very refined, so it is relatively easy to ensure that hydrogen does not enter it during processing.
3. After steel fabrication, there is careful analysis to ensure that the steel has the desired mechanical properties and is not brittle. 

What happens to the Used Fuel Transport Package at the Repacking facility after the bundles are removed? What is the level of radioactive component remaining within the UFTP?

Transportation packages will be re-used for multiple shipments.

After unloading used fuel from the transportation package, the internal cavity will be inspected, and cleaned as needed to ensure that it meets contamination levels as per regulations. External surfaces will also be decontaminated, as required.

The Canadian Packaging and Transport of Nuclear Substances Regulations require that empty packages meet the requirements noted in International Atomic Energy Agency’s Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials SSR-6. 

Used fuel is periodically moved in Canada, and this is standard practice.

These reports state that the placement of the Used Fuel Bundles for 4.2 to 5.2 Million bundles will take 40 years. In a recent NWMO report ,a new possible number is 7.2M bundles. How long will it take to place this number of bundles in the DGR?

For the existing nuclear fleet, and its planned refurbishment, the projected end-of-life inventory is approximately 5.5 million used fuel bundles. In the past, the NWMO has also considered a high 7.2 million bundle scenario, which allowed for more reactor refurbishment and/or the construction of several new large reactors. The actual allowed inventory in the repository will be part of its license.

It would take about 50 years to transport, handle and place 5.5 million bundles in the repository. In general, the time needed to transport the inventory is proportional to the size of the inventory.  The NWMO is currently designing the DGR to handle 120,000 CANDU bundles per year.

Radiation protection controls will be in place to deny workers entry into the cavity rooms to protect from radiation fields emitted from the UFC. What is the type and strength of these emitted radiation fields and how dangerous are they to the worker? How are workers protected alone the pathways from the repacking plant and the placement cavities? 

The radiation level outside the filled used fuel containers (UFCs) but within the hot cells would be too high to allow worker contact. These UFCs would be remotely handled in the packaging plant. These containers would be surrounded by clay buffer boxes and then placed in a shielded transfer flask for movement between the packaging plant and the underground placement rooms. 

The shielded transfer flask has sufficient shielding that workers are protected along this path. In particular, they can access the transfer flask. However, in general they would not need to be near the flasks.

Why is it important that the surface temperature within the cavity not reach 100 degrees Celsius? Why is the spacing parameters of the containers in the cavity so important in controlling the container surface temperature?

In general, corrosion and clay mineral changes occur more quickly at higher temperatures.  100C has been selected as a design point that ensures these processes do not occur or only extremely slowly.  It may be noted that the peak temperature is reached within the first several decades of operation, and then the temperature decreases thereafter back towards the intrinsic deep rock temperatures of around 10-15C.

The spacing between the containers determines the area over which the container heat can be removed. The greater the area, the easier it is to remove the heat and therefore the lower the temperature on the container.

Given there are plans to build SMR reactors in Canada, what changes to the repacking facility, transportation routes, liquid waste versus solid waste, the containers etc. to facilitate storage at the DGR location?

There are presently proposals to build SMR reactors in Canada, but no decision.  The NWMO is in discussion with several SMR vendors and potential owners about their nuclear fuel waste, to ensure that it is in a form that the NWMO repository can accept.  The details vary with the SMR reactor.

For clarity, the repository would not accept liquid waste.

How long must the Used Fuel waste from these SMR reactors be stored above ground or what is the requirement before they are deemed acceptable for placement in a DGR?

See above response. At this time, there is no firm plan to construct any specific SMR, and the details vary depending on the SMR type. However, as with CANDU used fuel, it is generally expected that the SMR nuclear fuel waste would be stored for at least several years before they would be considered to placement in a DGR.

How much research dollars are being spent on the issue of disposal of the Used Fuel waste from the SMR reactors currently under development for use in Canada?

We don’t know the answer to this question. Some research has already been conducted or is underway in other countries. Some is underway by the SMR vendors.  Presently the SMR vendors are responsible for obtaining information to ensure that their nuclear fuel waste is aligned with the NWMO requirements. The NWMO is in discussion with several SMR vendors to understand their wastes and ensure alignment with our repository.

Has the Canadian government funded any development / research activities on the disposal of the SMR used fuel waste? 

Is there a point in time when the Bentonite clay will reach a saturated condition and no longer will absorb the flow of water in the cavity? Is heat a factor in the absorption capability of the bentonite clay? What happens if either of these conditions occur?

Yes, the bentonite clay will eventually become saturated. The temperature of the bentonite clay is a factor in how quickly this process occurs, but in practice is not an important factor in how much water content there will be in the saturated clay.  These conditions – heated and saturated bentonite clay – is the normal or expected long-term condition of the clay. 

The clay barrier will continue perform its function under these conditions.

If there is a need to repair a problem in the cavity containing the Used Fuel waste after it has been completely filled and sealed, how long will it take to repair the problem and what approach will be taken in the repair process as it is unlikely any workers should enter the cavity . In these reports, it is noted that 10 % of the containers will fail over time.

The reason a deep geological repository is a safe solution for the long-term storage of used nuclear fuel is that the geological environment has changed very little in millions of years. The containers in the repository are also strong and tested to withstand pressure including the added weight from the ice of a possible future ice age.

The overall repository design considers worst-case scenarios where containers may crack over time. In these cases, the other barriers, including the stable rock, continue to contain or limit the release of radioactivity to insignificant levels.  Over time, the amount of radioactivity in the repository naturally decreases down to levels associated with natural uranium ore bodies.

How many residents were involved in setting the scope of the baseline studies?

In order to gather community feedback on the scope of the environmental baseline studies, the NWMO and South Bruce hosted community workshops that saw 45 people attend. Additional workshops were held with SVCA staff and MVCA staff.

Why isn't the EA full assessment made available to the community before "willingness" is determined?

The EA process is a federal and provincial regulatory process that assumes a location is already selected and decided. One of NWMO’s guiding principles is to obtain the social license to operate and ensure local and Indigenous communities are first on board with the project. Therefore, we made a commitment we will only proceed with the project if the hosting community agrees to the project willingly, freely and in a compelling manner.

The Municipality of South Bruce is currently engaged with the community, independently from the NWMO, to define what willingness means to them and how it will be determined.

We will submit a formal EA application to the federal and provincial regulators once a hosting community is selected. 

To ensure the community has the information necessary to make an informed decision, all possible available information pertaining to the project criteria in terms of safety, environmental protection, community wellbeing, benefits will be provided as early as possible. Detailed project design and site characterization will be prepared as part of the EA process. NWMO will fully fund and support community participation and consultation activities through the life cycle of this project.

How many residents attended the "Community Workshops"?

45 residents attended the environmental community workshops.

What are you talking about and how does they relate to digging a DGR? Could Mayor Buckle/Jim Gowland please explain in a simple language that we can all understand? Bats??? DNA??? etc. Nothing to do with digging holes on agricultural land. Speak in "common language' please.

With a project this big we want to know as much as we can about the area. This includes—thanks to an exciting partnership with the Toronto Zoo—work on local bat populations but also extends to more specific areas such as groundwater and all of the data collected through borehole drilling. There’s also work being done to understand the local economics and many other aspects of the community through studies launching within the year.

Thank you for thoroughly explaining the baseline monitoring program. It’s very comprehensive and that is appreciated. My question is based on the ongoing monitoring if a DGR is situated here. Has the NWMO considered organizing an independent, university run research centre similar to the one created in Carlsbad, New Mexico?

Yes, and we are actively looking for opportunities to identify trusted independent parties to take on long term monitoring activities. 

There is already lots of noise occurring at the site? Why is it not monitored now?

At the nearest house, approximately 400 metres away, the noise level is comparable to average background levels. 

Is the community of Ignace area also doing all this?

Yes, the NWMO is completing environmental baseline monitoring in the Ignace area, although the monitoring programs themselves differ as they were designed around community input and local environments. 

Are humans part of your study as well? how it effects our lives?

The Environment program focuses on the physical environment, and its link to human health and well-being as one aspect of the analysis. The Social impact baseline studies will also rely on the data from the environment program and how it connects with human health and well being.

Why in the survey were there no questions regarding socio economic impacts? Besides property values...wage disparity, quality of life, housing needs?

Other questions were out of scope of this year’s survey however, the open-ended question asking “In addition to the potential studies set out above, what other information would you like to receive?” was an opportunity for residents to request more information about study topics, and results are reported on page 5 of the report.

Supplemental response provided by NWMO:
Although the 2021 community survey did not include specific questions regarding certain types of socio-economic impacts, such as housing needs, the NWMO and the Municipality of South Bruce expect to conduct numerous studies to address these potential impacts.

In addition to the study into the impact on property values, housing supply and local business, numerous other studies will dig deeper into important socio-economic issues. The focus and nature of these studies were determined collaboratively with the community in the project visioning phase of work (2019-2020) and focused on the priorities and objectives of community leaders and participants of workshops and community meetings.

These studies will look at various facets of social and economic life in South Bruce using existing and newly collected data to estimate the likely impact of the project on the area.

For example, studies on the local labour market will look at the current labour market and the anticipated wage and employment effects of the new job opportunities that will come with hosting the project.

As another example, and in response to the community’s desire to provide opportunities for young people to continue to live and work in the area, the study in youth training and retention will look to understand how the project can provide new opportunities for young people to develop and apply new skills.

In addition, the study on the social, health and public infrastructure will look at the likely effects of quality-of-life concerns such as availability of social supports, healthcare and recreational space and programs.

We understood from this year’s survey that respondents tended to view safety and environmental studies as paramount, but interest in the findings of socio-economic studies were important as well.

Very telling that the #1 additional comment was will we get a referendum. When can we expect referendum to start appearing in NWMO led surveys?

Response from CCI Research:
Each year CCI Research responds to a call for proposals based on a predefined project scope. The purpose the 2021 NWMO & South Bruce Community Survey was explicitly designed to gauge awareness of the project and interest in this year’s extensive work program of community studies, not to measure willingness or explore the concept.

Supplemental response provided by NWMO:
It will be up to the community to decide the method of determining willingness. The site selection process is designed to ensure, above all, that any location selected is safe, meets best environmental standards, secure, and has an informed and willing host. Ensuring the prosperity, well-being and resiliency of the communities where the repository is built.
Best practice and experience suggest there are a range of approaches a potential host may use to demonstrate its willingness in a compelling manner. These might include support expressed through open citizen discussions, a telephone poll, online meetings or surveys, a formal referendum, and/or through other activities preferred by the community.

Supplemental response provided by South Bruce:

The Municipality of South Bruce has a Willingness Study currently underway. To learn more about this consultation with the community, read our recent publication, We Want To Hear From You!
Community Householder. 

How many responded to the survey?

Where is the land recognition? Honouring those that have inhabited this land before us (and the proposed DGR)?

GHD will include a land acknowledgment at community workshops and consultation events facilitated by GHD.

What other communities has Katrina been involved with in engagement?

The other communities that Katrina has been involved with in engagement activities include the following:

• Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Muskoka Lakes and Honey Harbour in the District of Muskoka
• Campbellford in Northumberland County
• Philadelphia in Pennsylvania
• Stoney Creek in Hamilton
• Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, Aurora, King City and Vaughan in York Region
• Whitby, Ajax, Pickering and Clarington in Durham Region
• Caledon and Mississauga in the Region of Halton

Katrina has 14 years of experience working on public sector community engagement projects across North America including Ontario. She’s a trained member of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Katrina and GHD’s community engagement experience includes the following projects:

• Waste Bin Site Transition Plan, District of Muskoka
• New Campbellford Bridge Detailed Design, Northumberland County
• Philadelphia Refinery Legacy Environmental Remediation, Evergreen Resources
• Southwestern Landfill Environmental Assessment, Walker Environmental
• Durham Region Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Facility, Durham Region
• Highway 3 Widening and Safety Enhancements Class Environmental Assessment, Ministry of Transportation
• Waste Management User Fee Financial Study, Region of Peel
• Mid-Block Arterial Road Class Environmental Assessment, Town of Whitby
• Stoney Creek Regional Facility Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment, Terrapure Environmental
• Boat Harbour Remediation, Nova Scotia Lands
• RNG Net Zero Initiative, City of Stratford
• Integrated Waste Management Master Plan Update, York Region
• Sioux Lookout Legacy Remediation, CN
• La Quinta Village Complete Streets, City of La Quinta, California
• Liberty Village Natural Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment, Enbridge Gas Distribution
• Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, Detailed Design and Construction Administration, York Region 
• Northeast Vaughan Water and Wastewater Servicing Environmental Assessment, York Region
• City of Medicine Hat 

What about measuring unwillingness?

Unwillingness will not be measured as part of this consultation process. The purpose of this consultation is to ask for residents’ input on how to determine the community's willingness to host the Project.  If measuring unwillingness is important to you, we encourage you to participate in the upcoming consultation events to provide this feedback.

How can using multiple indicators for determining willingness in our community be more accurate and a fulsome picture than deciding by a vote /referendum by the residents of the community? Major decisions in our democratic society have long been made by using a voting approach. By using the approach suggested in this work statement, are you implying that the current approach to elect members of parliament, council members etc. is not an accurate or fulsome methodology? What are the dimensions that make this suggested method of deciding an outcome better than the current voting process?

There are multiple ways willingness could be determined, including by a vote/referendum. We are not implying that the current approach to elect members of parliament, council members etc. is not an accurate or fulsome methodology. GHD is an independent and neutral community engagement consultant. As such, our role is to gather input from residents and ratepayers, including this comment, rather than suggesting a particular approach of determining willingness.  The community’s input, including this comment, will documented in a consultation summary report, planned to be released to the community in August and presented to Council in November. Council will finalize how willingness will be measured.

Who is paying for your consultation?

The Municipality of South Bruce has retained GHD to carry out the Willingness Study on their behalf.

Why not just ask people if they want the DGR with a referendum? 

The Municipality of South Bruce has retained GHD to consult residents on how they would like willingness to be determined. A referendum is one of the ways willingness could be determined. Through this consultation process, residents will have the opportunity provide feedback on how willingness should be determined rather than having a particular method imposed on them.

Who in the community have you already discussed this project with? 

The May 6, 2021 CLC meeting was GHD’s first discussion with the community. 

The Seaborn conclusions were that a clear and straight forward question having only a yes or no answer should be used to determine whether a resident/community agrees with the undertaking. Why do you think they are wrong in forming that conclusion?

My question is 2 parts, Firstly, will "informed"ness be measured somehow as well to ensure decisions are being made based on factual information? And secondly, will there be "safeguards" in place to ensure the same 10 people don't voice their opinion multiple times each, whereas others only voice their opinion once? 

“Informed”ness will not be measured as part of the Willingness Study. However, as part of this consultation the Municipality is seeking your feedback on what information you need to make an informed decision.  With respect to safeguards, residents and ratepayers who participate in the consultation process will be asked to provide their name and contact information for tracking purposes. If an individual provides an identical comment multiple times, it will be tracked as a single comment. Confidential information, such as names and addresses, will not be published.

In a report prepared by Maria Paez Victor on key social issues related to nuclear waste for the NWMO, she quoted C.P Wolf’s conclusion that when risks and uncertainty exists " Some kind of decision process must be established that even the loser will find acceptable, and we doubt that anything other than a public referenda will be able to accomplish this goal" What's your view on C.P Wolf's conclusion and why do you feel that way ?

The Municipality of South Bruce has retained GHD, as an independent and neutral community engagement consultant, to consult residents on how they would like willingness to be determined. As such, we do not have an opinion on C.P. Wolf’s conclusion. With respect to decision processes, as members of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2), GHD adheres to the IAP2 Core Values, including that “… those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.” (https://iap2canada.ca/foundations).

When a formal federal EA is complete will the community have access to the results before having to make a formal commitment to the DGR?

As this time, it is premature to assume a Federal Impact Assessment (IA) will be completed for the proposed Project without a commitment from the Municipality of South Bruce. The decision to initiate a Federal IA rests with the NWMO and not the Municipality of South Bruce. Information on the federal impact assessment process is available here: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/services/policy-guidance/impact-assessment-process-overview.html

There has been a lot of discussion about a referendum. In a representative democracy, is it reasonable to let Council decide on behalf of the citizens?

The Municipality of South Bruce has retained GHD, as an independent and neutral community engagement consultant, to consult residents on how they would like willingness to be determined. As such, we do not have an opinion on whether it is reasonable to let Council decide on behalf of its citizens. The community’s input, including this comment, will documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

If residents are apathetic to your consultation will that indicate unwillingness or simple disinterest in having a say in the process?

If residents do not participate in the consultation, it will not indicate unwillingness. GHD cannot speculate on residents being apathetic to the upcoming planned consultation opportunities. 

Is GHD hired to also work with engaging SON?

No, GHD has been retained by the Municipality of South Bruce to consult residents and ratepayers of the Municipality of with South Bruce. 

Is there transparency around how you are collecting data? (eg. how outreach is being conducted, especially in regards to the diverse and hard-to-reach populations) (how questions are being delivered, qualitative/quantitative/mixed methods, are the questions probing?) I, along with others, would really appreciate transparency and concrete answers, rather than vague descriptions filled with buzz words.

Yes, the results from consulting residents on how they would like willingness to be determined will be reported on in a transparent manner, including how outreach was conducted and how questions were delivered. In addition, as part of maintaining transparency, the workshop workbook including the discussion questions will be published prior to the workshops.

The DGR is a highly emotive issue for those afraid of radiation or opposed to the nuclear industry. How do we ensure the silent supporters/opponents are engaged in the process of deciding willingness (those not wanting their opinions known for business/personal reasons)?

The Municipality of South Bruce is seeking input from a broad cross-section of residents and ratepayers on how they would like willingness to be determined. With that in mind, there are many ways they can participate to suit their own comfort level (e.g. at a workshop, online, by phone or email, in a mini-workshop, etc.) Additional suggestions to engage “silent supporters/opponents” are encouraged. Confidential information, such as names and addresses, will not be published. To speak to a member of GHD’s consultation team directly, please call us toll-free, 1-833-585-2613 or email WillingnessStudy@ghd.com. 

What is the process for ensuring only those who live or own land in South Bruce are included in this consultation? There are many out of town activists who will want to “dirty the pool” with their opinions.

All South Bruce residents and ratepayers are invited to participate in the process on how they would like willingness to be determined. To ensure this process reflects the South Bruce community, participants will be asked to provide their name and South Bruce address/property. Confidential information, such as names and addresses, will not be published.

Is it relevant to this community to know what concerns the SON may have in deciding on this issue?

The Municipality of South Bruce has retained GHD, as an independent and neutral community engagement consultant, to consult residents and ratepayers on how they would like willingness to be determined. The purpose of this consultation is to gather input from the community on what is relevant when deciding on this issue. If knowing what concerns the SON may have is important to the South Bruce community, we encourage you to participate in the upcoming consultation events and provide this feedback. The community’s input, including this comment, will documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

There have been a lot of public claims that the DGR will pollute the water or endanger the food supply, where there is no scientific evidence for such claims. How do we get the discussion back to fact-based dialogue, rather than needless fear mongering?

As part of this consultation, the Municipality of South Bruce is seeking feedback on what information the community needs to make an informed decision. 

Has GHD ever done thing type of thing with any other community? If so, how large was the community? And what was the situation you were determining willingness over? 

The following are some of the consultation programs conducted by GHD that involved determining willingness. The size of the community and the situation is included in the description:

• Waste Bin Site Transition Plan, District of Muskoka: On behalf of the District, GHD is asking residents their opinions on waste servicing options. Approximately 5000 District residents use the existing waste bin program in several communities ranging in size from less than 20 to over 300.
• New Campbellford Bridge Detailed Design, Northumberland County: On behalf of the County, GHD consulted the Campbellford and Trent Hills community (population of approximately 10,000) on a proposed change to the approved design of the new bridge.
• Upper York Sewage Solutions Environmental Assessment, York Region: On behalf of the Region, GHD consulted the communities of East Gwillimbury, Newmarket and Aurora (combined population of approximately 160,000) on potential wastewater servicing options.
• Waste Management User Fee Financial Study, Region of Peel: On behalf of the Region, GHD consulted residents in Peel Region (population of approximately 1.4 million) on potential user fee options for waste management services.
• Medicine Hat Waste Diversion Planning, City of Medicine Hat: On behalf of the City, GHD consulted Medicine Hat residents (population of approximately 50,000) on potential new waste diversion services and their willingness to pay for additional services.

To clarify, the purpose of this consultation process is to seek feedback from residents and ratepayers on how they would like willingness to be determined, rather than to determine willingness.

How do you verify that it is just residents of South Bruce participating?

All South Bruce residents and ratepayers are invited to participate in the process on how they would like willingness to be determined. To ensure this process reflects the South Bruce community, participants will be asked to provide their name and South Bruce address/property. Confidential information, such as names and addresses, will not be published.

In your recommended procedure, how are you dealing with ensuring that your intended audience understand the risks and uncertainties with this project and how will you have determined that they are informed?

Why not postpone the consultation until public health measures allow people to meet in person?

Consultation is not being postponed because, in our experience, consultation can be effectively undertaken while public health restrictions are in place by providing participants a variety of ways to participate. Residents and ratepayers may participate in consultation events by phone, mobile device or computer, and can contact the GHD consultation team directly by phone (1-833-583-2613) or email (WillingnessStudy@ghd.com). GHD is prepared to meet in-person when permitted to do so by the Province and Municipality.

The NWMO has engaged and lobbied South Bruce for 8 years why in the last year are we now being asked relevant questions and why is a 3rd party required to do it?

Since GHD was not involved in the previous NMWO engagement with the Municipality of South Bruce, we cannot comment on it. The Municipality of South Bruce has recently retained GHD, as an independent and neutral community engagement consultant, to consult residents on how they would like willingness to be determined. We understand that this was a result of the Municipality’s consultation done last Fall, that led to the creation of their Guiding Principle #9 that states: “The Municipality will, in collaboration with community members, develop and establish an open and transparent process that will allow the community to express its level of willingness to host the Project.”

The only way to measure whether this process was successful is if a referendum is held to measure willingness at the end of the process. Anything short of a community referendum will be a miscarriage of local democracy and the leave the municipality open to legal challenge down the road.

The community’s input, including this comment, will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

Where does the data go . . . to whom?

The data GHD is collecting on behalf of the Municipality of South Bruce, as part of consulting residents and ratepayers on how they would like willingness to be determined, will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration. Confidential information such as names and addresses will not be published and only shared with the Municipality.   

We have already seen some “results” of past engagement groups and we all know that data can be interpreted in a variety of different ways.

GHD is committed to a transparent process of reporting back to the community. Prior to reporting to the Council, GHD will report back to the community and residents will have an opportunity to provide additional comments. This will allow residents and ratepayers to review and provide feedback on the details of the inputs we received. 

Will these questions be answered in writing after this session and available to the public?

Yes, these questions are answered in writing and available to the public on the Municipality’s website. 

In your opinion, how is this project you are developing to determine willingness compare to South Bruce visionary workshop number 8 "The NWMO must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the municipality that it has built broad support for the project within the community of South Bruce."

GHD is not involved in how NWMO is planning to demonstrate to the municipality that it has built broad support for the project.  GHD is consulting residents on how they would like willingness to be determined.

Given this project has significant positive impact on the local economy of Grey, Bruce and Huron, and will provide an important service to all of Canada, why does the "willingness" process not extend further than just South Bruce?

GHD has been retained by the Municipality of South Bruce to consult residents and ratepayers of the Municipality only.

Who gave the municipality the funds for this study?

We understand that NWMO provided funding to the Municipality of South Bruce to undertake the Willingness Study. GHD is not involved in this funding agreement between the Municipality of South Bruce and NWMO. 

Will public engagement in this process be perceived as willingness? 

No, participating in this process does not represent support for or opposition to the Project. The purpose of the Willingness Study is to facilitate a community discussion on the question of how willingness is to be measured. 

As there is significant distrust in the process invented by NWMO, the CLC and the municipality, will other group be able to see the raw data collected before a report is prepared. 

GHD is committed to providing a safe space for residents and ratepayers to provide input and to reporting in a transparent manner. The consultation report will document how the consultation activities were publicized, what consultation activities were held, how many individuals participated in each activity, as well as all comments that were received during the consultation process (i.e., the raw data). Confidential information such as names and addresses will not be published. The report will be available to the public for review prior to submission to Municipal Council.

Why can’t neighbouring municipalities be included in this process? 

GHD has been retained only by the Municipality to consult residents and ratepayers of the Municipality of South Bruce.

How is the deadline for "willingness" established? Since construction will not begin until 2033, why do we need to decide earlier than that?

Whether the community is willing to host the Project is not being determined as part of this consultation process. While the specific timing of when willingness will be determined has not been decided yet, it must be determined prior to NWMO moving forward with the preferred site.

Is it possible that your recommendation to Council could be ‘hold a referendum’?

As an independent and neutral community engagement consultant, GHD is consulting residents on how they would like willingness to be determined rather than make a recommendation on how willingness should be determined. If residents or ratepayers express a preference for a referendum in this process, these comments will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

Is the NWMO going to be asked what they feel is "informed and willing"?

NWMO is not involved in this consultation process and will not be asked what they feel is informed and willing.  

Is there a minimum number of people who have to participate in our consultation for the results to be meaningful - as public opinion polls for example require a certain random sample size to be meaningful?

The Municipality of South Bruce is seeking broad community input from as many residents and ratepayers as possible. Multiple opportunities will be available for all interested in participating to ensure the consultation process is open, transparent and inclusive.

How will you balance point 9 of principles where 110 people which included municipal staff and minors provided input vs a survey finding 64% of ratepayers don't want the DGR and over 1500 people signed a petition saying they don't want a DGR. Why is such importance gave to the 36 principles when so few people provided input?

The purpose of this consultation process is for residents and ratepayers to provide input on how they would like willingness to be determined.

How large should our community be is an important question.

The comment is noted and will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

If I was a resident of Goderich, Kitchener or Collingwood, I certainly would want a say about the appropriateness of this DGR in my backyard.

The comment is noted and will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

This decision will affect all of Ontario (and Canada at large).

The comment is noted and will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration.

There will be numerous opinions present from the community on the definition of what constitutes willingness and how to measure so what metrics will you use to determine what is the opinion of the majority?

All comments received will be documented and reported to Council for their consideration and not just the opinion of the majority.

Are/is questions/input screened by NWMO/employee like these questions tonight?

No, NWMO is not involved in this consultation process and are not screening questions or input. 

There are landowners who do not live in South Bruce but are impacted by this DGR project. Are they included as SB ratepayers?

Yes, this consultation process is open to all South Bruce residents and ratepayers, including landowners who own land but do not live in South Bruce. 

I feel it is important to ensure throughout the process that people need to provide their name with their feedback for determining willingness so that "anonymous" people can't express their own personal opinion several times, boosting a specific overall result.

Participants will be asked to provide their name and South Bruce address/property to confirm their resident/ratepayer status. Confidential information, such as names and addresses, will not be published.

Is Ignace area having such a "consultation" done also?

Yes, Ignace is undertaking a separate willingness consultation process that GHD is not involved in. 

Can the willingness surveys be mailed to those residents who own property in South Bruce but don’t have a mail delivery to a box in Teeswater/Formosa/Mildmay?

This consultation process is open to all South Bruce residents and ratepayers, including landowners who own land but do not live in South Bruce. Information on how to participate, including the link to the survey when available, will be provided on the project page on the South Bruce Switchboard (www.southbruceswitchboard.ca). Alternatively, please contact the GHD consultation team by email (WillingnessStudy@ghd.com) or phone (Toll-free 1-833-583-2613).

1. In reference to a CBC News Report and Jean Chrétien interview posted, Apr 01, 2021. Was the CNSC aware of the plans in 2020, to propose to store nuclear waste from foreign countries in Labrador? Is the CNSC aware of any similar discussions?

2. Are there any rules and regulations surrounding posting rad hazard signs where a rad hazard does not exist? Who enforces frivolous posting of a rad hazard? Anyone unfamiliar with our local "situation" would assume a rad hazard exists in our community given the rad symbols plastered all over the place.

3. Why did the CNSC in March 2020 weaken cleanup criteria for radioactive waste in Port Hope which would result in an increase of the volume of contamination left behind for future generations?

4. Is radiation having entered the body much more dangerous than if present in the biosphere?

5. Have any tests been done over 20 or 30 years to determine if radiation over extended periods can affect the DNA makeup of the body?

6. The NWMO plan to repackage the fuel bundles at the DGR site. Do you have any information on what level of radiation and type of rays that will be emitted at this facility?

Similar to all other large nuclear facilities, different types of ionizing radiation (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma, etc) and chemicals may be present on site. All nuclear waste in Canada requires a licence from the CNSC, and

would be subject to the CNSC’s regulatory requirements.

CNSC would require detailed information about any proposed repackaging activity be submitted as part of a licence application - for review and assessment by CNSC staff. This would include an evaluation of whether

that activity would meet CNSC’s requirements.

7. The question has been asked in the community, "How many safe levels can you be exposed to until it isn't safe anymore?" Can you speak to that question?

8. Can you discuss why Canada’s Radiation Waste Policies are not up to international standards?

The CNSC does not have authority over Canada’s radioactive waste policy, nor over the establishment of a national strategy – that authority belongs to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), on behalf of Canada.

In 2019, Canada underwent an international Integrated Regulatory Review (IRRS) by the IAEA. This review found that Canada has a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety covering current facilities and activities. The CNSC strives to continuously upgrade  its regulatory framework to address new challenges and upcoming technologies.

The IRRS team recommend that the Government should enhance the existing policy and establish the associated strategy to give effect to the principles stated in the Canadian Radioactive Waste Management Policy Framework. In response, NRCan has stated that it will review its existing policy for radioactive waste and consider possible enhancements to give effect to the principles stated in the Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, including the establishment of an associated strategy.

In November 2020, NRCan announced the launch of the Government of Canada’s engagement process to modernize Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy. The objectives of the modernization of Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy are to ensure it is based on the best available science, continues to meet international practices, and reflects the values and principles of Canadians. More information can be found at the Modernizing Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy website.

9. To the CNSC: Please comment on the erosion of your organization’s credibility recently. How can we trust an organization that recently approved a license to produce nuclear fuel across the street from the Prince of Wales Elementary School in downtown Peterborough-Nogojiwanong.

The Commission’s decision to renew the operating licence for the BWXT fuel fabrication facility in Peterborough was based on a thorough review of risks associated with the facility, the licensee’s control measures, and CNSC staff’s ongoing oversight.

While each nuclear processing facility is unique, these facilities should not be confused with a Nuclear Power Plant which requires a buffer zone due to the operation of a nuclear reactor. Nuclear processing facilities are industrial facilities that process nuclear material. There is nothing unique about the presence of a nuclear processing facility in a densely populated city or its suburb. In Canada, apart from Peterborough, there are nuclear processing facilities that have operated safely for almost 50 years in cities like Toronto, Port Hope, Pembroke and Ottawa. CNSC has a robust and transparent process to assess licence applications, and the decision of whether to grant a licence or not is done by an independent Commission that is arms length from the public, government and industry. These features serve to maintain public trust during the entire licensing process.

10. What is the view of CNSC on radon gas emissions and have you set limits for the DGR facility?

The CNSC has extensive experience regulating radon exposure to workers and the public, especially with respect to underground activities. For example, the CNSC currently regulates uranium mining and milling in Canada where radon exposure to under-ground workers, if not properly managed, can pose a health hazard.

The CNSC sets radiation dose limits for both workers and the public as specified in the Radiation Protection Regulations. These dose limits are not specific to any single type of radiation (e.g., gamma, alpha, beta) or radioisotope (e.g., radon), rather they restrict worker and public exposure to all licensed activity related radiation exposures. Thus, exposure to radon is incorporated into the Radiation Protection Regulations dose limits.

In particular, all emissions are monitored and controlled to provide assurance that a member of the public shall not be exposed to greater than 1 mSV/year from all radiation exposures associated with the licensed activity (i.e., incremental to natural background or medical

11. Is the CNSC in agreement with the concept of a DGR?

The CNSC does not have a preferred approach to handling nuclear waste.

The CNSC takes a performance-based approach to regulation. This is supported by scientifically defensible benchmarks. This same approach is applied to any project proposed by a proponent, including the concept of a DGR.

The CNSC assesses all proposals against regulatory requirements to ensure the health, safety and security of the public and the protection of the environment.

12. What content did you present to the elementary school and was the information and presentation related to the ongoing NWMO project?

13. Currently there are 9 Canadian built CANDU reactors outside Canada. 4 in South Korea, 2 in China, 2 in Romania and 1 in Argentina. Is the CNSC responsible in any way for the operation of these reactors and the disposal of spent fuel they generate?

14. Why do you support a DGR instead of pushing for new technologies to reduce the impact of the radioactive component or eliminate the radioactive element all

together?

15. Why would the CNSC allow the pregnant women to make the decision to raise the acceptable dose? isn’t the dosage defined by the scientists of the CNSC? Can dosages be changed to suit the whims of those being affected?

The International Commission on Radiological Protection (the ICRP), is an independent, international organisation that advances for the public benefit the science of radiological protection, in particular by providing recommendations and guidance on all aspects of protection against ionising radiation. In their most recent set of recommendations they suggest a dose limit of 1 mSv for pregnant workers. Through widespread

16. In slide 8, Julia noted that the CNSC considers the public concerns. Have you heard of any concerns in South Bruce?

17. This presentation on dose does not explain or account for the lifelong biological impacts of the inhalation pathway. When multiple insoluble radioactive particles are inhaled and lodged in the lungs which are continuously being irradiated at the cellular level, how can the ongoing daily/annual dose to the person be calculated?

Once radioactive materials have been inhaled or ingested, many factors are taken into account to calculate the resulting radiation dose to that person. The physical half-life (how quickly the radioactive material decays) and the biological half-life (how long it stays in each organ and tissue of the body) are considered in this calculation. This information is based on a vast body of research on the retention and clearance of radioactive materials in the respiratory and alimentary tracts as well as their overall retention in the body. The calculation methods are updated as new data become available. This is reflected in the calculation of the committed effective dose, whereby the ongoing dose that will be received over the fifty years from a single exposure is included in the calculation.

18. The ‘weight of evidence’ graph does not give comfort to the public. It paints a picture that there is such a varying degree of effects from radiation both high and low and that CNSC can’t say for sure what harms might occur from different levels of exposure. Is this a fair assumption?

19. The CNSC states that their first mandate is to protect the safety of Canadians but many CNSC licensing approvals are bringing that into question. In December 2020 BWXT in Peterborough was granted a license to process 150 tonnes of uranium pellets per month just 25 metres from a school playground. Soil samples from the area already prove that the beryllium is rising but parents aren't supposed to worry because it is "safe"? Wouldn't no level be safer? Now with the addition of uranium pelleting even safety commissioner Dr. Sandor Demeter argues that the "added radiation doses and UO2 air and effluent emissions is not acting in the abundance of precaution. BWXT is also named in a lawsuit because their Ohio factory exposed school children to dangerous levels of uranium and neptunium 237. Is it worth sacrificing children's health for the benefits of nuclear industry? What levels will be deemed "safe" for the children living next door? children who will have loads of radioactive waste driving daily past their homes?

The protection of health, safety, security, and the environment is the CNSC’s priority. The Nuclear Safety and Control Act states that licensees must prevent unreasonable risk, to the environment and to the health and safety of persons, associated with the development, production, possession of nuclear energy and the production, possession and use of nuclear substances, prescribed equipment and prescribed information. The Commission issues licences with conditions that ensure the protection of the public and the environment near licensed facilities.

CNSC staff verify compliance with those conditions through environmental monitoring, inspections, and other regulatory tools. Licences can permit facilities to have emissions of radioactive and hazardous substances, but these are required to be at a level that is safe for the surrounding communities, that is, the emissions shall not pose an unreasonable risk to persons or the environment. This is achieved through the establishment

• CNSC technical experts regularly assess beryllium releases from BWXT Nuclear Energy Canada Inc’s (BWXT) facility in Peterborough.

• CNSC staff confirm that beryllium releases from BWXT are low and have not contributed significantly to any existing levels in the surrounding soil.

• CNSC staff presented results of beryllium soil testing around the BWXT Peterborough facility to the Commission Secretariat in a Commission Member Document (CMD) in October 2020.

• In the document, we included a hypothetical scenario to show how much airborne beryllium would have to be emitted by the BWXT facility to account for the change in beryllium concentrations in soil found in soil samples between 2018 and 2019.

• that beryllium emissions from BWXT’s Peterborough operations are at a level that could not result in a significant change to beryllium concentrations in soil:

20. So there are no background studies independently completed by the regulator? CNSC relies on the sector to provide this information? This is very problematic. 

Background or baseline studies and research to support a specific application are the responsibility of the proponent. The CNSC has the responsibility to assess the validity and credibility of these activities along with submitted documentation. The CNSC has established a number of mechanisms for this purpose.

This starts with the existence the CNSC Technical Support Branch under the Chief Science Officer to ensure that CNSC staff the necessary internal scientific technical support to independently assess applications. The CNSC research and support program (R&SP) is used to fund CNSC directed research to support regulatory decision making. The CNSC is also extremely active in directing research funded by the Federal Nuclear Science and Technology (FNST) program. These activities are further enhanced through formal Memorandums of Understanding and contribution agreements with national and international regulatory and research organizations involving the cross-sharing of expertise, research and monitoring activities.

Examples of CNSC independent funding or participation in research on geological repositories is available on the CNSC website. Examples of independent environmental studies or monitoring programs include the CNSC Independent Environmental Monitoring Program, the Health Canada Canadian Radiological Monitoring Network (MOU), the Ontario Reactor Surveillance Program and directed environmental research completed under the FNST (examples).

21. How can we trust CNSC to act in the best interests of people and safety for licensing a DGR when there has been question of CNSC “lifting key regulatory roadblocks that would have forced OPG to replace aging pressure tubes at Pickering” (source - recent Globe and Mail article)?

As Canada’s nuclear regulator, our job is to ensure nuclear safety. We are committed to ensuring the public and environment remain protected around the safe use of nuclear materials. Safety is our mandate and top priority, ensuring it will not be compromised under any circumstances.

Our staff are recognized experts in their respective fields, working together to oversee and verify industry is doing the right thing at the right time to ensure the safety of all nuclear facilities in Canada.

Given we are a science-based organization and use a variety of tools to complete our mandate effectively, we use diverse methods of analysis, review, inspections, compliance verification and enforcement actions to do our job and hold industry to a superior safety standard.

22. Why would there even be a thought that CNSC would give permission for more uranium and arsenic to remain in the soil, in Port Hope, than previously stipulated? Does the CNSC bend the rules for the safe levels of toxins, to accommodate the economical strains of cleaning up this mess?

23. In the above question how did this situation and the Port Hope situation occur when it was under the watchful eye of the CNSC?

24. In February 2020 the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that the CNSC radiation safety standards were not up to International standards. Have there been any changes yet? How are you planning to correct this?

Canada hosted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for an Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission in September 2019. The IRRS team found that the CNSC has a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety covering current facilities and activities, and included a recommendation for ensuring that radiation protection requirements are consistent with the requirements of the IAEA’s General Safety Requirements (GSR) Part 3.

The CNSC has established a systematic, regular review of existing regulations and regulatory documents. This ensures that Canada’s nuclear regulatory regime is comprehensive and up to date, reflects relevant changes in technology and international practices, and meets the needs of Canadians. The CNSC recently completed a revision to the Radiation Protection Regulations. This update represents seven years of work and stakeholder consultation. The revised regulations are more consistent with the requirements of GSR Part 3 while taking into account the CNSC’s comprehensive framework for safety and the needs of Canadians.

Canada has a robust regulatory framework for radiation protection for the protection and safety of workers, the Canadian public and the environment. The CNSC is committed to ensuring its radiation protection requirements are up-to-date, and in keeping with this commitment, and as part of CNSC’s regular review cycle of regulatory instruments, the CNSC will continue to review relevant international standards and recommendations to identify areas for improvement which will enhance safety as suggested by the IAEA recommendation. The IRRS report, as well as CNSC’s management response, is available on our website: http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/international- cooperation/irrs/canada-response-irrs-2019-summary.cfm

25. CNSC is “supporting” two SMR vendors active in New Brunswick, including the study of how they might extract plutonium from highly radioactive irradiated CANDU fuel. Why would the CNSC support the extraction of plutonium for the irradiated CANDU fuel? Does this not create the conditions for nuclear weapon risks?

It is public knowledge that some SMR proponents intend to pursue the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. The CNSC neither supports nor opposes any SMR proposals, and at this time there has been no application for a licence to do with reprocessing. The CNSC has no role in setting Government policy on reprocessing. On receipt of any licence application, CNSC staff evaluate the proposed activities on their technical merits, and ensure that persons and the environment would not face any unreasonable risks due to the activity.

Regarding nuclear weapons, the CNSC’s regulatory framework requires that licensees accept and facilitate inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who verify that all nuclear activities in Canada are exclusively peaceful in nature, and do not contribute to nuclear weapons in any way.

26. In 2019, the IAEA has indicated that CNSC allows far greater levels of radiation exposure for nuclear workers than IAEA standards. Why is Canada different in allowing higher levels of exposure?

27. Is it true that Port Elgin and Kincardine have the highest levels of tritium in surface water tritium on the Great Lakes?

The CNSC has written a report assessing the impact of radionuclides, including tritium, in the Great Lakes. The report found that the Bruce area, including Port Elgin and Kincardine, has the highest levels of tritium in surface water tritium on the Great Lakes but are below the drinking water guideline of 7000 Bq/L. The report indicates that the maximum value is 163.5 Bq/L, which is 2.3% of the drinking water guideline. The average value is 98.7 Bq/L, which is 1.4% of the drinking water guideline. The report is available on the CNSC website: https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/health/radionuclides-chemical- of-mutual-concern.cfm.

28. Was the CNSC aware of the plans in 2020 to import nuclear waste from foreign countries to bury and store in Labrador? Is the CNSC aware of this and similiar

discussions?

29. Radioactive cylinders on trucks through towns and highways are documented to emit gamma and neutron radiation and cannot be considered safe to be near. CNSC does not require cylinders to be covered with "blankets" as in Europe. External radiation doses to the body are dangerous which is why we are told to minimize xrays as is internal radiation to cells when inhaled.

Based on the reference to “blankets’ we assume the question refers to the movements of cylinders containing natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The CNSC has requirements in place to ensure that the public and environment are protected during the transport of radioactive material. Before any shipments can take place, all radioactive material shipments including cylinders carrying UF6 are required to meet the CNSC requirements for radiation levels that are established to ensure that it does not pose any risk of health effect to the public. The “blankets” (overpacks) which are placed on cylinders bound for Europe are designed for additional thermal protection and do not appreciably reduce the radiation emitted by these cylinders.

30. Julia - you did not answer the question regarding emissions from the repackaging plant. Could you please answer that question?

31. For DGR, given that all known packaging will disintegrate at some point in time, why is the “rolling stewardship” idea not being given more weight?

The CNSC does not have a preferred approach to handling nuclear waste.

The CNSC takes a performance-based approach to regulation; that is, first the licence applicant proposes a waste management supported by scientifically defensible benchmarks. The CNSC then assesses the proposal against existing regulatory requirements to ensure the health, safety and security of the public and the protection of the environment.

Under the Impact Assessment Act, the proponent would be responsible for evaluating alternative means of carrying out a project. For a DGR project, this may include consideration of rolling stewardship as an alternative.

32. Why does CNSC say it has no mandate regarding the locations of nuclear facilities of any type if its primary mandate is safety and health?

The CNSC, as the regulator, does not dictate the locations of nuclear projects, including the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Adaptive Phased Management (APM) project. However, consultation with Indigenous groups and the public is a very important aspect of the CNSC’s regulatory and decision-making processes.

33. Can you comment on the Peterborough organization that is suing the CNSC because they were ignored in the consulting process? Is this the first time the CNSC has been sued by citizens?

Citizens Against Radioactive Neighbourhoods (CARN), represented by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), has applied for judicial review in the Federal Court of a Commission decision. To clarify, the Commission is not being sued. Although the Commission's decision is being challenged, the CNSC is not a party to the matter before the court.

The Commission decision which is being challenged can be accessed on our website. This decision was made after a public hearing at which representatives of CARN intervened and made both oral and written submissions to the Commission. The Commission considered all of the evidence and submissions before it in making its decision.

As it is the Commission's decision which is under review by the Federal Court, it would not be appropriate for the CNSC to comment further on this matter.

34. Point Lepreau is on a fault line and also on the Bay of Fundy with high tides and subject to storm surges. Why extract plutonium - there - hard to contain - and also

a proliferation risk for nuclear weapons. Why is this being allowed?

 35. CSNC is not independent. This makes your organization not being transparent but works in favour for the nuclear industry. This is really problematic and which safety are you looking after? Economic safety for the nuclear industry is my guess!!!

As Canada’s nuclear regulator, our job is to ensure nuclear safety. We are committed to ensuring the public and environment remain protected around the safe use of nuclear materials. Safety is our mandate and top priority, ensuring it will not be compromised under any circumstances.

• The Commission is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal set up at arm’s length from government, independent from any political, government or private sector influence.

• It is the Commission members, and only the Commission members, who render decisions based on all the evidence presented in the context of a hearing process.

• The Commission is one of only a few nuclear regulators in the world that conducts public licensing hearings, ensuring a high degree of transparency, thus reinforcing its independence from the industry and other interested stakeholders.
  
  
• The Commission has up to seven permanent members that are appointed by the Governor in Council based on their qualifications and expertise.
  
  
• Commission members commit to the highest standards of ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and carry out their duties impartially.

36. Please explain why small modular nuclear reactors are supposedly not subject to environmental review…other than the fact that they produce power under a certain level?

Nuclear projects below the thresholds listed in the Physical Activities Regulations of the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) are regulated by the CNSC. The licence application process includes a robust technical review, including an environmental protection review. In their Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, the Government of Canada provided the rationale that the selected thresholds allow them to better focus on major projects with the greatest potential for adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction.

They also noted that the impact assessment process would add little value above the CNSC’s existing processes.

37. What are long term risks of our current method of storage (rolling stewardship) if Canada doesn’t proceed with a DGR at this time? If current containers need repackaged every 50 years, would the dated containers be considered low or intermediate waste? Would the option of rolling stewardship create more waste that Canada will need to dispose of? 

The CNSC does not have a preferred approach to handling nuclear waste.

The CNSC takes a performance-based approach to regulation; that is, first the licence applicant proposes a waste management supported by scientifically defensible benchmarks. The CNSC then assesses the proposal against existing regulatory requirements to ensure the health, safety and security of the public and the protection of the environment.

38. Given that no deep geological repository has actually been completed anywhere in the world and given that the New Mexico repository which included military wastes and ended in an explosion with subsequent costly ‘repairs’, why is any production of new nuclear waste still being allowed? Why not stop all production of any nuclear waste until such time that a way of actually dealing with this waste is figured out in a satisfactory fashion to all?

The CNSC does not determine energy policy, nor do we prefer a disposal method. The waste currently on sites is stored in a safe and secure manor and is regular inspected to verify its compliance with the extensive

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is an operating DGR within a salt formation in New Mexico. Information about the waste at that facility, and the accidents that occurred at that facility in 2014, is provided below. As an operating DGR facility, examining the causes of those incidents provide important lessons learned for the operation of waste disposal facilities.

Waste that is disposed within WIPP was generated from the United States’ defence program. WIPP is licensed to host transuranic radioactive waste consisting of clothes, tools, rags, residues, soils and other items contaminated with small amounts of plutonium and other radioactive elements produced through human activity.

The two accidents occurred at WIPP in February of 2014. A truck fire deep in the mined repository spread soot over equipment and disabled the air monitoring system. In a second incident, a chemical reaction breached a waste drum causing a radiological release and contaminating large areas of the repository. The drum contained nitrate salts, processed and emplaced at WIPP in late 2013. An investigation by the Department of Energy Accident Investigation Board determined that the breach was caused by the use of incompatible sorbent material (organic rather than inorganic) to absorb liquids in sludge waste containers.

From the radiological release, 22 employees were notified of exposures related to the incident below 10 millirem (0.1 millisievert), which is equivalent to the dose from one adult chest x-ray.

While the immediate causes of the accidents were determined and remedial actions recommended, an examination of the broader issues undertaken while the site was closed identified larger problems relating to contractor management. WIPP’s phased recovery plan toward resuming disposal operations included strengthening of safety programs, decontamination of the underground, increased ventilation, and additional workforce training.

Limited waste disposal resumed late in 2016, routine handling and emplacement of transuranic waste resumed at WIPP in 2018.

What in your opinion what is the largest risk to the environment pertaining to borehole drilling? Is there a radiation risk?

Typical to any industrial or farming activity, the largest risk is the potential for fuel spill. To mitigate this risk, activities will be implemented such as ensuring that appropriately sized spill containment structures will be installed, inspected and maintained wherever fuel is being stored and used, such as below the drill rig, site generator, and fuel storage.

An Environment, Health and Safety Plan, which includes a spill response plan, is prepared by the contractor and accepted by the NWMO in advance of any field work.

What type of internet connection / infrastructure will be used at the borehole site will be used to upload all the data to the cloud?

Once the borehole sites are established, they will use the cellular network for project communication.

Will the public be able to view the information in the core logging database?

Information we collect from the boreholes will be shared with the public on an ongoing basis. The specific core logging database that was referred to is an internal NWMO data management system.

Martin mentioned that borehole 2 will be plugged. Does that mean that the Borehole 1 site is being considered for the main DGR mine shaft?

Neither borehole is planned for the DGR mine shaft – both are exploratory boreholes, selected to help confirm the properties of the geosphere at the potential repository site. Once drilling and testing is complete one of the boreholes (borehole one) is planned to be instrumented with monitoring equipment that will allow the NWMO to collect data such as pressure profiles of the groundwater in the subsurface. Borehole two will be temporarily sealed once drilling and downhole testing is completed.

Once a site is selected for hosting a deep geological repository, additional studies at that site would continue. For the site not selected, all boreholes would be fully decommissioned at that time.

Today we have 2 tectonic plates shifting in the world. Maybe more that we’re not aware of. Right now there is potential for disasters in both Iceland and New Zealand. What could potentially happen in this area if we have a plate shift in North America?

The South Bruce area is located in an area of relatively low seismicity, away from the margins of tectonic plates. Even though the area is one of low seismicity, we are conducting activities such as installing micro seismic monitoring stations to further our understanding of seismic activity in the area.

Ultimately, the selected site will be in an area where current and future earthquake (seismic) activity will not impact the safety of the repository during the operational phase or over the long term. The repository will be sited in an area with low seismic activity but will be designed to withstand large magnitude earthquakes. 

Are you going to share the well water testing?

Water well testing was completed on private water wells near to the borehole one and borehole two drill sites. These results have been shared with the landowners who participated in this testing.

Why no boreholes on the north side of Concession 8 where the NWMO has land options?

NWMO has selected locations for the first two boreholes, to allow us to further understand the geological properties at the potential repository site. If the South Bruce site is selected as the repository site, further studies, including additional borehole drilling on additional land parcels will be completed. 

Is there any anomalies encountered in a borehole sampling that would prevent the building of a DGR?

Borehole drilling (along with additional geoscience work, such as 3D seismic surveys) is being done to confirm that the site is potentially suitable for hosting a deep geological repository. If geoscience studies (borehole drilling or other) identified features that would make the site unsuitable for a deep geological repository, then the site would no longer be considered. 

Radionuclides were not mention in the proposed test of the water currently planned.  Why not?

An extensive list of radionuclides is included as analytes in the Environmental Baseline Monitoring Program (EBMP) for all environmental media including air, soil, tissues, shallow groundwater and surface water.

With regards to the initial private water well sampling program: Based on input from community members regarding existing concerns of baseline radionuclide concentrations in private well water, the water samples collected will be analyzed for select radionuclides in addition to metals, organics, nutrients, general chemistry, bacteria, and pesticides.

You are sampling water from drivers, wells, fish, etc. in a large area of South Bruce. You will find a lot of data. The problem is . . . we will not know the effects of this Nuclear project until its too late.  It is the data after 5 or 10 years which will tell the truth about this environmental project.  What difference is all this work and data?

The purpose of this project is to protect people and the environment over the long term. There cannot be any credible risk from the repository to the public or the environment.

The Environmental Baseline Monitoring Program is designed to understand environmental baseline conditions prior to development of the Project so that potential effects of the major Project stages (construction, operation, extended monitoring, decommissioning, and post closure) can be avoided , and if not completed avoided then mitigated to reduce their likelihood, consequence, or both, and finally to establish the monitoring program which will be used to continually check that the NWMO is protecting the environment and people. The goal of the monitoring program is to reliably see changes compared to the existing conditions, so that additional actions can be taken.

The deer is the one we might be most concerned with the deer population may well graze on the lands adjacent to the proposed DGR site. If the grass contains some radioactive components because of vapors escaping from the repacking facility will the deer we hunt be permitted to be consumed by the public?

Airborne and waterborne emissions from the NWMO surface facilities, which undergo filtration before release, will be monitored to ensure the safety of people and the environment. Limits will be set by the CNSC when the facility is licensed for the releases to the air that must be achieved by the NWMO. These limits will ensure that any foods, including deer, remain safe to consume. The NWMO will monitor and publicly report on its emissions, and take measurements of radiation in the environment. The CNSC will also independently conduct measurements to confirm that the NWMO is accurately reporting.

Who actually created the work statements for the studies being performed by the NWMO and the same questions for the joint planning activities and then those for South Bruce studies?

Dave Rushton and Allan Webster jointly prepared the statements of work for the joint studies. 

For the studies being led by the NWMO, NWMO staff developed the statements of work.

South Bruce staff prepared the statements of work for the studies/peer-reviews being led by South Bruce, in consultation with senior staff. 

Principles 30 and 31 have to do with road network and transportation routes, the preparation for the testing sites has taken a toll on the 8th concession already. Whether the project proceeds or not this is an issue that needs to be addressed. What are the expectations in addressing the road infrastructure to support this phase of the project?

As referenced, Principle 30 indicates that “The NWMO will prepare a review of the existing and projected capacity of South Bruce’s road network and will commit to providing appropriate funding for any required upgrades to the road network.” Therefore, our expectation is that any required updates at any stage of the Project will be assessed for incremental damage and will be incurred by the NWMO. We anticipate working with the NWMO on how this will proceed.

One of the studies that will take place to address those principles is the Road Conditions Effects Study. It will be led by the NWMO, and has the objective “to assess the existing municipal, county, and provincial road conditions and recommend any improvements and/or monitoring associated with the NWMO APM Project” as stated in the Statement of Work. The study will consider the increased demand associated with the project on existing roads, and will also recommend proposed improvements to road and road infrastructure.

As there are several companies and consultants which have been engaged for the studies and peer-reviews, they have various head offices, respectively.

Certain companies/firms have multiple offices and locations across the province, country and in some cases globally. For specific questions as to the location of the offices of the companies/consultants retained by the Municipality of South Bruce, please contact Dave Rushton at drushton@southbruce.ca

Are some of the "needs of the community" if the project comes here based on what existing residents would like to see, and not just based on population booms and what that would require?

For example: if residents now are saying they'd like a new arena with an indoor pool, but population projections don't "support" that as a requirement...would it still be considered as something the community needs

There is a balance to be found. For example, with some of the funding provided by the NWMO that is currently distributed in the community, consideration is given to the needs, aspirations, and wants that the current residents and population desires.

Other potential “needs” may not be viable or sustainable for the community if the siting of the Project did not take place in South Bruce. It is important to consider that some of these needs or wants (for example a new arena) would have to be sustainable by the Municipal tax base, and if there was not the increased population, infrastructure, or significant contributors to the tax base, then some potential community projects would not occur.

We look forward to understanding this more concretely through our infrastructure and community wellbeing area studies.

Several statements made by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization in the past claim the community must be "COMPELLING WILLINGNESS "and INFORMED COMMUNITY" How will you determine /measure these conditions? Has the NWMO changed their mind relative to compelling willingness versus willingness community?

This year, we will embark on a facilitated process that will provide Council with information on what members of the community would like to see in determining their willingness to host this Project.

More information on the timetable of activities that the independent consultant GHD will carry out on behalf of the Municipality of South Bruce, will be shared publicly in the coming months.  All South Bruce residents and ratepayers will have the opportunity to provide input in an open and respectful manner.

Our expectation is that by the end of this year, GHD will provide a report to Council that will accurately and transparently outline what they heard from the South Bruce community members who participated in the process.

Through an independent process with a facilitator (GHD), the Municipality of South Bruce hopes to better understand and gauge these questions and terms.

NWMO Response

The NWMO has a community-driven site selection process designed to ensure, about all, that any location selected is safe, secure and has informed and willing hosts. Communities are encouraged to identify processes that meet their specific needs and demonstrate clearly to the NWMO whether the project has the support of citizens.  The NWMO will support the community in whatever process they decide to determine if the project has the support of citizens.

For the willingness study how did you come up with the fact that the willingness must have several factors to determine the willingness?

To have a clear demonstration of willingness should not be reliant on one exercise or result, but rather should be considered by multiple factors, which we anticipate the community will express during the willingness engagement activities this year.

While some members of the community may believe one factor is the best/their preferred method, it is important to recognize that a broad range of opinions on what willingness should look like may be expressed throughout the course of this exercise. These options will then be presented to Council for their consideration on which measures of willingness will be used.

How can there be any other way to measure willingness (other) than a referendum of all the voters in the municipality?

What are Dave Rushton's education qualifications or work history to perform the review of the studies or peer reviews for South Bruce?

Dave Rushton’s education has been in accounting, economic development, and municipal leadership. He holds multiple designations, as well as professional work experience in energy and municipal sectors spanning several decades.

However, it is important to clarify that Dave, who is the Project Manager for the Municipality of South Bruce, will be overseeing the consultants that will be performing studies, or peer reviewing them. The Municipality has selected and will be engaging expert consultants to perform the peer-reviews, as outlined in the presentation to the Community Liaison Committee.

When does South Bruce think they will be signing an agreement with the NWMO for the center of excellence undertaking?

If the council did not run on the question of this project in the last election how can they now think that they can make the final decision?

The current plan calls for a decision to be made in 2023. Based on that timeline, three municipal elections will have taken place in between that time, and 2012 when South Bruce first entered the site selection process – including the upcoming Fall of 2022 election. In the interim, there are a couple of years for both Council and the community to continue learning, and provide input on the process.

As outlined above, our expectation is that by the end of 2021, GHD will provide a report to Council that will accurately and transparently outline what they heard from the South Bruce community members who participated in the process pertaining to willingness.

1. No abandonment

NWMO response

2. Monitored and retrievable storage

NWMO response

3. Better containment, more packaging

Cost and profit must never be the basis for long-term radioactive waste management. Paying a higher price for better containment today will help prevent much greater costs in the future when containment fails. Such failure will include irreparable environmental damage and radiation-induced diseases. The right kinds of packaging should be designed to make it easier to monitor, retrieve, and repackage insecure portions of the waste inventory as needed, for centuries to come.

NWMO response

Canada's plan puts safety first and foremost. It calls for used nuclear fuel to be safety contained and isolated in a deep geological repository using a combination of engineered and natural barriers to protect people and the environment indefinitely.

In Canada, this method emerged through years of dialogue with Canadians and Indigenous Peoples and is consistent with international best practice. The public said clearly that our generation, which has benefited from nuclear power, must put in place a long-term management approach for used fuel and not leave it as a legacy for future generations.

A deep geological repository will be actively managed and monitored for as long as society wishes to do so. It can also be sealed at a future date, when the community, the NWMO and regulators agree that it is appropriate. The repository would then be passively safe, meaning it would not rely upon human institutions and active management in order to contain and isolate used fuel over the long term.

This responsive and prudent approach is consistent with what Canadians said is required to ensure safe management of the used fuel for tens of thousands of years. Canada’s plan also calls for used fuel to be transported from current storage facilities to a new centralized site. In transit, a robust transportation package will contain and shield the used fuel.

4. Away from major bodies of water

Rivers and lakes are the blood and the lungs of Mother Earth. When we contaminate our waterways, we are poisoning life itself. That is why radioactive waste must not be stored beside major water bodies for the long-term. Yet this is exactly what is being planned at five locations in Canada: Kincardine on Lake Huron, Port Hope near Lake Ontario, Pinawa beside the Winnipeg River, and Chalk River and Rolphton beside the Ottawa River.

NWMO response

We have been and continue to do extensive land and environmental studies to ensure our waterways remain safe and clean, now and for future generations. We understand water is sacred for First Nations and we are committed to protecting it and the communities that surround it. We have created a presentation called the Journey of Water that emphasizes the relationship that water has to each part of our project.

The repository would be built at least 500 metres below the surface within the very deep rock, rather than on the surface next to the Great Lakes where it is currently stored. This

provides added protection for water, watersheds and sensitive ecological environments

5. No imports or exports

The import and export of nuclear wastes over public roads and bridges should be forbidden except in truly exceptional cases after full consultation with all whose lands and waters are being put at risk. In particular, the planned shipment of highly radioactive liquid from Chalk River to South Carolina should not be allowed because it can be down blended and solidified on site at Chalk River. Transport of nuclear waste should be strictly limited and decided on a case-by-case basis with full consultation with all those affected.

NWMO response

Teeswater is 2 to 3 km from the proposed site, under the Teeswater River and four aquifers. How safe is that?

Any candidate site to host a High Level Waste (HLW) geologic repository, in Canada or elsewhere, must be demonstrated to isolate the waste from the “accessible environment” - that is contained within the boundary of the site - for the time period that the wastes remain potentially hazardous - in this case for many millennia and more. So, a detailed program of scientific investigation and technical design is required to assure that the waste will not migrate from the site under any credible scenarios. This must be demonstrated by the implementing organization (NWMO in Canada) and reviewed and certified by the independent regulator before they would issue a license to proceed. Providing significant opportunities for the interested public and outside experts to be involved - to ask questions, provide input, describe concerns, and receive substantive responses should be part of this process. Only then can a site be deemed technically suitable to host the waste.

One important hypothetical path for waste to reach the accessible environment (say drinking water) would be for deep ground water to move through the repository and over very long time periods, cause the canisters containing the solid waste to breach or corrode allowing the water to - again over long time periods - dissolve the waste and carry the radioactive materials away from the site perhaps through a nearby aquifer. NWMO will need to demonstrate that this will not occur, most likely due to the fact that the ground water at the repository is moving exceedingly slowly or not at all. Other hydrogeological characteristics, solid-only waste forms, and canister designs can also provide additional defensive barriers retarding the movement of the radioactivity. Many other similar factors will also have to be investigated such as effects of climate change, erosion, volcanic activity and more. By providing a buffer zone around the repository, an additional level of conservatism is provided. Additionally, when a repository is in operation, monitoring of the emplacement and performance once the waste is emplaced should provide further evidence that the repository is performing as expected. Finally, the repository is designed for the waste to be retrievable during emplacement as a final redundant safety feature, though this is not expected to be required.

You stated the locals in New Mexico are in favor. I just watched a webinar from indigenous perspectives from New Mexico and they certainly are not in favor. Can you please elaborate on this?

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility in southern New Mexico has been in operation for well over a decade and disposes of defense related transuranic wastes (not spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants). The host city for this facility is Carlsbad, New Mexico. The attitude of the significant majority of local residents I believe can be characterized as quite supportive and many studies have been done to evaluate this. I copy below the abstract of an example. Though this article is dated, my understanding is that the current situation is much the same. Of course, there remains a variety of views among individuals, organizations, and populations, including indigenous populations.

Further evidence of local support can be inferred since a new private venture is ongoing to locate a facility in that same region of New Mexico to centralize the storage of spent nuclear fuel. While there is no doubt a range of views on this new initiative as well, the proposed siting in the same vicinity speaks to the positive views among many in the local population.

Abstract

Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility

Hank C. Jenkins-Smith Carol L. Silva Matthew C. Nowlin Grant deLozier

First published: 22 December 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01543.xCitations: 81

Could you explain or comment on nuclear stigma in more detail?

There are those who believe that being in proximity to a nuclear facility, including a waste repository, can affect the way in which people view the host community and can lead to negative effects on the community or region. Questions can arise about perceptions of safety, property values, tourism, desirability of crops grown in the region and more. For others it may be the associations of nuclear power with nuclear weapons or accidents such as Fukushima. This is what is meant by the nuclear stigma.

Many of these concerns may be allayed by a well-run program, a successful communications and engagement program, and perhaps mostly, by a meaningful, enduring partnership between the implementing organization and the host community. There are cases (e.g. see the answer to the WIPP question above) where communities thrive due to hosting such a facility. In cases where safety and environmental protection are demonstrated and the local community sees the benefits in terms of an infusion of economic vitality, jobs, science and technical expertise, research and development facilities, financial compensation, enhanced infrastructure, educational opportunities, and more, communities are not only supportive but proud of their participation. Hosting a repository or other nuclear facility can help revitalize a community, if safety is always a priority and there is an enduring successful relationship among the affected parties. Examples of such effective partnering exist in Finland and Sweden.

As a community, how can we differentiate between a true lack of transparency from the NWMO and opposition attempts to discredit the organization?

Why do we decide to have trust and confidence in some organizations or individuals and distrust others? My experience leads me to three key questions:

• First, do you believe the organization is competent and delivers on what they promise?
• Second, do you believe that the organization has your best interests at heart when making decisions - that is do they want to partner with you to help you achieve the better future you envision for you, your family, and your community, not just now but beyond the duration of the project?
• Third, do they solicit and listen to your questions and concerns and work with you to achieve a satisfactory outcome?

Research indicates that when we make up our mind about an issue, it is difficult for new information to motivate us to question or change our views; we tend to give priority to new information that supports our initial views and discount those that challenge that view. Knowing that, it is important to keep an open mind about important controversial issues, engage often when opportunities are present, and ask for information and dialogue on issues that are important to you.

I think it is telling that NWMO first showed interest in engaging in South Bruce as a candidate only when members of the community expressed initial interest in learning about the opportunity. NWMO has consistently stated that they want to site the repository with an informed and willing host so naturally they are working to provide occasions and resources for the community to be better informed. South Bruce still has the opportunity to learn more fully about the project and then make an informed decision about involvement. That gives the community an opportunity to express its continued interest - or not - after extensively engaging with the NWMO, having your concerns and questions addressed, as well as listening to those with opposing views. I would just reiterate what I said in my presentation - it’s up to

You have referred to this process as disposal. Is it not more responsible to plan for this to be storage?

Let’s begin by drawing a distinction between storage and disposal. Storage is by design meant to be temporary. Storage may be for days or decades, but the intent is that the spent nuclear fuel being stored will ultimately be moved. Disposal is meant to be a permanent solution. Once emplaced the intent is to leave the waste there essentially forever, which allows for but does not require active management and oversight. It is important to note that the international consensus among experts is that both storage and disposal can be accomplished safely.

Many studies have been conducted over decades in many countries and international organizations to evaluate the various options for the management and disposition of spent nuclear fuel. Because the spent fuel is potentially hazardous for many millennia and must be protected from the environment, academic and policy studies have consistently recommended permanent disposal, largely since storage requires active and continuing administrative control and the conclusion is that we cannot rely on continual, effective active control over literally many thousands of years when so many questions about the future of societies, government, resources, etc. are unanswerable. It is also an unfair burden to essentially force future generations to manage a problem that this generation created (in return for the benefits we enjoyed through the generation of massive amounts of electricity). There are arguments that have been made for the development of extended storage in some countries, but countries addressing this problem have come to agree that permanent disposal in a stable, deep geological formation is the ultimate preferred safe and environmentally responsible solution even if temporary storage is also constructed at an earlier time.

Dr. Edwards, what topics did the South Bruce Citizens’ Liaison Committee limit your presentation to? What topics would you have liked to have covered?

I was asked by the CLC to address one of my own two suggested topics, namely “the surface operations – such as the unloading of the irradiated nuclear fuel prior to its emplacement in the proposed repository, and the possible environmental consequences of that operation”. Consequently my CLC presentation focussed on the nature of irradiated fuel, and the radioactive elements within – all are created during the nuclear fission process – with special emphasis on the “fission products” (broken pieces of uranium atoms) and plutonium.

I described the handling of used fuel in “hot cells” with robotic arms, needed to repackage the fuel bundles into smaller steel-and-copper containers for emplacement in the underground repository. This operation must take place very close to the proposed DGR. Any damage to the fuel will release radioactive poisons of many kinds, each one having its own pathways through the human body. For example, radioactive iodine and radioactive strontium, both of which concentrate in cow’s milk and in human breast milk, as well as in certain sensitive organs of the human body (i.e. the thyroid gland – and in the case of radioactive strontium – the skeleton and the bone marrow). A release of such poisons to the outside environment caused by mishandling of the used fuel will pose health problems for residents and possibly marketing problems for dairy farmers of the Teeswater region. Any evidence or even a rumour of radioactive iodine in the milk can be detrimental to the reputation of the dairy farmers.

Plutonium poses special security problems as it can be used as a nuclear explosive. Armed guards and tight security will be needed. Plutonium can also be used as a fuel for nuclear reactors, and many nuclear proponents, especially those pushing for new small reactors, are eager to extract plutonium from the used fuel before the waste is buried. Plutonium extraction would very likely be done in the same location as the DGR. Any community willing to accept a DGR might find itself the unwilling recipient of a reprocessing plant to extract plutonium. Since reprocessing involves converting the solid nuclear fuel waste into a liquid form, it is the most polluting type of nuclear facility, releasing radionuclides into the atmosphere and in liquid effluents, posing a threat of long-term radioactive contamination of the environment.

I did propose another possible topic for my CLC presentation: “Last year I attended a three-day meeting (by invitation only) in Stockholm, Sweden, regarding the question of how to communicate with future generations, thousands of years hence, to inform them of the radioactive legacy that we are leaving them in the form of abandoned nuclear waste repositories in various parts of the world. I believe that the considerations that informed that discussion would be of interest to the CLC members and the South Bruce community and I would be open to making a presentation on that topic.” However the committee opted for the first topic as it is more directly relevant to the safety and welfare of the Teeswater area.

You mentioned about radioactive materials. I guess that’s the first I’ve heard of them. There are names I have not heard of before – strontium (radioactive strontium), iodine (radioactive iodine). That’s the first I’ve heard of it. How are they created, or generated? How do they come about?

The used fuel bundles are not really the radioactive waste; they are simply the containers of the radioactive waste. As long as the fuel rods are intact, the waste is safely trapped inside. But if a fuel rod is cracked or broken or corroded or pierced or crushed or melted, the radioactive waste materials inside will escape and can cause great harm to living things. In a nuclear accident – like the 1986 Chernobyl disaster or the 2011 Fukushima triple meltdown – the used fuel overheats and melts, releasing dozens of radioactive poisons that are normally imprisoned inside the ceramic fuel that is no longer protected by its cladding.

There are three categories of radioactive poisons created inside the nuclear fuel. They are:

1. Fission products
2. Transuranic actinides
3. Activation products

AECL has published a list of 211 different radioactive elements found inside a ten-year old used fuel bundle (10 years out of the reactor core) from one of the eight Bruce reactors. These newly created poisons are listed by the three given categories.

Fission products are the most numerous waste products. They are created when a uranium atom is struck by a neutron and splits into two chunks. The broken fragments are called “fission products”. There are hundreds of different kinds because atoms split in hundreds of different ways. Fission products are unstable (radioactive) elements that are always lighter than uranium

Transuranic actinides – like plutonium, americium, neptunium, and curium – are unstable elements that are heavier than uranium. They are created when a uranium atom absorbs a neutron, becomes heavier, and is then transmuted into a new kind of radioactive poison.

This is the first I heard about the hot cells. It is an intriguing thought.

NWMO workers will be required to manipulate the used fuel bundles behind those thick glass windows using remote controlled robotic arms built right into walls of the hot cell. The room in which the used fuel bundles are being manipulated will be kept under negative pressure – a partial vacuum – so that if any leak occurs the air will flow inwards rather than outwards. This is done so that the radioactive gases and vapours and particulates released by damaged fuel bundles will not escape from the hot cell into the outside atmosphere, contaminating the surrounding environment. For example, radioactive vapours of caesium-137 and iodine-129 will condense onto cool surfaces outdoors, contaminating soil, buildings, vegetation, and skin. The radioactive caesium will accumulate in the fleshy parts of animals and the radioactive iodine will concentrate in cow’s milk as well as human thyroid glands. There are dozens of other radionuclides that will also be released and can also escape unless great care is taken.

At present, there are no hot cells at the existing Ontario reactor sites, and neither Ontario Power Generation nor Bruce Power has ever built a hot cell. Also, none of the atomic workers employed at any of the operating nuclear reactors have had any prior experience working with hot cells. It will be an unusual experience for them, the closest encounter they have ever had with an individual, unshielded, highly radioactive fuel bundle, not submerged underwater as it is in a spent fuel pool, but up close and personal, just on the other side of the glass window. And they will have to process up to 300 used fuel bundles per day, 365 days per year, for 50 years or more.

In my view, the probability of accidental leakage is quite high. It will be a miracle if the environment surrounding the proposed DGR does not experience at least some degree of contamination. I find it amazing and irresponsible that NWMO has not explained to all of the candidate communities that used nuclear fuel cannot be put directly underground, it has to be repackaged first. And that requires the use of hot cells since there is no reactor at the DGR site and so no spent fuel pools that would allow the manipulations to take place underwater.

In 2017, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance released a video interview of you discussing the nuclear waste at Pickering Generating Station. In that video you say “the waste needs to be pulled back onto dry land, away from Lake Ontario, in hardened on site storage. If Rolling Stewardship is your preferred storage method, where would you suggest it be implemented?

Having the waste “pulled back . . . away from Lake Ontario” means that the dry storage casks are simply carted as far away from the lake shore as possible, but still within the existing reactor site boundaries. This can be done using specialized tractor-like vehicles that are routinely used to move dry storage casks on the reactor site [see picture below]. They move very slowly and carry the cask to a new location without going onto any highway. No need to cut open the welded-shut casks, as NWMO currently plans to do. The fiercely radioactive fuel bundles inside do not have to be lifted out of the casks and transferred to a smaller transportation container on a flat-bed truck, and then transferred once more into even smaller containers for burial using hot cells, as NWMO would have us do. The used nuclear fuel need not be transported on public roads through dozens of communities, irradiating everyone along the way with gamma radiation and neutrons, as currently planned.

Used fuel in an on-site transport vehicle

Used fuel in a highway transport vehicle

You talked a lot about all the potential problems that can happen with hot cells, but with rolling stewardship would you not have to have hot cells to repackage the nuclear waste that we have currently? Because those containers are only licensed for 50 years currently, so would you not have to continually repackage them, and do that in hot cells as well? Like, where’s the difference there?

You can transfer the used fuel from one lidless cask into another by doing it underwater, submerging the two casks side by side and using the same robotic equipment that was originally used to fill the original dry storage cask in the first place. The water in the pool prevents the escape of radioactive materials into the atmosphere, and the filtering system built into every spent fuel pool will collect any radionuclides released into the water. You could transfer fuel in a large hot cell, but with Rolling Stewardship you won’t have to cram the individual fuel bundles into a smaller container, like those copper and steel containers that NWMO wants to put underground. You saw the modules of 96 fuel bundles that they move from the dry storage containers to the transport containers? If you’re just moving the used fuel from one dry cask to another, you don’t have to take the bundles out of their modules.

You mentioned steam generators. Can that be high level waste?

No, I’m sorry if I misled you on that matter. I didn’t mean to suggest that the steam generators are high level radioactive waste. In fact the nuclear industry only uses the term “high level waste” for the used fuel bundles themselves, because they are millions of times more radioactive than anything else.

The steam generators are classified as intermediate level radioactive waste. There are several thousand narrow tubes inside each steam generator and those tubes all become radioactively contaminated – coated with fission products, actinides, and activation products. The question is: where do all these radioactive materials come from? Well, most of them come from the interior of the fuel bundles that are located in the core of the reactor.

If you look at the diagram, however, you will see that the steam generators are very far away from the core of the reactor, where the fuel bundles are. So how come the steam generators are radioactive at all? The answer is quite simple: the fuel bundles leak. There are tiny cracks and pinholes in the metal cladding of some of the fuel rods. These minor cladding defects allow dozens of different radioactive materials to escape from the fuel and enter the primary cooling circuit. The circulating water carries all these radioactive contaminants throughout the primary cooling circuit, depositing radioactive crud on all the inner surfaces of all the pipes.

When you examine the list of dozens of radioactive materials found inside the steam generators, you will see that they are for the most part the very same materials contained in the used fuel, but in much smaller concentrations. There you will see radioactive iodine, radioactive strontium, radioactive caesium, and four varieties of radioactive plutonium, together with many other fission products and actinides.

Dr. Edwards, you state that people could receive radiation dose from spent fuel shipments inside shipping containers. I don’t believe this is plausible, as the CNSC would never approve a transport measure that routinely exposed the public to radiation. How much actual radiation would be coming off these transportation containers at 1m distance?

There is no doubt that people who drive behind, beside, or in front of any truck carrying used nuclear fuel will receive a radiation dose from highly penetrating gamma rays and neutrons emitted by the radioactive waste materials inside the used fuel bundles. Smaller radiation doses will be received by those that are in cars travelling in the opposite direction.

The driver and the people outside the truck will not receive any exposures from alpha radiation or beta radiation because those are non-penetrating forms of radiation made up of high-velocity charged particles that cannot penetrate through the shielded walls of the truck. However gamma rays and neutrons are highly penetrating forms of radiation that cannot be totally stopped. The same is true of X-rays; that’s why X-ray technicians often leave the room.

People living in homes or working in buildings beside the highway will also be exposed to penetrating radiation; those exposures will be fleeting, in most cases, but will be repeated over and over again as more and more transport trucks follow the same route. The actual exposure levels will depend on the design of the transport container, as it is more costly to provide additional shielding. Preventing exposure altogether is impossible.

The NWMO reports that “A recent generic study was conducted to determine the potential exposure to individuals along transportation routes... The study considered individuals including residents living along or in the vicinity of the transport route, people sharing the transport route, and people at rest stops along the route. The annual dose to these people is expected to be lower than the regulatory public dose limit.”

The NWMO says it “expects” that the radiation dose to individuals along the transportation route will not exceed the maximum permissible radiation exposure that is legally allowed for members of the public. However, it is not guaranteed that this regulatory limit might not be exceeded. In case of an accident – for example, if a truck is toppled onto its side – there are provisions to send a 75-ton crane at speeds of up to 85 km per hour to arrive at the scene of the accident within 48 hours, but evidently such a dire situation could lead to unusually prolonged radiation exposures, even if there were no leakage of radioactive materials.

Any leakage of radioactive gases or vapours would of course add to the radiation dose and could result in radioactive contamination of soil, buildings, clothing and skin, as well as longer-lasting internal exposures following inhalation, ingestion or absorption through the skin. 

The exact radiation dose depends on the amount of shielding, the age of the used fuel, and the proximity of the exposed individual. In reality, the expected radiation dose will be the result of a “cost-benefit” calculation that is carried out by the industry and the regulator without consulting those to be exposed.

You’ve stated that with Rolling Stewardship, there could be a “changing of the guard” every 10 to 20 years or so, where knowledge and responsibility is transferred to the next generation. Given that monitoring of the DGR and retrievability of the fuel is planned for at LEAST 70 years after closure, could that idea not be used for the DGR? You advocate rolling stewardship, which really means nothing more than what’s already being done – conscientiously care for and monitor the spent fuel. This is only possible as long as there is a strong company like OPG in a stable state like Ontario, with a strong regulator like the CNSC. How long do you think we can count on those conditions? Many people believe that spent fuel can be retrieved from the DGR in the future. Do you believe NWMO would ever do that? When pressed, Norm Sandberg of NWMO agreed it would never be retrieved without spending billions. Can you clarify?

If the contents of the repository are to be retrieved for safety reasons, it would only be motivated by the fact that radioactive materials are found leaking into the groundwater or surface waters or otherwise into the environment. That implies that the damage has already been done. Pathways have been established underground for radioactive poisons to escape from the repository. By the time that leakage is detected, a great deal of radioactive poison would have already dispersed and could not be recovered. It would take a very long time and cost a great deal of money for the remaining waste to be retrieved from the now-contaminated chambers, during which time more leakage of the already escaped waste would occur.

Such a fiasco could be averted if the wastes were safely stored near the reactor site within a strongly reinforced structure that allows constant monitoring and rapid access, facilitating timely intervention (i.e. Rolling Stewardship). Any leakage of radioactivity would be detected quickly, and dispersal into the environment could be prevented or stopped quickly. Repairs would be made within a relatively short time frame. That kind of timely response is a key to responsible management; abandonment underground prevents swift action from being taken.

Rolling Stewardship is not a “status quo” approach. Rolling Stewardship is based on the principle of intergenerational guardianship with continual improvement. One might say that it is Adaptive Phased Management without abandonment. As our knowledge and our technology advance, the wastes will be packaged in ever-more-secure containers and facilities. This will continue until a genuine solution to the problem is found – one that will truly eliminate the risk in a permanently satisfactory manner rather than just putting the waste out of sight and therefore out of mind. As the Nobel-prize-winning physicist Hannes Alfvén famously observed with regard to “disposal” of high-level nuclear waste, “If a problem is too difficult to solve, one cannot claim it is solved simply by pointing to all the efforts made to solve it.”

NWMO is owned by the waste producers, and they have no intention of discontinuing the production of used nuclear fuel. As long as reactors continue to operate, used fuel continues to be produced. There will always be a very large inventory of unburied nuclear fuel waste at every reactor site – in pools and in dry storage containers – even if the older fuel bundles are moved away as quickly as possible. So the risk of radioactive leaks and spills at the reactor sites is still there, and a new site – the DGR site – is now an additional place where used fuel Question and Answers about Used Nuclear Fuel - for the South Bruce NWMO CLC 14 is stored and where leaks and spills can occur. The overall risk will be increased because of the unnecessary handling of fragile and fiercely radioactive fuel bundles – repackaging them, and then unpackaging them, and then repackaging them again, with robotically manipulated arms, into ever smaller containers – all the while transporting them over public highways in an unending convoy of high-level radioactive waste. This is more risky than Rolling Stewardship.

The safety of the underground storage of used nuclear fuel over the very long term cannot be demonstrated by any scientific principles that are available to us. It is impossible to verify the accuracy of the mathematical models over the enormous time frames that are involved, because there are no ways to verify the correctness of the results. Moreover, there are hundreds of fundamental scientific questions that remain unanswered because they have not even been asked until very recent times – see for example the excerpts given here from a geological text on this very question.

Nuclear engineers believe they can design against any eventuality, but that is mere hubris.

American engineers did not predict that a steel drum, filled with radioactive waste, could explode and turn into a flame thrower in a deep underground nuclear waste repository, just because of radiation-induced chemical reactions with the kitty litter that was used as packing “fill” material – and yet that’s exactly what happened at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad New Mexico in 2014. The resulting explosion sent plutonium dust 700 feet vertically upward where it contaminated the shafts, the passages, and 20 atomic workers at the surface.

At the Bruce Unit 1 reactor, nuclear engineers did not predict that over 500 contract workers would be contaminated with plutonium-bearing dust that they inhaled on a daily basis for almost three weeks in 2009, because of a failure to give those workers protective respirators.

In their proposed DGR, NWMO plans to use steel containers coated with 3 millimetres of copper to encase the used nuclear fuel. The copper coating is supposed to protect the steel from corrosion. When this design was put forward, engineers believed that copper would not corrode in a sealed underground repository once the oxygen is gone. But in Sweden, in 2017, the Environmental Court found that there are several mechanisms that will corrode copper even in the absence of oxygen. Once the thin copper coating is penetrated, at one point, the galvanic interaction of the copper and the steel will cause the steel to corrode much faster and more extensively than if the copper were not there in the first place. And once the hot fuel itself corrodes, a large number of the radioactive poisons inside will escape from the fuel, each of them with unique physical and chemical properties. Some of them may actually escape to the outside environment, creating pathways for others to follow. We simply do not know enough about what happens underground when a burial chamber interacts with nuclear waste that is not inert but very active – chemically active, thermally active, and radioactive.

It is possible that a geological repository will do the job of keeping all the radioactive waste out of the environment forever, although even NWMO staff does not believe that. But they do believe that any leakage that occurs will be small enough and slow enough to be safe enough.

Since the waste is in solid ceramic pellets, encased in a steel/copper canister, within a bentonite “box”, how will radiation leak and how can it make it through 500m of bedrock with a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 metre per 300,000 years and into the groundwater?

I don’t know how it happens. How did the Fluorspar miners in Newfoundland suffer such an elevated incidence of lung cancer from breathing radioactive radon gas, when the ore they were mining had no significant amount of uranium or radium in it? I don’t know the answer. Every atom of radon gas begins as an atom of radium. Before that it was an atom of uranium. Without one of those precursors you cannot have any radon. So where did it arise?

And how did the uranium deposits on planet Earth come here from some gigantic supernova explosion elsewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy? I do not know the answer. But I do know that if you disturb a geologic formation by blasting and excavating you will never be able to restore it to its original integrity; that no shaft sealant will ever be as strong and secure as the original undisturbed rock; that ten million years is a very long time; that lots of unexpected things can happen; and that humans 1000 years from now will know that something was buried at that spot and might just be curious enough to want to dig it up and see what it is.

If there is a sign (assuming they can still understand the languages we speak) saying “Do Not Dig Here! There is Danger Here!”, I suspect that human curiosity will make them all the more eager to dig right there. And I also know that massively funded and financed agencies have calculated (in other locales) that some of the many different radioactive poisons in buried used fuel will indeed leak out of any repository and reach the environment of living things.

Perhaps someone can tell me why we think that NWMO knows all the answers when in some cases they do not even seem to know the questions? or why NWMO uses the copper/steel combination when it is known that contact between two such metals will cause a current to flow that will accelerate any corrosion? or why NWMO chooses to use only 3 mm of copper when Sweden and Finland are using 50 mm of copper (17 times the thickness) and no steel at all? or why NWMO proposes a vertical shaft while others design a gently sloping ramp that spirals down into the rock formation, one that you can drive a bus on?

If a DGR is not a suitable solution for containing radionuclides, how do you explain the Oklo natural reactor in Africa? It "operated" for millions of years, and the radionuclides never travelled farther than a couple of meters in the surrounding rock.

If there is enough plutonium to make many bombs, isn't it safer to bury this waste deep underground where there is no risk of someone accessing it for nefarious purposes?

Plutonum-239, the primary nuclear explosive in the world’s nuclear arsenals, has a half-life of 24,000 years. The Bomb that destroyed the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, used a ball of plutonium the size of a small grapefruit, weighing only 6.2 kilograms. The current inventory of plutonium in used CANDU fuel is about 200 tons – enough to build 32,000 atomic bombs – and NWMO expects that amount to almost double before the DGR would be closed. So, even if we waited for 24,000 years, there would still be about 200 tons of plutonium remaining in the buried CANDU used fuel – enough for a huge arsenal of tens of thousands of atomic bombs, each equivalent to the one that destroyed the City of Nagasaki. It is an incredibly dangerous legacy to leave unmonitored and unguarded, even if it is buried.

It is simply incorrect to say that buried nuclear explosive material poses “no risk of someone accessing it”. The reason why NWMO wishes to choose a geological formation that does not contain valuable minerals – like gold or silver – is precisely because of the fear of someone digging up the repository at some future time to get at those valuable minerals. Mining is an enterprise even older than civilization. But, in fact, the plutonium itself can be regarded as a resource to be mined out of the ground for military purposes or for use as an energy source.

It seems clear that plutonium requires active surveillance and strict security measures to prevent its theft or diversion for use in nuclear weapons. It cannot be simply abandoned, whether above ground or below ground. Recall that 85 years ago there was no plutonium to be found anywhere on Earth. We have created plutonium as a byproduct of nuclear reactors, and so far, we do not have any satisfactory way of getting rid of it, once it is created. In the next century, or even the next millennium, science may discover a method of destroying the plutonium without simultaneously creating additional radioactive waste. Until then, we should keep an eye on it and make sure that it does not fall into the hands of desperate people.

In some countries, plutonium is extracted from used fuel by dissolving it in boiling nitric acid and chemically separating the plutonium from the rest of the radioactive garbage. That’s called “reprocessing”. But reprocessing has led to some of the most radioactively polluted places in the world, like Hanford (Washington), Sellafield (England), Chelyabinsk (Russia), and La Hague (France). Moreover, once plutonium has been extracted, it is sometimes used as a reactor fuel. But that makes it an article of commerce. As such, it will inevitably fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists, as is the case with other commodities. Instead of eliminating plutonium, reprocessing makes it more accessible and therefore more of a security threat.

Please share your top 3 concerns if you were living in Teeswater.

My top concern would be to protect the community against the prospect of a reprocessing plant to extract plutonium from the used fuel. Past experience with plutonium extraction facilities indicates that there will be air-borne and water-borne radioactive releases from such a facility and the radiological environmental impacts will be cumulative. For example, radioactive contamination at the Sellafield reprocessing plant in northern England will cost over 70 billion euros (over 100 billion Canadian dollars) to clean up. See the BBC News for more information. Radioactive releases from the Mayak reprocessing plant in Russia have led to a large radioactively contaminated “no man’s land”. See Wikipedia for more information.

My second concern would be the slow and gradual build-up of radioactive contaminants in the environment and the livestock. Radioactive strontium and radioactive iodine will concentrate in cow’s milk and then in the thyroid and the skeleton. Radioactive caesium will concentrate in the soft tissues and the meat of animals. The degree of contamination could vary from slight to significant depending on how carefully the entire operation in run.

Is a reprocessing facility part of the NWMO plan? What makes you so sure that would happen in our community? Canada is part of a non-proliferation treaty, and I highly doubt our plutonium would be “extracted” for bombs. And if it is for re-use of the fuel, wouldn’t that be an asset as it would reduce the uranium mining requirements?

Although NWMO has repeatedly stated that recycling plutonium is too expensive to be worthwhile in the Canadian context, it has never ruled out the possibility. Currently there are two new nuclear reactors proposed for New Brunswick that are promising to recover plutonium from used CANDU fuel in order to provide fuel for their reactor designs. Instead of dissolving the used fuel in nitric acid, the Moltex plant would dissolve CANDU fuel bundles in molten salt and use an electrical refining technique to extract plutonium from the molten fuel.

Moreover, leading Canadian nuclear proponents (e.g. Jeremy Whitlock & Peter Ottensmeyer) and some Canadian corporations (e.g. Cameco, AECL, OPG) have advocated plutonium recovery and recycle for the future of nuclear power.

You introduced yourself as a Doctor. Did you forget to have a slide on the advantages of radioactive isotopes? There are many advantages of Nuclear Energy. Bombs seem to be your main objective and emphasis in your presentation.

Although your question has no bearing on my presentation to the CLC, I will briefly reply. I am not a medical doctor. I graduated from University of Toronto with a Gold Medal in Mathematics and Physics, earned two Master’s degrees from the University of Chicago under a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, and obtained a doctorate in mathematics from Queen’s University. I have been named Science Advisor to the Canadian Branch of the 1985 Nobel Prize Winning organization, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW-C).

You are correct in thinking that I am concerned about Bombs, since the Canadian nuclear industry was born as part of the World War II Atomic Bomb Project, and India exploded its first Atomic Bomb in 1964 using plutonium from a Canadian nuclear reactor that was given to that country as a gift. Canada sold and processed uranium for the Manhattan Project and sold both uranium & plutonium to be used in building US nuclear weapons for 25 years after the end of WWII. Other CANDU purchasers – Korea, Pakistan, Argentina and Taiwan – also had nuclear weapons aspirations when we sold them our reactors. So, yes, I am concerned.

As for medical isotopes, they serve a number of valuable functions, none of which are dependent in any essential way on nuclear reactors or the fission process. Isotopes can be and are being produced by particle accelerators such as cyclotrons and linear accelerators, without the need for uranium or reactors. Cobalt-60, which has been used in cancer treatment and to sterilize medical equipment, is being replaced by electron accelerators in both of these applications. The University of Saskatoon, where the first “cobalt bomb” was built for cancer treatment, has now replaced its cobalt irradiator with an electron accelerator.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, the fuel bundles release radioactive materials. Which isotopes get on the grass and alfalfa and get consumed by dairy animals? We will see those isotopes back in our milk produced. Will the concentration of some isotopes be a problem for the dairy producers or can it cause problems for the milk delivered to the Gay Lea plant in Teeswater? Do you think it will be an item for the consumers of the processed milk?

You state repeatedly in your comments online that “we should stop producing” the nuclear waste. Is it your position that the nuclear plants should be shut down?

The purpose of the DGR is allegedly to make the world a safer place by putting all irradiated nuclear fuel deep underground. But that objective cannot be achieved as long as nuclear plants remain operational. You cannot bury all the waste if you keep on producing it. So yes, you will have to shut the reactors down. If you don’t do that – if you don’t sooner or later shut down all the nuclear plants – then the whole rationale for a DGR breaks down.

There will always be at least 30 years’ worth of unburied nuclear waste sitting right beside each operating nuclear reactor, waiting to become cool enough to be carted away to the DGR. The catastrophe potential at the reactor site will be the same as if there were no DGR. The world is not going to become a safer place. The hazard will be fundamentally unchanged. The DGR will just be one more site where nuclear fuel waste is stored, in addition to all the operating reactor sites, with a fleet of trucks on the road endlessly carrying the wastes from the reactors to the repository. If the plants aren’t shut down, the risk will be that much greater–not less in any way.

Dr. Edwards would you support the use of a DGR if NWMO signed off on abandonment of it?

I have addressed this above. The answer is no, if there is no end to nuclear waste production. Many years ago, before the NWMO existed, before it was admitted that nuclear waste is a serious problem, I often debated people from the nuclear industry. They said, many times, that nuclear waste is not a technical problem, but a public relations problem. I think that misperception is still prevalent today. That’s why NWMO representatives don’t identify the many individual poisons that are inside the used fuel bundles. That’s why they don’t tell all the candidate communities about Hot Cells. That’s why they don’t describe the failures of Deep Geological Repositories for radioactive wastes in other countries. That’s why they don’t take the trouble to explain what reprocessing is and how messy it can be. It’s just not good PR.

How are workers being protected?

Measures to protect the safety of workers are being incorporated into all phases of the Adaptive Phased Management (APM) project. Health and safety requirements will be consistent with conventional and nuclear safety industry standards for the types of facilities and activities at the repository.

Canada has a robust framework of regulatory requirements and oversight governing the

Why is the copper coating the NWMO is proposing so much thinner than European designs?

So, this will be in place forever? We will forever have this underneath South Bruce?

Yes, the repository is intended to be permanent at whichever site is selected. A deep geological repository uses a combination of engineered and natural barriers to safely contain

and isolate used nuclear fuel, essentially forever. Once all of Canada’s used fuel has been

emplaced in the repository, the facility can be actively managed and monitored for as long as

What mitigation plans do the NWMO have in place in the unlikely event that radionuclides do escape from the deep geological repository into the surrounding biosphere?

The use of multiple barriers and placement within the low permeability rock at 650 m depth

means that release of radionuclides from the containers is unlikely, and furthermore that the

movement of these radionuclides through the rock would be very slow, allowing time for natural dispersion and decay. Any releases to the biosphere, even in the unlikely event that containers failed, could only occur over a very extended period of time and at concentrations so low that there would be no effects and no mitigation would be required.

During and following operations – before the repository is backfilled and sealed – it will be open for about 100 years. During this period, the performance will be closely monitored, and the access tunnels would be open so that it would be possible to retrieve containers if needed. These decisions would be made in collaboration with the community and the regulatory authority.

Following the period of extended monitoring, the decommission and closure of the facility is

I've heard a lot of concerns raised surrounding a "buffer zone" around the facility. Can you please explain why a buffer zone similar to one surrounding an operating nuclear facility is not planned/required?

There will be area around the surface facilities of the repository that will serve as a “buffer”.

Surface facilities will occupy approximately 250 acres, a small portion of the overall 1,500-acre site. This will include at least two “buffer” zones: a security zone (protected area) and an

additional exclusion zone around that.

The security zone will be fenced, and access limited to employees. It will ensure safe and

secure operations. Studies will be done to determine the appropriate dimensions of the security zone. Similar to the nuclear facilities elsewhere in Canada, we predict that the security zone will be very near to the surface facilities.

Then, an exclusion zone will surround the security zone. There will be restrictions placed on the exclusion zone – in particular, people will not be able to live on that land and no permanent dwellings will be allowed there. Land may need to be cleared to minimize fire hazard. Based on our current research, the exclusion zone for the NWMO facility could be approximately 100 meters, but that area could change depending on final repository design.

How much water will be removed from the Teeswater River on a daily basis during operation? And consequently, how much water will be released by the facility into the Teeswater River and the biosphere?

The current repository design is still at a conceptual level at this time. As such, the specific

water needs and the sources for the water have not been finalized. There are a number of

options for water supply including groundwater, freshwater sources, municipal water if available, etc.

The NWMO will assess water requirements as we advance our designs and prepare our

These plans and schematics look the same as AECL's plans from the 1990s and the Stanford University schematic for deep geological repository's in the 1980s. What is new since then?

The concept for safe isolation of used nuclear fuel in a multi-barrier, deep geological

repository has been around internationally for many decades. The concept is scientifically and internationally recognized as a safe method for long-term disposal. As such, there has not been a lot of change to the overall concept.

What is new compared to previous designs, specifically in Canada, is the design of the used

This waste rock pile will be a blight on the landscape. How will you handle run off and contamination from this site?

The majority of the excavated rock from the repository will be limestone and will be stored in

an excavated rock management area.

The excavated rock management area will include a storm water management pond to collect and monitor runoff from the excavated rock pile. This pond will be dedicated to the excavated rock management area. The size of the storm water pond will be determined based on local precipitation and soil conditions. Additional considerations will be made to address the potential effects of climate change on the storm water pond.

How are you narrowing in on the repository site? You haven't even started bore hole drilling?

The preferred site must meet robust technical requirements focused on safety. It must also

be appropriate, considering the social, economic, cultural and spiritual practices and

preferences of those in the area.

Initially, 22 communities expressed interest in learning about Canada's plan for the safe, long-term management of used nuclear fuel. Based on early assessments and dialogues, the NWMO selected a smaller number of areas for further studies. These areas showed strong potential for meeting strict safety requirements and for the project to align with the community’s long-term vision.

Over time and through increasingly detailed technical and social studies and engagement, it will become clearer which areas have the strongest potential to safely host the project. At this stage findings do not yet confirm suitability of any site, and no community has expressed willingness to host the project.

A key part of the selection process is studying a potential site to investigate if it could safely

Mr. Wilson, when the fuel is being transported, how much radiation is being emitted (say, if you were standing beside the truck)?

Exposure from used nuclear fuel transportation would be far less than the radiation we experience in our everyday lives from many sources, including soil, food, medical procedures

and air travel. Public health is protected by stringent regulations when it comes to the transportation of used nuclear fuel. Based on a generic dose study, the annual dose to a resident along an urban transportation route would be 0.000032 mSv, which is significantly

At what phase in the process would the Centre of Expertise and Underground Demonstration Facility be constructed?

The current plan is to establish the Centre of Expertise following the selection of a single,

preferred site for the repository. We anticipate we will be able to make that site selection

decision by 2023. The Underground Demonstration Facility (UDF) would be developed as part

What are your contingency plans for earthquakes?

Earthquakes are one of several factors to be examined in the repository site evaluation

process. The preferred site will be selected in an area where current and future earthquake

(seismic) activity will not impact the safety of the repository during the operational phase or over the very long term.

For example, the deep underground limestone layers within the sedimentary geology under

South Bruce, known as the Michigan Basin, have remained intact over the 100s of millions of

years since they were first created, demonstrating isolation from the potential effects of forces such as earthquakes, climate change (ice ages) and continental drift.

Please comment on how the NWMO will mitigate the risks of the rock pile to neighbors including: Dust, Radon, Noise, Aesthetics?

We will use common and well-established construction mitigation measures. When the

weather is dry and dust is a potential concern, the excavated rock management working area

and access ramp will be wetted.

Radon is an issue in enclosed spaces, like the basement of a house. In this case any radon

released as a result of bringing rock to the surface would be dispersed into the air outdoors and not be a concern.

To manage noise, we will follow the same principles as are used for highway construction. First, we will require adherence to certain noise (decibel) limits during nighttime construction and will establish monitors that will allow us to confirm that the limits are not exceeded. Second, we will configure the traffic pattern to minimize backing movement so that the safety warnings on the trucks will not activate as frequently. To limit the noise of slamming tailgates we will look to use heavy rock carrying dump trucks that do not have tailgates. If we do use dump trucks with tailgates, we will set a limit for the speed at which the bin is lowered that will prevent unnecessary tail gate banging.

Does Mr. Wilson's plan to bury the waste conflict with Dr. Edward's concern about unknowns with current expertise? 

It is important to distinguish between scientific uncertainty, which is well-bounded in our case, and the concept of unpredictability, which is not true for the well-defined deep geological repository system. Scientific uncertainty means that, for example, we can know that a measured value will fall within a certain data range, although we cannot be absolutely certain of an individual value being measured.

In general, this leads to important parameters being presented as ranges, instead of single

values. Identifying the exact amount of calcium within a block of bentonite clay is a good example; we know the average amount and the upper and lower bounds. Using data ranges

A center for excellence is one of the big benefits to the project. I didn't see it on the surface plans. It is still planned for that location isn't it? If not, why not as it doesn't give confidence of the safety of the project if it isn't built there.

Yes, the Centre of Expertise is part of the plan. Canada’s plan for the safe, long-term

management of used nuclear fuel has three main components: the deep geological repository, the used fuel transportation plan, and the Centre of Expertise.

The Centre of Expertise was not shown in Derek Wilson’s November CLC presentation as the

What about the small modular nuclear reactor fuel? Can that be mixed with CANDU fuel in this zone?

The NWMO is responsible for implementing Canada's plan for the safe, long-term

management of used nuclear fuel, including that created using new or emerging technologies

such as small modular reactors (SMRs). The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act requires us to provide

services for managing nuclear fuel waste over the long-term at a fair and reasonable cost.

In Canada there is an active research sector exploring new technologies such as SMRs. We

encourage organizations developing new concepts to work with us to identify the types of fuel waste that may result.

Fuel waste will need to meet certain criteria to ensure we can accept it and meet all safety

requirements. For example, the waste will need to be a durable, solid material and transportable to the site. We will also need detailed information about characteristics such as composition, radionuclides, handling and the length of time since it was removed from a reactor.

If the used fuel from SMRs can fit within our current engineered barrier design and meet our

How do you prevent human error in any process such as this?

Safety of people and the environment is our top priority. We will need to demonstrate that any site selected can safely contain and isolate used nuclear fuel for a very long period of time. There cannot be any credible risk from the repository to the public or the environment.

Experience across the international nuclear industry has demonstrated the importance of an

effective safety culture in maintaining the safety of workers, the public and the environment and minimizing human error. The nuclear industry in Canada has an excellent safety record which is the result of a strong safety culture.

Is there a schematic or overall design of the ventilation system created and available? What specific components would that system include?

Following site selection in 2023, more detailed designs will be completed for all aspects of

the deep geological repository and associated surface facilities including the design of the

underground ventilation system. Designs will be developed to reflect the specific location for the repository and to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

The specific components of the system will include three primary airways that will be used to

ventilate the repository. The service shaft will constitute a dedicated fresh air passage. The

primary exhaust air passage will be via the exhaust ventilation shaft and relatively small

amounts of air will exhaust via the main shaft. A series of surface fans and underground booster fans will be used to achieve the design air flow distribution in the underground repository. A surface-based fresh air heating plant will be used to heat air in winter months. Auxiliary fans and ducting that are located in the underground tunnels and rooms will direct airflow into active placement rooms.

We are currently advancing site-specific repository designs for the configuration of the

What is the Maximum number of high-level waste bundles that are to be stored in the proposed deep geological repository for Teeswater? What will occur once this maximum level is reached?

Canada has been generating electricity from nuclear power for decades. As of June 30,

2019, Canada’s nuclear power companies had produced about 2.9 million used fuel bundles.

Each bundle is about the size and shape of a fireplace log, weighing approximately 24

kilograms.

About 90,000 additional used fuel bundles are generated each year. If Canada's existing

reactors operate to the end of their current lives, including planned refurbishments, the amount of used fuel that will need to be managed in the repository could be about 5.5 million bundles or more. In the future, new nuclear technologies and decisions about nuclear power generation made by governments, operators and regulators may also result in different types or volumes used fuel. We publish an update on our web site each year on the number of fuel bundles in storage, along with projections for future quantities.

A deep geological repository will need to be large enough to contain and isolate the full

inventory of Canada’s used fuel.

Once all of the used fuel has been placed in the repository, there will be an extended period of monitoring that could last several decades (70 years has been assumed for financial planning purposes). The community in collaboration with regulatory authorities will decide, many decades from now, the form and duration of this monitoring.

Following the period of extended monitoring, the decommission and closure of the facility is

Mr. Wilson’s presentation highlighted that there will be low and intermediate level waste stored at the proposed deep geological repository for Teeswater.

To clarify, Mr. Wilson’s comment was intended to identify that low and intermediate level radioactive wastes would be generated by activity and operations of the repository, primarily through the processes of unpacking and repacking the used fuel being received from the reactor sites. Currently, the reference design for the repository inventory includes only used nuclear fuel.

In November 2020, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was asked by Natural Resources Canada to lead an engagement process with Canadians and Indigenous Peoples about the development of an Integrated Strategy for the safe long-term management of all of Canada’s radioactive wastes, which will address low and intermediate level nuclear waste for which there is currently no long-term management plan.

The strategy is part of the Government of Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy Review and represents a next step, building on what has been learned from Canadians and Indigenous peoples and the work previously done on radioactive waste management planning.

Where will this waste come from and what will be the make up of this waste or what will it consist of?

Used nuclear fuel is safely stored on an interim basis in licensed facilities located at reactor sites where it is produced. These facilities are located at nuclear reactor sites in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, and at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's sites in Manitoba and Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario.

After a fuel bundle is removed from a reactor, it is first placed in a water-filled pool for about 10 years where its heat and radioactivity decrease. Afterwards, used fuel bundles are typically placed in dry storage containers, silos or vaults.

When the NWMO applies for an operating license to store nuclear waste in the proposed deep geological repository in Teeswater will the application license include all levels of waste for this site i.e. spent fuel, low and intermediate level waste?

Under Canada’s current regulatory framework for radioactive waste, low and intermediate level radioactive wastes generated in the production of electricity are the responsibility of the reactor owners such as Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power and Quebec Hydro.

It is important to differentiate between interim storage and long-term management. The NWMO’s repository is proposed for the safe, long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. All the waste related activities that are planned to occur on the NWMO repository site will be included in the licence application, including the interim storage of low and intermediate waste generated by activity and operations of the repository site.

Will the proposed deep geological repository store any low and intermediate waste from any other location other than the site itself?

APM was developed specifically for Canada’s used nuclear fuel. All the waste-related activities that are planned to occur onsite will be included in the licence application, including the interim storage of low and intermediate waste generated by activity and operations of the repository site.

In the Technical Method on page 5 of the Adaptive Phased Management plan there is an option listed for temporary storage repositories. What is planned for the temporary storage location?

The shallow-underground, temporary storage option is not currently being considered as part of Canada’s plan and is not being explored as an option for the management of used fuel in Canada.

Used fuel is currently stored safely on an interim basis at existing reactor sites in Canada. Interim storage facilities are expected to operate until a deep geological repository is available for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel.

Is the NWMO having discussion with property owners, adjacent to the 1500 acres already secured by the NWMO, to option their land in addition to the lands already signed up? If so, what is the need for the additional acres? Are any lands optioned/purchased other than those identified on the map in your recent press release covering the 1500 acres agreements?

We have aggregated over 1,500 acres in South Bruce and this gives us confidence to keep moving forward with the process and further technical site evaluations planned for spring 2021.

Discussions with landowners and neighbours in the area will continue as we work to further fill out the potential repository site. As such, the NWMO remains committed to continued discussions and negotiations with landowners in the vicinity of the potential site over the coming months and years to build out the potential repository.

Is the proposed 1500 acres the largest area being considered for deep geological repository by any country in the world?

Questions related to Hot Cells planned for the deep geological repository site.

How large are the hot cells planned for use at the proposed deep geological repository site?

There are several different hot cells in the Used Fuel Packaging Plant on the deep geological repository site. The interior dimensions range from approximately 12m x 8m to 24m x 14m. They are up to 8m in height. The outer dimensions of the hot cells at the deep geological repository site will be up to 10m in height. They will be up to approximately 27m x 17m in dimension.

Where will they be used at the deep geological repository site?

All hot cells at the deep geological repository site will be located within the Used Fuel Packaging Plant.

What will be the thickness of the glass for protecting the workers?

The thickness of the hot cell glass has not been determined, but it is typically 1 to 2m thick.

Where are these hot cells currently operating and for how long have they been in existence?

The hot cells at the deep geological repository site have not been constructed. They are currently in conceptual design.

Hot cells have been operating in Canada for over 60 years. There are a number of hot cells at the Chalk River Laboratories, Kinetrics and Nordion in Ontario and TRIUMF in BC to give a few examples.

Will these hot cells be working under negative pressure environment?

Yes. The hot cells will operate under negative pressure environment per nuclear ventilation system design standards and regulations.

Are there any photos of these hot cells?

There are no photos of these hot cells as they have not been constructed. Please see the following for examples of:

1. Hot cell during assembly
2. Hot cell in use from TRIUMPF facility in BC

Figure 25 sourced from: Minor G, Kapalka J, Fisher C, Paley W, Chen K, Kinakin M, Earle I, Moss B, Bricault P, Gottberg A 2020 Remote handling systems for the ISAC and ARIEL high-power fission and spallation ISOL target facilities at TRIUMF Nuclear Engineering and Technology (in press) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.09.024

Figure 16 sourced from: Minor G, Earle I and Gottberg A 2017 High power ISOL radioactive target remote handling at TRIUMF HOTLAB 2017 Proceedings (SCK-CEN) Mito, Japan https://hotlab.sckcen.be/en/Proceedings

The Bruce Nuclear site has a "buffer zone" around it with no farming operations within approximately a 10-mile radius. And people within a 10-mile radius are given potassium iodine medication. This is also routine around the Pickering location. Is all of Teeswater and South Bruce going to be issued potassium iodine pills? And at whose expense? Remember safety is first!

There are farms that operate successfully in locations adjacent to existing Ontario nuclear facilities. We know through regular testing of their produce there is no impact from radiation. At the Bruce Nuclear site there are farms inside the 10-mile radius, the closest farm is near Inverhuron and approximately 3 km from site.

Pre-distribution of potassium Iodine (KI) is unlikely, but at this point we cannot confirm whether KI pill distribution will be required. As we continue through the regulatory process the extent of the emergency response program will be clearly defined.

It is impossible for the deep geological repository to have widespread release of radioactivity because it is not an operating nuclear power plant. The fuel in an operating nuclear power plant is critical and the systems that are used to convey the heat from the reactor to the turbine generators are under pressure. In the repository, the fuel is not critical and there is no pressure that could spread any radioactivity over a broad distance.

Can you please explain why Dr Ben Belfadhel nonchalantly dismisses a buffer zone around the 1500-acre site.? This displays a noncaring attitude about the residents of the area. Are you willing to just let them be sacrificed? The site NWMO is interested in, in northwestern Ontario is at Revell Lake, a distance of 35 km from the town of Ignace.

The NWMO’s top priority is protecting people and the environment in everything we do.

There will be area around the repository surface facilities to serve as a “buffer”. Our surface facilities will occupy approximately 250 acres, a small portion of the overall 1,500-acre site. This will include at least two “buffer” zones: a security zone (protected area) and an additional exclusion zone around that.

The security zone will be fenced, and access limited to employees. It will ensure safe and secure operations. Studies will be done to determine the dimensions of the security zone. Similar to the nuclear facilities elsewhere in Canada, we predict that the security zone will be very near to the surface facilities.

Then, an exclusion zone will surround the security zone. There will be restrictions placed on the exclusion zone – in particular, people will not be able to live on that land and no permanent dwellings will be allowed there. Land may need to be cleared to minimize fire hazard. Based on our current research, the exclusion zone for the NWMO facility could be approximately 100 meters but that area could change depending on final repository design.

Does the municipality have a say in what is a good safety barrier around the facility? It appears that the closeness to town is not enough of a safety barrier.

A deep geological repository uses a series of engineered and natural barriers that will work together to contain, and isolate used nuclear fuel to protect people and the environment. There cannot be any credible risk to people and the environment for this project to proceed.

The multiple barrier system, including the host rock will ensure the repository safely contains and isolates the used nuclear fuel, even under extreme scenarios. One of the barriers is the geosphere or the host rock, which forms a natural barrier. In South Bruce the repository will be approximately 650 metres underground within a sedimentary rock formation.

Who is listed as owner of the land once it's sold? (Is it NWMO? Is it the Federal Government? Provincial Government?) What happens to the land once the current owners have moved off the land and it is supposedly ready to be farmed again?

Each parcel was purchased by one of NWMO’s wholly owned subsidiaries and, as a result, the subsidiaries are listed as owners on title for the purchased lands.

Each agreement is a unique commercial transaction between two private parties – in some cases these agreements included provisions to lease-back the land to continue ongoing uses, like agriculture. This allows those who already live on or work the land to continue to do so – ensuring continuity of the use of the land.

Some of those who leased back the property also chose to sublease it – for example, to continue to support farming on the land; this was the sellers’ decision, and the NWMO has respected their wishes with respect to subleasing in all situations requested.

Mr. Gowland, many pro DGR supporters have stated that gravity will protect us from future leakage of radionuclides from canisters into the upper biosphere. Do you agree with this statement?

Although we cannot speak for Mr. Gowland, a deep geological repository is designed to safely contain, and isolate used nuclear fuel from people and the environment indefinitely. This method is considered international best practice and the safest option for the long-term storage of used nuclear fuel.

Mayor Buckle and Mr. Gowland, Dr. Belfadhel with NWMO has highlighted in recent articles that we need to respect the scientific method. Please explain how Dr. Belfadhel and NWMO utilized the scientific method in choosing the current optioned land in South Bruce? As Dr Belfadhel is keen on citing the scientific method, please respond as such to the various steps of the NWMO’s selection of lands when no borehole drilling has been done to date and by their own admission only tabletop studies have occurred.

The site selection process requires that communities take the initiative to enter the process and work with the NWMO. The NWMO has been clear from the beginning – the project will only proceed in an area that has both a suitable rock formation and informed and willing hosts.

In southern Ontario, there is pre-existing geological data from historical boreholes from across the region. This information gives us enough confidence in the potential of the local geology to continue studies in the area.

Further can you explain how the Municipality was satisfied with the scientific method analysis completed for the community prior to optioning these lands and can you release the related report NWMO would have completed in relation to the optioned lands? Is there a report?

In May 2019, the NWMO publicly launched a land access process to determine if we could assemble and access sufficient lands for a potential repository site and complete our site investigation work. This was done through a delegation to council.

In 2019, the NWMO also published a case study called Postclosure Safety Assessment of a Used Fuel Repository in Sedimentary Rock. This report builds on a series of postclosure safety assessments illustrating the long-term performance and safety of different repository designs within various geological settings. This report – seventh in the series – illustrates how repository safety is assessed over the very long term. It concludes that a repository could be safely sited in the sedimentary rock formations found in southern Ontario.

The next phase of activities in South Bruce will include several site-specific safety assessments including deep borehole drilling to further understand the geology, environmental baseline studies along with engineering design studies. This work will give us the confidence that the proposed deep geological repository will safely contain, and isolate used nuclear fuel at this specific site.

To what degree can the proposed DGR plans be altered after the NWMO has been given the authority to proceed?

Authority to proceed will come in stages through the regulatory approval process. The NWMO will seek approvals from the federal government and the regulator at various steps through our process, including approval of the Impact Assessment work, license to prepare the site, license to construct facilities and license to operate the facilities.

The plans for the repository will become more definite as we progress through the regulatory approvals process and the design can change as we move from conceptual design, to detailed design, and to construction. New information about the site and new technical innovations will occur that enable us to improve the design in order to meet the regulatory requirements for safety. We will also continuously improve the programs that we follow to make sure we are completing the work safely.

If for whatever reason the project is abandoned during its construction phase, will those in charge be bound to return the site to its original condition?

1. How are containers guaranteed for hundreds of years with technology that is not proven?

A safety case for a disposal facility consists of a collection of evidence and arguments – including, as one component, the container design and expectations for how long that container would perform. CNSC REGDOC-2.11.1, Waste Management, Volume III: Safety Case for Long-Term Radioactive Waste Management, provides more information on the safety case for a disposal facility, including a deep geological repository (DGR).

2. Does the federal government have the power to have a referendum on this issue?

3. What do they consider a willing community for a project like this?

The CNSC, as the regulator, does not dictate the locations of nuclear projects, including the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s Adaptive Phased Management (APM) project. However, consultation with Indigenous groups and the public is a very important aspect of the CNSC’s regulatory and decision-making processes.

4. How long is the application process for a project like this, including the time for a decision?

Projects such as the NWMO APM project will be subject to an impact assessment (IA) decision under the Impact Assessment Act, which will be carried out by an integrated review panel. Under the IAA, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) leads the reviews of major nuclear projects and works in collaboration with the CNSC to review projects that are also subject to regulation under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA). This will be followed by a licensing decision under the NSCA.

The timing of the impact assessment process includes:

• Up to 180 days for the planning phase
• Up to 3 years for the proponent to produce an impact statement that contains all the required information and studies
• Up to 600 days for the integrated review panel to complete the review
• Up to 90 days for the Governor-in-Council to take the panel’s recommendations and make a public interest decision on the IA
• Posting of the decision, followed by a review panel decision on the licence application.

5. In the last 10 years, how many licence applications have been submitted and of those, how many have been rejected?

A licensing application is subject to many layers of scrutiny before CNSC staff draft recommendations for the Commission’s consideration. An application will go before the Commission for a decision only if it is complete and comprehensive, meets regulatory requirements, and if CNSC staff have assessed the application and are prepared to provide a recommendation to the Commission. Applications that do not pass staff scrutiny do not make it to the Commission; they are returned or withdrawn by applicants.

Note that having an application considered by the Commission at a public hearing does not mean that a decision on the application has been made. The Commission will consider the information presented by the applicant and CNSC staff, as well as interventions by the public and Indigenous groups, before making its independent decision. There are several examples where the Commission, after considering all of the evidence on the record, including written and oral interventions, has required an applicant’s licence to contain additional licence conditions, beyond what CNSC staff recommended and the CNSC’s standard licence conditions required. The Commission will grant a licence only if the evidence shows that – and the Commission is satisfied that – the applicant is qualified to conduct the licensed activity and will make adequate provisions for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons, and the maintenance of national security and measures required to implement international obligations to which Canada has agreed.

Review the following statistics that show the Commission decisions in the last six years.

6. How much money has the NWMO paid the CNSC in fees for their DGR pre-application so far?

The CNSC’s pre-licensing activities have remained consistent since 2013. The CNSC has charged approximately $1 million per fiscal year under this series of service arrangements. Since 2009, when the first service arrangement was signed, the CNSC has charged a total of approximately $10 million under this arrangement.

7. At what stage can the licence be denied? 

8. Why would a Centre of Expertise be built before a licence was granted, if it was not assured that the NWMO would be granted a licence?

9. When and where are the public hearings going to be held for the DGR?

10. What does the CNSC see their role being at this point with the DGR project in South Bruce?

As a best practice, the CNSC gets involved early in any proposed new nuclear projects, to ensure that licence applicants and affected communities have a comprehensive understanding of the CNSC’s regulatory role.

11. Does the CNSC have a role in promoting nuclear power?

Does the CNSC have a view on preferable approaches for handling nuclear waste?

12. What is the purpose of the service agreement between the CNSC and NWMO?

As a best practice, the CNSC gets involved early in any proposed new nuclear projects, to ensure that licence applicants and affected communities have a comprehensive understanding of the CNSC’s regulatory role. Since 2009, the CNSC has signed service arrangements with the NWMO to cost recover work and plan resources. The current arrangement has been in place since April 1, 2019, and is valid until March 31, 2024, unless the NWMO submits a licence application. The arrangement identifies the terms under which the CNSC provides services to the NWMO before a licence application is submitted.

CNSC staff conduct the following activities through this service arrangement:

• Provide regulatory information to the NWMO in relation to the APM implementation
• Attend NWMO engagement activities with the general public and Indigenous communities and provide information on the regulator’s role, the requirements of the NSCA and the licensing process
• Conduct pre-project reviews for technical components of the APM project and provide general assessments to identify any regulatory concerns

13. Why does the CNSC not publish their reviews / comments on NWMO documents, and why does the CNSC not invite public comments / engage with the public? 

Pre-licensing reviews are an optional service that the CNSC provides when requested by a future licence applicant. The pre-licensing review provides feedback to the future applicant about how it is addressing Canadian regulatory requirements.

This review provides the early identification and resolution of potential regulatory or technical issues in the design process, particularly those that could result in significant changes to the design or safety case. The involvement by an independent, knowledgeable and competent nuclear regulator early in the siting process is considered as an international best practice that increases stakeholder confidence.

The pre-licensing reviews that the CNSC conducts under the service arrangement with the NWMO do not certify a concept design and do not authorize a licence under the NSCA. The conclusions of a CNSC pre-licensing review do not bind or otherwise influence the decisions made by the Commission.

14. Why hasn’t the CNSC made it a requirement to have a safety buffer zone associated with the implementation of a DGR? Farm animals and people will reside within 100 feet of the designated site in South Bruce. Schools and the town are within 2 km of the proposed site. The noise level alone plus the dust from creating a DGR will affect if not your physical health but your mental state of mind. A peaceful quiet community setting is suddenly turned into a major construction site and a beehive of activity.

The applicant for a DGR licence must submit a safety case to the CNSC. This safety case may or may not recommend an exclusion zone. CNSC experts will then review the safety case and make their recommendations to the Commission.

15. Is it a fact that spent fuel being removed from a reactor will need to be stored above ground in pools/ponds and then moved to dry storage for 30 + years before being placed in an operating DGR? If so, what problem has been solved?

16. Studies (even some of the OPG submissions to the joint panel in Kincardine) have claimed that above ground dry storage could be extended safely for decades longer than the 50 years which is often quoted as the standard. In CNSC’s opinion, how long can spent fuel be safely stored above ground?

Currently, all dry storage containers used in Canada are within their original design life provided in the licence application safety analysis.

As a condition of their licence, CNSC requires licensees to implement and maintain key programs applicable to the licence application, such as fitness for service and aging management programs, to ensure the safe management of the used fuel. CNSC staff are satisfied that all used fuel in Canada is managed safely.

Should a licensee choose to extend the storage life of the containers beyond their design life, the licensee is required to demonstrate that safety will be ensured through the submission of an updated safety analysis, for review and acceptance by the CNSC.

17. Does the CNSC have an opinion why some USA scientists claim that the only suitable rock formation for a DGR is a salt formation? Their claim is that salt encapsulates the material, absorbs water and has the natural capabilities of creeping and sealing up an enclosure or cavity. Is the WIPP repository in a salt rock formation?

The CNSC does not have a position on this matter.

A DGR facility proposed for any host rock type would need to demonstrate a robust long-term safety case. Different rock types have different attributes, and those attributes also depend on the location. For any DGR in any rock type, a long-term safety case would need to demonstrate that nuclear waste disposed in that DGR would remain isolated and contained at repository depth over the extended time frames associated with a DGR facility lifecycle.

The CNSC would evaluate any DGR project against regulatory requirements and guidance laid out in the regulatory framework, such as; REGDOC-2.11.1, Waste Management, Volume I: Management of Radioactive Waste (currently in draft); REGDOC-2.11.2, Decommissioning; REGDOC-1.2.1, Guidance on Deep Geological Repository Site Characterization (currently in draft).

18. Is limestone and granite permeable? Will water flow freely through this rock? Is the Cobourg rock somewhat denser than limestone but still permeable?

Permeability indicates the ability of a fluid to flow through rock. Permeability will be based on the predominant flow mechanism – whether it is intergranular flow (within rock mineral grains or crystals), fracture flow, or a mixture of the two. The permeability of a given rock type may vary (from low to high), depending on geological and site-specific considerations.

19. What scientific paradigms are used to determine the container safety against leakage for 100,000+ years?

For DGR systems, the container is one component of a multiple-barrier system that includes the waste form, the container, the engineered barriers, and the natural barrier system. The CNSC expects the role of the container over the DGR facility lifetime to be demonstrated and verified using a variety of tools – including modelling of its performance over the long-term operation and impacts on safety during the extended post-closure period.

The role of any single barrier (including the role of the container in the long-term waste containment) would be evaluated over extended time frames (100,000+ years) as part of the long-term safety assessment – a central component to the safety case (CNSC REGDOC-2.11.1, Volume III) for disposal.

20. What is CNSC’s view on the ability of and the safety issues of the new Candu Gen 4 nuclear reactor and the Moltex design and others regarding the reuse of the existing spent fuel for these reactors’ operation?

21. Please explain how the CNSC’s environmental assessment process works and is it an independent non-biased group, (not associated with NWMO), that is completing the environmental assessment?

The NWMO APM initiative will be subject to an impact assessment under the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA).

Applications for nuclear projects that are described on the Project List are reviewed per the IAA. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada leads the reviews, with the CNSC and other government organizations providing technical support. The proponent’s application and subsequent impact statement are considered by an integrated review panel, which considers potential environmental, health, social and economic impacts of proposed projects, including benefits. The panel also assesses and consults on potential impacts on Aboriginal and/or treaty rights.

If the Minister of Environment and Climate Change issues a decision that indicates potential impacts are in the public interest , the review panel then makes a licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) on whether the project can proceed (that is, by issuing a decision on the licence phase for which the proponent has applied).

If applicable, subsequent licence applications would be considered by the CNSC Commission, a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal independent from CNSC staff, which deliberates on all evidence presented as part of public Commission proceedings to make evidence-based decisions. Protection of the environment and health of people are considered in the review of every licence application under the CNSC’s environmental review process when the IAA does not apply.

22. Please elaborate on your emergency plan for the protection of the residents living so close to this proposed DGR should an accident or radiation leak occur, either on transit to the DGR, or at the repackaging plant and in the DGR itself.

Emergency plans and procedures are developed by an applicant or licensee based on an analysis of the risks and hazards at the facility. Extensive studies and analysis are conducted to ensure all safe operation requirements are met, and that emergency preparedness plans for any credible and beyond-credible accidents to protect the public and environment are in place.

These emergency plans, which include the requirement for scheduled emergency drills, are submitted to the CNSC for review and approval. The emergency drills are designed to simulate extremely unlikely accident scenarios, where the licensee response is evaluated by CNSC emergency management specialists under the baseline inspection plan.

23. Are the health facilities in this area equipped to cope with possible radiation accidents and injuries to people?

As part of the CNSC’s licensing basis, licensees are required to have emergency response plans and procedures that identify emergency response facilities, equip the facilities with the necessary equipment to detect and assess hazards, communicate those hazards and have sufficient response equipment and materials to sustain a prolonged response. Responding to a contaminated casualty event is covered in these procedures and further arrangements are required to be in place with off-site organizations, such as Emergency Medical Services and Hospitals, for receiving these patients.

Licensees are required to run full scale emergency exercises, which would include these types of events, to ensure the effectiveness of all emergency plans and procedures. Furthermore, CNSC emergency preparedness specialists evaluate the licensee full scale emergency exercises as part of the CNSC’s baseline compliance inspection plan.

24. COVID-19 has taught us many things, one of which is the necessity of a safe food supply. Has the CNSC considered the repercussions and economic disadvantages to our agricultural industry should you allow a high-level irradiated fuel waste repository to be located in this area? Please elaborate on your answer.

25. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has been told that their safety policies are not up to international standards.

The CNSC does not have authority over Canada’s radioactive waste policy, nor over the establishment of a national strategy – that authority belongs to Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), on behalf of Canada.

In 2019, Canada underwent an international Integrated Regulatory Review (IRRS) by the IAEA. This review found that Canada has a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework for nuclear and radiation safety covering current facilities and activities. The CNSC strives to continuously upgrade its regulatory framework to address new challenges and upcoming technologies.

The IRRS team recommend that the Government should enhance the existing policy and establish the associated strategy to give effect to the principles stated in the Canadian Radioactive Waste Management Policy Framework. In response, NRCan has stated that it will review its existing policy for radioactive waste and consider possible enhancements to give effect to the principles stated in the Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, including the establishment of an associated strategy.

In November 2020, NRCan announced the launch of the Government of Canada’s engagement process to modernize Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy. The objectives of the modernization of Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy are to ensure it is based on the best available science, continues to meet international practices, and reflects the values and principles of Canadians.

26. My understanding is that the CNSC gives a construction licence and then later on an operations licence. If a construction licence is granted does that mean an operations licence is guaranteed? If a licence for either purpose is granted can it be revoked if the project is proven unsafe?

Several different licences would be required throughout the lifecycle of a proposed DGR; starting with a licence to prepare site, which comes before a licence to construct. A public hearing is required at each stage before the Commission decision on the request for a licence. At each stage the applicant must demonstrate that they are qualified and meet the requirements of the regulations for the licence and be able to demonstrate that the environment, and the health and safety of workers and the public would be protected.

27. Many members of the community are stating that the CNSC will approve a licence regardless of the safety case because they are paid by the industry. Could you touch on that topic and set the record straight?

The CNSC is an independent agency of the Government of Canada and operates in a transparent manner. Its operations are open to public scrutiny. The Commission’s mandate, set out in its enabling legislation, does not include regulating to meet political or economic objectives.

The Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) is distinct and comprehensive legislation for the regulation of nuclear activities and the separation of functions of the regulatory body from organizations that promote or use nuclear energy. The CNSC’s mission focuses on the health and safety of persons and the protection of the environment and does not extend to economic matters. The CNSC operates at arm’s length from, and reports directly to, the Parliament of Canada.

28. Why are Indigenous People not involved in the actual decision process, according to this slide? 

Indigenous peoples are consulted throughout the new impact assessment process. This ensures that their views and knowledge are incorporated and considered in the assessment of a project’s potential impacts, from planning through follow-up. In accordance with the legislation that governs the impact assessment process, the official sign-off on project approval or rejection is completed by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change or the Governor-in-Council (Cabinet). This decision on whether a project’s impacts are in the public interest is informed by the impact assessment report and the outcomes of Crown consultation with Indigenous peoples.

29. What is the method/process the CNSC uses to measure if a community is willing?

30. How does an individual/community register an unwillingness to host a nuclear facility with the CNSC?

31. Does the CNSC have any opinion or idea on how a “willing community” will be determined?

32. How would the CNSC take into account the views of the surrounding communities in their approval processes, if at all?

The CNSC’s Commission, a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal independent from CNSC staff, deliberates on all evidence presented as part of public Commission proceedings to make a decision on a particular licensing issue. During a Commission hearing or meeting, specific concerns and issues can be raised by the local and/or affected communities directly to the Commission through oral or written interventions.

These proceedings allow affected parties and the public to learn about nuclear facilities and projects and to give an opportunity to be heard before the Commission. In addition, on a case-by-case basis, the Commission may offer financial support through its Participant Funding Program (PFP) to help members of the public with the costs associated with participating in a hearing or meeting.

33. Has the CNSC researched other areas of storing spent fuel above ground for a couple more decades i.e. the Rolling Stewardship approach?

The CNSC does not have a preferred approach to handling nuclear waste.

The CNSC takes a performance-based approach to regulation; that is, first the licence applicant proposes a waste management supported by scientifically defensible benchmarks. The CNSC then assesses the proposal against existing regulatory requirements to ensure the health, safety and security of the public and the protection of the environment.

34. Has the CNSC researched any other safer methods of storing spent fuel above ground such as Vitrification?

See response to question 34.

35. Why does the NWMO state that a Buffer Zone is not required around the proposed DGR for South Bruce when it would be an added safety measure for the people living in the area?

36. Is it important to the CNSC that the residents living in South Bruce have a vote to determine if they are a “willing community” and will you help us to procure this?

37. This seems to be a risk-laden project for safety, health, and environmental risks to our water and agriculture. Please discuss other alternatives to a DGR.

38. Does the CNSC take into account the sociocultural changes and the social stigma this project will thrust on the residents of the area?