Engagement Report Update WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning for the Sagkeeng First Nation Fall 2017

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project Near Pinawa O Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project near Pinawa, Manitoba, is proceeding through an environmental assessment process with the A

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). CNL has been TARI engaged with the Sagkeeng First Nation about the Project LakLLaLakeakke since Spring/Summer WinWWiWinnipegnipeg 2016, and is committed to ONTARI O ONTARIO This report SSagkeSaSagkeengkkeeeengeeneengg FirFFirstirirsts Nationtion ongoing communication summarizes some of and engagement with the key findings from WR-1 In Situ DecommissioningDecommississioningssiosioningsi the community as the the environmental PinawaPPi environmental assessment assessment, and of the Project and overall provides information Winnipegnipegipeg closure of the Whiteshell about the feedback Laboratory Site proceeds. provided by This report summarizes some Sagkeeng of the key findings from the First Nation environmental assessment, and provides information about how the feedback provided by Sagkeeng First Nation has been considered to date. It is CNL’s intention and purpose to use Treaty No. 1 this document to spark continued engagement and discussion on Treaty No. 2 the Project as the environmental assessment process continues. MANITOBA RIO Treaty No. 3 ABOUT THE WHITESHELL LABORATORIES Treaty No. 4 Lakee Winnipegeg ONTARIO Treaty No. 5 Whiteshell Laboratories (WL) was established in the early 1960s Sagkeeng Firstirrstrs Nation to carry out nuclear research for peaceful purposes such as energy WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning waste management and use in health applications. The WL site is Pinawa located approximately 66 km south of Sagkeeng First Nation, on Winnipeg the shore of the Winnipeg River, in the Local Government district (Continued on page 2)

1 Engagement Report Update Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project

Continued from page 1 Understanding the The WR-1 In Situ of Pinawa. The WL site operated for approximately Decommissioning Project 40 years as a nuclear research and test operation Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is proposing a waste in the reactor, and provides time for the facility. The WR-1 Reactor decommissioning approach for WR-1, which is radioactive materials to decay to safe levels. was the research and a change from the previously approved 2002 The first barrier is the metals in the reactor itself. development centerpiece decommissioning plan. The new approach will allow of the site and was safely The vast majority of remaining radioactive waste for the decommissioning and disposal of the WR-1 is contained within the metal components of the brought out of operation Building in a safe manner, protective of people and and permanently shut reactor core. These metals will corrode very slowly the environment. down and defueled in 1985. inhibiting release of contaminants. All of the fuel was removed The previously approved decommissioning plan The second barrier is the thick (approximately at this time, so the reactor involved, after an extended period of time, the 2 metres), concrete reactor bioshield. This heavy is now comprised of empty dismantling and removal of the entire WR-1 concrete barrier surrounds the reactor core, further pipes and tanks, and most structure, and did not provide a clear path for the of the contaminants are restricting accessibility to the reactor and inhibiting storage of the removed structure. Since a long term material transport. inside the metal of these storage facility for radioactive materials has still remaining structures. not been created in Canada, the proposed plan is to The third barrier is the concrete grout that will The WR-1 structure now remove all of the structures above ground using fill all major void spaces in the reactor facility has since been partially traditional demolition methods, while encasing surrounding the core. Approximately 10,000 cubic decommissioned and everything below ground (i.e., the metres (about the size of 3 indoor continues to be maintained reactor itself) in a protective grout. hockey rinks) of grout will fill and monitored, awaiting Ongoing site all rooms, providing structural final decommissioning. In An engineered cover will then environmental prevention of degradation and 1998, Atomic Energy of be constructed over the below- further limiting releases to the Canada Limited made a monitoring will ground structure for additional environment. decision to decommission protection and to prevent future continue to ensure the overall WL site. A human intrusion. The in-situ that the site The fourth barrier is the reactor Comprehensive Study approach reduces potential risk to remains safe building foundation, which is Report under the people and the environment by reinforced concrete and sits Canadian Environmental providing a robust seal that will directly on the bedrock. This will Assessment Act (1992) be reinforced by a cover made of a concrete cap to was completed for the allow for safe, continued natural decay of the waste prevent access, minimize water entering, and further decommissioning of the WL material. Ongoing site environmental monitoring site, which was approved will continue to ensure that the site remains safe prevent intrusion by plants and animals. by the federal Minister and the decommissioning approach performs to The final barrier is a natural barrier, consisting of the Environment in expectation. of the geology of the region which is rich in clays, March 2002. The overall In situ decommissioning is a permanent, passive creating a slow pace for groundwater and material decommissioning of the movement. site has been occurring decommissioning end state. It uses multiple barriers since this time. to contain the radiological and non-radiological

Artist’s concept only. Not to scale. REACTOR BUILDING WEATHERED CLAY CONCRETE INJECTION COVER

REACTOR BUILDING CONCRETE SURROUND

WATER TABLE LEVEL

CONCRETE INJECTION WR-1 Reactor Building COMPACTED FILL Walls and Foundation

REACTOR CLAY CORE BIOSHIELD CLAY-TILL

CONCRETE SURROUND BASAL-TILL (mixture of sands, rock and clay) BEDROCK 2 (Approx. 20 metres below ground) The Environmental Assessment Process REGULATORY APPROVALS assesses the potential environmental effects of the Project. The overall closure of the WL site continues under the approved 2) A license amendment under the Nuclear Safety Control Act to environmental assessment from 2002, sometimes referred to as the perform in situ decommissioning of WR-1. Comprehensive Study Report (CSR). The proposed change from the A decision under CEAA 2012 is required before a decision can be made previously approved decommissioning plan to in situ decommissioning under the Nuclear Safety Control Act. of the reactor has triggered an environmental assessment for just that aspect of the previous plan. For the in situ project to go forward, There are many steps in the environmental assessment process, regulatory approvals are required. This will include: including getting feedback from the First Nations, the public, Métis groups, local governments and stakeholder groups. The steps in the 1) An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be submitted under process include: the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) 2012. The EIS

CNL: CNSC COMMISSION: CANADIAN NUCLEAR CANADIAN NUCLEAR Environmental Impact CNSC STAFF: Decision: Can the LABORATORIES: SAFETY COMMISSION: Statement (EIS) Environmental project proceed? Project Description Decision on Project Scope September 2017 Assessment Report (EA) Fall 2018

• Overview of project and • CNSC reviews the Project • Prepares EIS in accordance with • CNSC (staff) summarizes • CNSC (Commission) reviews surrounding environment Description regulations EIS into an Environmental EA report • CNSC provides EIS guidelines • Evaluates environmental impact Assessment report • CNSC (Commission) makes • Project Description posted for of project • First Nation and Métis a decision on whether the public review • Determines mitigation measures to groups review project may proceed • CNSC (Commission) considers minimize environmental impacts • Public review period • Follow-up monitoring and public, First Nations and Métis • EIS review by CNSC, federal reporting requirements groups comments and makes a authorities and public, First Nations decision on scope of EA and Métis groups • Informs the public, First Nations and Métis groups and collects their feedback

Understanding Effects in the Long-Term When assessing potential effects of the Project – two general from 2023 until approximately 300 years in the future: phases of activity were considered: - Preparation for institutional control, which will include things like Ⅵ The Closure Phase, or when the actual decommissioning work will access restrictions (e.g., physical barriers/fencing, signage, and land be performed from 2019-2023 that includes: title instruments/deed restrictions); and - All perforations are sealed; - Institutional control (the extended period for monitoring). - Grouting of the below grade structures of the WR-1 building; Disruptive scenarios were also assessed, which included - Removal of the above grade WR-1 structures; consideration of events or situations that were unlikely to occur, but - Installation of an engineered cover over the grouted WR-1 which could lead to the possible penetration of the barriers and grout. building area; The scenarios that were evaluated included the early degradation of - Final site restoration. grout, seismic damage (i.e., earthquake), early glaciation, groundwater Ⅵ The Post Closure Phase, or when monitoring of the site will occur discharge to the shore of the Winnipeg River, and human intrusion.

WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project Phases

Post Closure Monitoring of the site will occur from 2023 until approximately 300 CLOSURE PHASE POST CLOSURE AND INSTITUTIONAL CURRENT PHASE years in the future. (2019 - 2023) CONTROL PHASE (2023 - 2323)

3 Engagement Report Update Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project What is Assessed?

One of the important steps in the environmental Ⅵ Species conservation status or concern First Nations assessment process is identifying Valued Components (e.g., rarity, uniqueness); and Métis groups (VCs). Valued Components refer to environmental Ⅵ Ecological and socio-economic value to have influence features that may be affected by a project that have communities, government agencies and the public on the Valued been identified to be of concern by CNL, scientists, (including the outcomes of public engagement Components government agencies, First Nations and Métis groups, activities); and the public. These components are ultimately what get evaluated during the environmental assessment Ⅵ Traditional, cultural and heritage importance process. to First Nations and Métis groups; When selecting VCs, many things are Ⅵ Legally recognized and afforded special protection by considered, including: law, regulation, or policy; and Ⅵ Presence, abundance and distribution within, or Ⅵ Experience with similar projects. relevance to the area associated with Project; Ⅵ Potential interaction with the Project and potential vulnerability to the effects of the Project;

Valued Components

Physical Environment

Atmospheric Environment 'ĞŽůŽŐLJ 'ƌŽƵŶĚǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚŇŽǁ ŝƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ Climate change

Land and Resource Use ƋƵĂƟĐŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ tŝŶŶŝƉĞŐZŝǀĞƌ &ŝƐŚĂŶĚĮƐŚŚĂďŝƚĂƚ >ĂŶĚƚĞŶƵƌĞ Human Health KƵƚĚŽŽƌƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƚŽƵƌŝƐŵ Cultural and archaeological sites Public health dƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůůĂŶĚĂŶĚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƵƐĞďLJ/ŶĚŝŐĞŶŽƵƐƉĞŽƉůĞ Worker health Ecological Health dĞƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĂů/ŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ĞĂƌƚŚǁŽƌŵͿ dĞƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĂůŝƌĚƐ͗ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶZŽďŝŶ͕ĂƌŶ^ǁĂůůŽǁ͕>ŽŐŐĞƌŚĞĂĚ^ŚƌŝŬĞ Socioeconomic Environment Terrestrial Plants: grass and shrubs, blueberries dĞƌƌĞƐƚƌŝĂůDĂŵŵĂůƐ͗DĞĂĚŽǁsŽůĞ͕ŽŵŵŽŶ^ŚƌĞǁ͕^ŶŽǁƐŚŽĞ,ĂƌĞ͕tŚŝƚĞͲƚĂŝůĞĚĞĞƌ͕ ŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ/ŶĐŽŵĞ ZĞĚ&Ždž͕>ŝƩůĞƌŽǁŶĂƚ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚĮŶĂŶĐĞƐ &ŝƐŚ͗ĂƌŵŝŶĞ^ŚŝŶĞƌ͕>ĂŬĞ^ƚƵƌŐĞŽŶ͕tĂůůĞLJĞ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁĞůůͲďĞŝŶŐ ĞŶƚŚŝĐ/ŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ƐŶĂŝůƐͿ WƵďůŝĐƐĂĨĞƚLJ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶŝƌĚƐ͗,ŽƌŶĞĚ'ƌĞďĞ͕dƌƵŵƉĞƚĞƌ^ǁĂŶ͕DĂůůĂƌĚ ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ ZŝƉĂƌŝĂŶDĂŵŵĂůƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͕͘ŵŝŶŬͿ ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƋƵĂƟĐƉůĂŶƚƐ;ƐƵďŵĞƌŐĞĚĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶƚŵĂĐƌŽƉŚLJƚĞƐͿ

Terrestrial Environment Surface Water Environment ĂƌŶ^ǁĂůůŽǁ͖>ŝƩůĞƌŽǁŶĂƚ͖ ^ƵƌĨĂĐĞǁĂƚĞƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ Northern Bat ŇŽǁ 'ŽůĚĞŶͲǁŝŶŐĞĚtĂƌďůĞƌ͖^ŶĂƉƉŝŶŐ Turtle

4 Engagement with Sagkeeng First Nation

To date, CNL has met with the Sagkeeng First Nation on 7 occasions in relation to the Project, including discussions with the CNSC, meetings with Chief and Council, community events (e.g., open house, industry day), and a site tour. A summary of those meetings is provided in the table below.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT ENGAGEMENT WITH SAGKEENG FIRST NATION

ACTIVITY LOCATION DATE ATTENDANCE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

CNSC-LED Teleconference April 4, 2016 5 representatives To provide initial introductions between ENGAGEMENT from CNSC Sagkeeng First Nation, the CNSC as the regulator, CNL as the Project proponent, 1 representative and AECL as the site owner. from AECL 5 representatives from CNL Chief Henderson

MEETING WITH Sagkeeng May 18, 2016 3 representatives To provide Sagkeeng First Nation with CHIEF AND First Nation from CNL an update on the overall closure of COUNCIL the WL site, and introduce the WR-1 Government 5 members from Decommissioning Project. Office, Fort Chief and Council Alexander, MB

MEETING WITH Sagkeeng January 25, 2017 4 representatives To provide details about the WR-1 CHIEF AND First Nation from Sagkeeng Decommissioning Project, and to COUNCIL Government First Nation understand what was important to the community when undertaking the Office, Fort 3 representatives environmental assessment. Alexander, MB from CNL

OPEN HOUSE Sagkeeng Mino January 25, 2017 3 First Nations To provide details about the WR-1 Pimatiziwin members Decommissioning Project, and to understand what was important to Family Treatment 2 members of the the community when undertaking the Centre Gym, Fort public Alexander, MB environmental assessment.

CNSC-LED Private Tom Chief May 17, 2017 5 representatives To provide an overview of the Project, and ENGAGEMENT Memorial Hall, from Sagkeeng to allow for each of CNSC, CNL and AECL Scanterbury, MB. First Nation to explain their role in the process. 2 representatives To gain an understanding of the from community’s concerns in relation to the Wabaseemoong Project. Independent Nations 4 representatives from CNSC 6 representatives from CNL 2 representatives from AECL 1 CNL contractor

5 Engagement Report Update Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project

Engagement with Sagkeeng First Nation (continued)

ACTIVITY LOCATION DATE ATTENDANCE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

SITE TOUR Whiteshell July 4, 2017 7 representatives To provide a better understanding of Laboratories Site from Sagkeeng the WL site itself, the overall closure of First Nation the project, the current environmental monitoring programs in place, and an 9 First Nation opportunity to view the WR-1 Reactor students itself. 4 representatives To hear feedback from Sagkeeng First from CNL Nation citizens regarding the project and 1 CNL contractor learn about their traditional land use.

INDUSTRY DAY Sagkeeng Arena, July 6, 2017 2 contractors In response to Sagkeeng First Nation’s interest in employment and business Fort Alexander, 3 representatives opportunities, this event provided MB from CNL information on how to access employment and contracting opportunities for the overall closure of the site, along with the Project.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories also consulted with other communities, such as the Local Government District of Pinawa, and the Town of Lac du Bonnet. Other First Nations (Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Little Black River First Nation, Hollow Water First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations) and the Manitoba Metis Federation were also engaged.

WR-1

6 What We Heard

Throughout the engagement process, CNL has tried to inform the community about the Project, while building awareness and understanding of the Project and its potential effects on the environment, including consideration of potential traditional and current uses in proximity to the site. During these engagements, Sagkeeng First Nation identified several interests and concerns, which are summarized in the table below.

INTERESTS AND CONCERNS IDENTIFIED DURING PROJECT ENGAGEMENT

TOPIC KEY INTERESTS AND CONCERNS

BUSINESS AND Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation requested more detailed information about potential contracting opportunities EMPLOYMENT with CNL, including qualifications. OPPORTUNITIES Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation raised the possibility of a certain percentage of the work going to Aboriginal companies.

FUTURE LAND USE AND Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation noted more information was required from the Province regarding compensation for the TENURE creation of the LGD of Pinawa, which is located in Treaty 1 territory. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed concern about the future of the WL site, noting that the Province of Manitoba will eventually need to come and discuss the site with the First Nation.

WASTE MANAGEMENT Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation were interested in more detailed information about how much radioactive waste would remain on the WL site and where the radioactive waste that was being transported off-site would be stored. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation asked about the methods used to transport waste and how it will be communicated to potentially affected communities. Ⅵ The group discussed the decision making process used to determine how radioactive waste will be transported. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed concern about In Situ Decommissioning (ISD) and thought that it would be best if all waste and the WR-1 were removed from the WL site. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation was curious about how water treatment on the WL site worked. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation was concerned about where the fuel was stored and if it is safe.

FUTURE Ⅵ It was noted that technical results are difficult to understand and that CNL should consider methods to COMMUNICATION ensure that future updates about the Project will be understandable to community members. Ⅵ It was suggested that CNL work with Chief and Council in the future to promote future engagement activities with the community. In addition, it would make sense to invite on-reserve members by going door to door. Ⅵ Consultation still needs to occur on a nation-to-nation basis. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation would like to participate in the Learning Community Workshop that is being planned for September 2017.

CANADIAN NUCLEAR Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed interest in the history of CNL and how it is related to AECL and the WL site. LABORATORIES

FUTURE MONITORING Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed interest in future monitoring of the site, including the duration of monitoring activities and where monitoring would occur. In particular, Sagkeeng First Nation thought that there should be monitoring at locations where members fish and monitoring locations closer to the community. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed concern about the long-term effects of the Project on water quality and fish, especially in light of the environmental effects that the Pine Falls paper mill is believed to have had on the water. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation wanted to know who would monitor the WL site after decommissioning ends.

7 Engagement Report Update Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project

TOPIC KEY INTERESTS AND CONCERNS

FISH AND FISH HABITAT Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed concern about water quality and suggested sampling would help their citizens AND WINNIPEG RIVER feel more comfortable about the cleanliness of their water.

REGULATORY PROCESS Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed a concern regarding the level of capacity support provided to them to date for their participation in the regulatory review process, including the amount awarded to them through the CNSC’s Participant Funding Program. Ⅵ What would happen to the Project and the WL site if the regulator did not approve the Project? Ⅵ Who determines if the Project proceeds? Ⅵ What are the opportunities for First Nation input?

PROJECT DESCRIPTION Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation was interested in understanding how the grouted encapsulation would maintain its integrity into the future. Topic included the potential for climate change and natural disasters to affect the integrity of the grouted encapsulation and how it would be constructed to ensure that it is safe. Ⅵ The proposed decommissioning method is not trusted. Ⅵ Participants at the community open house were interested in various aspects of ISD. Questions were asked regarding the existence of similar projects, the differences in costs between the original removal decommissioning plan and the ISD and the safety of ISD in connection with the environment. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed interest in how materials from demolished buildings on the WL site would be disposed of?

TRADITIONAL Ⅵ Wild rice and medicinal plants are collected by Sagkeeng First Nation members in the Whiteshell Provincial KNOWLEDGE Park area. Harvested medicinal plants include calamus root, Labrador tea, wild ginger and waterlily root. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation expressed interest in conducting a traditional knowledge study to support fish sampling and was curious about the potential timing for a study. Ⅵ Sagkeeng First Nation believed that traditional knowledge would be a good addition to the Species-at-Risk Field Guide.

could get a better understanding of the Project and the site and its You Spoke. We Listened. activities (held July 4, 2017); Throughout the environmental assessment process, CNL has Ⅵ Hosting an industry day in the community to share information considered the feedback the community has provided, and shared it about employment and contracting opportunities (held July 6, with the technical experts conducting the environmental assessment. 2017); A few examples of how Sagkeeng First Nations’ interests and concerns Ⅵ were considered included the following: Creating a First Nation and Métis affairs summer student position that was advertised in Indigenous communities interested in the Ⅵ Considered how the grout would degrade over time as an important Project; consideration in understanding potential long-term effects to the Ⅵ environment; Asked for First Nation input into our species at risk program, providing our booklet both electronically and in hard copy, this is to Ⅵ Considered the potential effects of climate change and natural be followed up with an environmental protection workshop at the disasters in the assessment process; site; Ⅵ Developed presentation materials that addressed community Ⅵ Verified that CNL’s environmental monitoring program test fish concerns about the handling and transportation of waste materials, species of interest; including demonstrations of the monitoring equipment used on site; Ⅵ Committed to assist in a one-time water sampling campaign. Ⅵ Discussed how future monitoring on the site could better incorporate First Nation interests, such as locations where the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has also committed to hosting a First community fishes or harvests in proximity to the site; Nations and Métis communities environmental protection workshop to better understand how traditional knowledge could contribute to Ⅵ Arranging a site tour so that representatives of the community CNL’s current and future environmental protection program.

8 Effects To Traditional Land And Resourcesources UUsese

ASSESSING EFFECTS TO Mitasse on Lake Winnipegnipeg (n.a.(n.a. 2000).2000). TravelTravel in thethe TRADITIONAL LAND AND fall was typically to thehe Lac du BonBonnetnet area,area, wherewhere the Pinawa Channel mmeetseets tthehe WinnipegWinnipeg River,River, RESOURCES USE to harvest wild rice (n.a.n.a. 2002000).0). FaFamilymily uunitsnits had One of the things that CNL heard, was that preferred hunting areasas wwhichhich incincludedluded aareasreas closeclose traditional land and resources uses, including to Fort Alexander andd spannedspanned northnorth to BlackBlack consideration of the species harvested by the River First Nation andd over 202000 km ssoutheastoutheast community, is very important. Because of this, to Dalles and Big Islandnd First NNationsations in OnOntariotario traditional land and resources use was identified (n.a. 2000). Previous sstudiestudies havehave confirmedconfirmmed tthathah t as a Valued Component (VC) for the effects Sagkeeng First Nationn participatesparticipates in traditionaltradditioonaal assessment. Traditional land and resources use is activities of harvestingg wild rice,rice, sturgeonstturrgeg onn fishing,fisshih ngg, important for maintaining meaningful connections gathering plants and medicinesmedicines andandn berrybere ryy pickingpicckikingg with cultural identity and community history. (AECL 2001). Membersrs of SagkSagkeengeeeng FFirstirrstt NNationaattioon Traditional land and resources use can also continue to have a fundamentalndamental attachmentattaca hmmennt toto promote intergenerational connections within the physical environment,ment, landlandss anandnd wawwaterways,teerwrwayays,s, communities as knowledge is passed down from as a way of life (Sagkeengeeng FirstFirst NationNatioon 2015).201515)). elders to community members, including youth. In addition to using thehe WinnipegWinnipeg RiverRiivev r forfor Potential changes to traditional land and resources traditional activities, SagkeengSagkeeng FirstFirst NationNatioon usesussees use by Indigenous people can have an adverse the river as its source for wawaterter susupplypply ttoo thtthehe effect on Indigenous people by preventing them community (Penn Co ConstConstructionruction n.d.,n.d., J.R.J.R.R CousinCouousis n from fully expressing their cultural identity and Consultants Ltd. n.d.).. exerting Treaty rights. The assessment of effectsfects to ttraditionalraditional landlana d andanand Sagkeeng’s reserve is located where the Winnipeg resources use evaluateded whwhetherether thethe ProjectProject wouldwwooulld River empties into Lake Winnipeg and their result in any changes ttoo the conticontinuednued opportunityopportuniity traditional territory encompasses land within for traditional activitieses suchsuch as hunting,huntingn , fishing,fishing, Treaty 1 along with land north and west of the trapping, gathering andnd otherother cuculturalltural ppursuitsurrssuits Winnipeg River, falling within four Treaty areas on the land. Public accesscess toto thethe WL sitesite hashhas (Sagkeeng First Nation 2015). Sagkeeng First REFERENCES: generally been excludeded forfor suchsuch actactivitiesivittiees foforr n.a. 2002. Sagkeeng First Nation, Nation is currently in Treaty Land Entitlement safety and security reasons.asons. AsAs such,such, theretherere havehah vee Treaty Land Entitlement, Statement specific claims discussions with the Government of of Historical Fact. been no traditional landnd andand resourcesresources uusese directlydirrecctlt y Canada (Sagkeeng Anicinabe n.d.). AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada on the site since the 1960s,960s, althoughalthough activitiesacctivitit es Ltd.), SENES Consultants Limited, ECOMatters Inc., Barbara Connell The land and waterways have historically been in proximity to the site,te, includingincluding useuse off tthehhee Advisory Services, and Wardrop an important part of the economic well-being Winnipeg River have ppersisted.ersisted. Engineering Inc. 2001. Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning and transportation system for the Sagkeeng Project: Comprehensive Study The first part of the analysisnalysis iidentifieddentifieed wwhwhethereetheh r First Nation. “A strongly held conviction among Report. Prepared for the AECL. there were any pathwaysways ffromrom tthehhe ProjectProjejectt tthathaat members is that the lands and waterways are the Penn-Co Construction. n.d. Sagkeeng could cause a potentialal effecteffect toto traditionaltradittioonnal landlalandnd Water Treatment Plant. sustaining factors for all life. To members, the and resources use. Eachch potentialpotential pathwaypaathhwaway waswawas Available from http://penn- land and waters are indivisible and anything that is coconstruction.com/sagkeengwtp. initially considered to have a ppotentialotentiala effect,effffeecct,t bebe html [accessed November 2, 2016]. done to either will have far reaching effects for all it through normal or routineroutine aactivities,cttivvities, oror inin thethehe Sagkeeng Anicinabe. n.d. Sagkeeng life” (Sagkeeng First Nation 2015). Sagkeeng First Anicinabe. Available from http:// event of an accident oorr mmalfunction.alfuncttioon.n. FFororr aann efeeffectffef ctct Nation members historically travelled southwest www.sagkeeng.ca/sagkeeng-history/ to occur there has to bebe a ProjectProject ccomponentomo poonenentn oorr [accessed November 25, 2016]. along the Winnipeg River throughout the summer activity that results inn a detectabledetectable chcchangeanngee ttoo tththehe Sagkeeng First Nation. 2015. to the Rainy River area in Ontario to fish and make Sagkeeng O-Pimatiziiwin 2, continued opportunityy forfor tratraditionalditionaal acactivitiesctitivviititieses Traditional Knowledge Study – medicine. In early spring and late fall, fishing Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission was preferred near Catfish Creek and at Point au (Continued on page 10) Line Project.

9 EngagementEnEngag ggemem ntt ReportRepeporort Update CanadianCanCanna Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project

(Continued(Continun ede fromfrom pageppagge 9)9) Ⅵ Relative abundance and distribution of fish species; susuchch as huntinhunting,g fishing, fishing trapping, trapping and plant and berry Ⅵ Relative abundance and distribution of plant species; gathering. For example, preparing the WR-1 reactor building Ⅵ Relative abundance and distribution of wildlife species; for demolishing and grouting was not considered as a potential pathway from the Project to traditional land and resources Ⅵ Continued opportunities for traditional land use; and use, as no traditional land and resources use activities are Ⅵ Perceived changes to the area’s suitability for land use permitted on the WL site. and/or quality of harvested resources. Several potential pathways to traditional land and resources Consideration of potential risks to ecological and human use were considered in the assessment, included potential health were also evaluated including the assessment of Project-related changes to: radiological and non-radiological contaminants of concern. Ⅵ Ground or surface water quality; Results In order to understand potential effects to traditional land and evaluated changes to groundwater quality from the release resources use, consideration was given as to whether there of solutes as the grout and reactor components gradually would be effects to other components of the environment. deteriorate over time. A groundwater flow and transport Each of these potential pathways from the Project to model was also completed, the results indicated it will take traditional land and resources use was considered. approximately 100 years for groundwater to travel from the Effects to ground water and surface water quality were Project to the Winnipeg River. Although in and of itself, the identified as very important to people. The assessment flow of groundwater to the Winnipeg River was unlikely to

Winnipeg River 10

9

11

1 2 8

3 7 12

5 13

4 15 14

1 Human 6 Benthic invertebrates 11 Grass and bushes 6 Sample Species Considered in 6 2 Mallard 7 Earthworm 12 Blueberries Ecological and 3 Walleye 8 Whitetail deer 13 Mink Human Health Risk Assessment 4 Lake sturgeon 9 Robin 14 Snowshoe hare Scenarios 5 Aquatic plants 10 Little brown myotis 15 Red fox 10 affect land and resources use Radiation Peak Dose Ranges from Project directly, it could result in risk to ecological or human health. As such, the groundwater results were Typical Annual Dose from: incorporated into the Ecological Risk Assessment to evaluate Radiation Living on the Logarithmic scale Logarithmic potential effects to human and Levels International Space ecological health. mSv: millisievert Station (150 mSv)

1000 mSv Effects to human health were Working in a nuclear also identified as important, power plant - Annual limit (50 mSv) and Sagkeeng First Nation noted Peak Dose (from all sources) Acceptable level of regulatory risk for this that the community experiences project (1 mSv) Living in Winnipeg (4 mSv) higher rates of cancer than 1 mSv other communities. Concern Total dose range for a worker onsite during Natural background closure activities was expressed that this could radiation - Canadian

be a result of the Whiteshell 0.00155 mSv to 0.0000121 mSv Average (1.8 mSv)

L L L L L

o o o o o Laboratories Site, along with o r

Peak dose range (infant, 0.001 mSv e

m Single dentalm x-ray

other factors such as industrial child and adult) for a (0.1 mSv) i i i i i

pi

“new farm” located on-site s

u

and agricultural activities near the u

m m m (after the planned 300 m d

community. The ecological risk years of ground water Living withino a few

l l

o

km of ano operating r monitoring and r assessment considered potential s

institutional controls) nuclear i plant in

t t

a a a a a Canada a (0.001 mSv) effects to numerous species 0.000558 mSv to 0.000 001 mSv m

0.000000595 mSv e

t t

,

c c c c c including people along with c o

n

s s

e

incorporating the results of the e

c c c c c Total dose range for a c t e

family (infant, child and t

u

studies of air quality, groundwater u

e e e e e

adult) residing on a farm r e

a

d d quality, and surface water quality approximately 3 km d

i i -9 i

p p p p p p p p p downstream post-closure 10 mSv p (each of which were separately is

(after the planned 300 c

i i

n n g

years of ground water g studied). Potential effects of e

l

i monitoring and i

t t t ,

the Project were modelled for institutional controls) s , e

d

0.00000146 mSv to d d d d d d d d d d d d

various species, including several d

i i i i i i 0.000000913 mSv i a

fictional human receptors that 10-12 mSv m n n n n n n o n

were created to simulate future u

m m m m m m

m

users of the area. This included y

n n n farms and a traditional resource consideredd d whetherh h theh Project wouldd beb likelyl to result in any harvester downstream of the Project, along with a farm and a changes to things such as fish habitat and fish, and to terrestrial traditional resource harvester using the WL site itself at some habitat and wildlife (with particular focus on wildlife listed point beyond the institutional control period (i.e., 300 years or in the Species at Risk Act, or the Committee on the Status of more). The results of the studies found that the radiological dose Endangered Wildlife in Canada ranking). This included potential assessment for the closure and post-closure phases were below changes associated with ecological health (i.e., radiation or their respective benchmark values, or in other words, would other contaminants), and for other potential project activities not exceed the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission public such as changes to drainage, air emissions, nuisance factors dose limit for radiation of 1 millisievert per year. This means such as noise, and traffic. In all instances, there were no project that the Project will not result in any increased risk of radiation activities or outcomes that would result in a residual effect to exposure. Similarly, the results also showed that there were no fish and wildlife, so species of importance to traditional land and exposures to non-radiological contaminants that would exceed resources use will not be affected. benchmarks to protect human health. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories also heard that there are several Effects to fish and wildlife were also identified as important as plant species that are important to the community, and it relates to traditional land and resources use. The assessment (Continued on Page 12)

11 Engagement Report Update Canadian Nuclear Laboratories – WR-1 In Situ Decommissioning Project

(Continued from page 11) The Site’s Long-Term Future harvested in the Whiteshell area, including wild rice, calamus The Project itself will remain under institutional control as root, Labrador tea, wild ginger and waterlily root. Because many as 300 years or more. CNL is currently developing of the access restrictions on site, none of these species are appropriate criteria for site remediation and clean-up activities harvested in proximity to the Project, although CNL will on the WL site. The Project will result in a small area of safe, consider this information as it undertakes monitoring into but restricted use. The majority of the site is not impacted the future. Berries were included as part of the ecological and and will be safe and appropriate for other uses. It is expected human health risk assessment, and their consumption, when that all activities and land uses, including traditional land uses, combined with other activities such as harvesting, did not adjacent to the site will be able to continue into the future, as result in any adverse effects to health. the Project will have no effect on land tenure or usage beyond When all of the potential pathways from the Project to the site boundaries. The future uses/zoning of the site itself traditional land and resources use were considered, such as have not been determined, and some long term institutional changes to water quality, to fish, to wildlife, to vegetation, or controls (e.g., signage, fencing, restrictions on land title) for a to human health, there were no potential measurable effects small portion of the WL site will be required. identified. The fact that the WL has had restricted access over the last six decades, has also meant that no traditional land and resources have occurred in proximity to the Project, Process Forward and although it is evident that activities have persisted in the Opportunities for Whiteshell area, the Winnipeg River and downstream to Lake Winnipeg. It is anticipated that the Project will not prevent Continued Involvement continued use of these areas to continue well into the future. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has filed the Environmental Impact Statement with the CNSC, which is now available for public review and available at www.cnl.ca/wr-1-eis. Sagkeeng First Nation has received participant funding to review the environmental impact statement. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is committed to ongoing engagement with the public, First Nations, and the Manitoba Metis Federation, and would welcome the opportunity to share more information with the community directly.

For more information, please contact: Mitch MacKay email: [email protected] Phone: 204-753-2311 ext. 63006

WWW.CNL.CA

12