Citing for co-operation ,\ Report of the Siting Process Task Force" vpn Low-Level Radioactive0 Waste.Disposal Opting for co-operation Report of the Siting Process Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal SITING PROCESS GROUPE DE TRAVAIL : TASK FORCE PROCESSUS DE LOCALISATION low level radioactive waste disposal elimination des dechets falblement radloactlfs The Honourable Gerald S. Merrithew, P.C., M.P. Minister of State (Forestry & Mines) Ottawa Dear Sir: On December 11, 1986, you requested that we investigate and report on the most promising strategy for siting a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in the Province of Ontario. In accordance with our mandate, we the undersigned members of this Siting Process Task Force are pleased to submit our report for your consideration. Our investigation covered many issues. Some were directly relevant to the design of a less confrontational siting process. Others, while not directly relat"a to process design, nonetheless constituted important issues which have contributed significantly to the ill-will that historically has hindered waste management facility siting initiatives. We were convinced that for the complexity of the radioactive waste management question to be fully appreciated, these side issues also needed to be discussed. 538-580 BOOTH, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, K1A 0E4 (613)995-8607/995-3866 - 2 - We thank you for having given us this opportunity, and trust that our findings will support your efforts to bring a new, more co-operative spirit to the site selection process. Yours respectfully, James D. McTaggart-Cowan Co-ordinator Audrey N. Armour Marilyn E. McHolm Michael J.jchamberlain Arthur Porter Gerard G. Gervais Paul H. Rennick Table of contents Siting Process Task Force mandate ix Executive summary XI Chapter one: Introduction 1.1 The historical context l 1.2 Task Force activities 3 The findings Chapter two: The nature of radioactivity and radiation 2.1 Radioactivity 7 2.2 Radiation 8 Chapter three: Low-level radioactive waste 13 3.1 Waste production 13 3.2 Present classification of wastes 13 3.3 An alternative approach to the classification of wastes 14 3.4 Inventory of waste quantities 16 3.5 Conclusions and recommendations 22 Chapter four Low-level radioactive waste management 23 4.1 Responsible management 23 4.2 Waste management concepts 25 4.3 Technical options for a waste management facility 27 4.4 The need for improved management 34 4.5 The need to reassess management options 38 4.6 Cost considerations 39 4.7 Conclusions and recommendations 43 Chapter five: Facility siting 45 5.1 Siting conflicts 45 5.2 Current approaches to facility siting 45 5.3 The "soft" issues 47 5.4 Conclusions and recommendations 50 Chapter six: Regulatory issues S3 6.1 The Atomic Energy Control Board and its role 53 6.2 Standards setting 53 6.3 Conclusions and recommendation 54 A co-operative siting process Chapter seven: Key features of the process 57 7.1 Principles 57 7.2 Safeguards 59 7.3 Impact management 61 7.4 Potential impacts on a volunteer community 63 7.5 Potential impacts on communities with existing wastes 65 7.6 Impacts on communities along transportation routes 66 7.7 Impact management strategy development 67 7.8 Organizational framework for implementation of the Process 6 7 7.9 Conclusions and recommendations 68 Chapter eight: Process description 69 8.1 Phase one: Establishing guidelines 70 8.2 Phase two: Regional information sessions 72 8.3 Phase three: Community information and consultation 75 8.4 Phase four: Project assessment 77 8.5 Phase five: implementation 80 8.6 Timing 83 8.7 implications of the Process and prerequisites for its implementation 83 8.8 Conclusions and recommendations 86 A final word 87 Appendices A Prime Minister's letter to Port Hope area residents 93 B Low-level radioactive waste policy 97 C 1 Honourable Allan Lawrence's October 10, 1986 Port Hope announcement of the redirection of low-level waste disposal process 107 2 Honourable Gerald S. Merrithew's December 11, 1986 announcement of an independent Task Force 109 D Radiation, radioactivity and health 119 E Glossary of terms 127 F Task Force letter to DOE, MOE, NH&W, and AECB 133 G Response to Task Force letter 143 H Assumptions for the determination of transport cost estimates to move the low-level radioactive wastes out of the Port Hope area 167 I References identified by numbers in text 173 J Bibliography 177 List of figures Figure A Consultative site selection process xiv Figure 1 Port Hope area low-level radioactive waste sites 2 Figure 2 The electromagnetic energy spectrum 9 Figure 3 Ontario low-level radioactive waste accumulations 17 Figure 4 Current annual production of low-level radioactive 19 waste in Ontario Figure 5 Class 0 wastes in Ontario 21 Figure 6 LLRW resulting from nuclear energy and radioisotopes 21 Figure 7 Port Hope area low-level radioactive wastes 21 Figure 8 Illustration of an above-ground vault (Acres 28 International limited, 1987) Figure 9 Illustration of a shallow land burial facility 29 (engineered trench) (Acres International Limited, 1987) Figure 10 Illustration of a below-ground vault after closure 30 (Acres International Limited, 1987) Figure 11 Illustration of a modular concrete canister disposal 31 facility and canister (Acres International Limited, 1987) Figure 12 Illustration ofanaugered hole low-level waste 31 disposal facility (Acres International Limited, 1987) Figure 13 Illustration of a conceptual mined cavern disposal 33 facility (Acres International Limited, 1987) Figure 14 Traditional facility siting process 46 Figure 15 Impact management strategy development 6 7 Figure 16 Consultative siting process 69 Figure 17 Phase one - Establishing guidelines 71 Figure 18 Phase two - Regional information sessions 73 Figure 19 Phase three - Community information and 75 consultation Figure 20 Phase four - Project assessment 78 Figure 21 Phase five - Implementation 81 List of tables Table 1 An alternative approach to the classification of low-level 15 radioactive wastes Table 2 Summary of waste quantities 18 Table 3 Classification of Ontario's low-level radioactive waste 20 (1985). Table 4 A qualitative ranking of concepts for disposal of all 27 Ontario's low-level waste. Table 5 Waste management facility costs 40 Table 6 Comparison of transportation methods 42 Table 7 Summary of project costs 43 Table 8 General community profile check list 75 Table A Uranium and thorium radioactive decay series 122 Siting Process Task Force mandate The central focus of the Task Force's efforts was to • identify the existing policies, legislation and regu- be the development of a process for siting a disposal lations related to the management of low-level facility in Ontario for the existing, ongoing and radioactive wastes, and list the government agen- historic wastes in the Port Hope area, and where cies responsible. Comment on possible implica- advantageous, for the disposal of other existing and tions for or changes to the policies, legislation, or ongoing low-level wastes located in the province. regulations which may be necessary to assist in The main objective of the process was to be the facility siting; voluntary identification of one or more host commu- nities, each with a suitable disposal technology. • present a communications plan and the introduc- tory communications module which will allow for the implementation of the next stage of the recom- To carry out this responsibility, the Task Force mended process; and was to submit to the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) a report which would, at a minimum: • recommend an organizational structure, identify opportunities for public involvement, and suggest • describe and analyze the processes which have responsibilities for design and construction in later been used to site controversial facilities in other phases of the siting process. jurisdictions nationally and internationally-, • describe a recommended process for this project in order to understand the nature of the problem, and explain how it is intended to meet the overall the Task Force, by reviewing existing information objective; and augmenting it as necessary, was to: • define what is meant by a host community, iden- • identify the nature and quantities of wastes in tify techniques which can be used to measure the the Port Hope area and other sources of wastes in level of acceptance by the public of such a propo- the province; sal in a community, and recommend the criteria to • identify the most promising available technologies be applied to determine the degree of acceptance; for low-level radioactive waste disposal and indi- • address the economic framework for community cate constraints relative to each one; discussions, and identify costs, benefits and • for various geological settings within the prov- opportunities associated with facility siting. An ince, identify which of the above technologies are attempt was to be made to address the nature and quantification of appropriate levels of economic most suitable; offsets that might need to be associated with such • for each technology which can be used in Ontario, a facility; identify the associated economics, including esti- mates of the capital cost of construction and oper- • examine and comment on the possible constraints ation, as well as employment opportunities; and or implications on site selection such as popula- tion density, land use, and water resources; • for each region of the province, identify the cost • examine and comment on the possible constraints of transporting wastes by whatever modes are reasonably available from the Port Hope area or implications of transportation to remote sites to a hypothetical disposal facility in that region. and the positive and negative consequences of In addition, analyze the health, safety and envi- more than one disposal facility in the province; ronmental risks for each transportation option. Executive summary Low-level radioactive wastes have been accumulat- Traditional Canadian practice assigns responsi- ing in Ontario for decades, and continue to do so.