South Bruce Nuclear Exploration Forum 2024

Click to view the Forum Agenda and Presentation Slides

3:00pm – Doors Open to Exhibitor Area

Location: Arena Floor

4:00pm – Kids Programming Begins 

Location: Upstairs Lounge

5:10pm – Program Begins

Location: Hall (all remaining agenda items take place in the Hall of the Mildmay Carrick Recreation Complex)

Master of Ceremonies Justin McKague – Community Liaison Committee member

Moderator Jim Gowland – Community Liaison Committee Chair

5:15pm – Welcome Remarks 

Mark Goetz – Mayor, Municipality of South Bruce

Luke Charbonneau – Deputy Warden, County of Bruce

Lisa Thompson – Member of Provincial Parliament, Huron—Bruce

Ben Lobb – Member of Parliament, Huron—Bruce

Laurie Swami – President and CEO, Nuclear Waste Management Organization

5:50pm – Panel: Safety put Simply

Panelists:

Mackenzie Tigwell – Nuclear Analyst, Calian Group (Presentation)

Mark Gobien – Manager, Safety Assessment Integration, Nuclear Waste Management Organization (Presentation)

Jessica Perritt – Manager, Indigenous Knowledge & Reconciliation, Nuclear Waste Management Organization

Gregory D Ferraro, P Eng – Lead Consultant and Peer Reviewer, GHD Limited (Presentation)

7:20pm – Panel: Let’s Talk Hosting Agreement and Guiding Principles

Presentation

Panelists:

Mark Goetz – Mayor, Municipality of South Bruce

Lise Morton – Vice President of Site Selection, Nuclear Waste Management Organization

Dave Rushton – Project Manager, Municipality of South Bruce

Jeff Marshall – Partnership Manager, Nuclear Waste Management Organization

8:30pm – Closing Remarks

9:00pm – Event Ends 

Like many other countries with nuclear power programs, Canada is planning for the future – beyond today's interim storage. The public said clearly during the NWMO study period 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. Canada's plan for safely managing used nuclear fuel over the very long term was designed and recommended on that basis.

Canada's approach is consistent with best practice around the world. Almost all countries with commercial nuclear power production are planning to isolate the waste byproduct of their nuclear fuel cycle in a deep geological repository.

What would be your procedure if, once you started drilling you came across an unexpected rock consistency or kind of rock? Or any other unexpected event that can’t be ignored?

That said it is possible that there will be some localized conditions that will be discovered at the site during more detailed site characterization or construction of the DGR. These conditions will be studied and if necessary the DGR design will be revised. Any changes to the DGR design will be assessed as a part of the safety assessment.

It should also be noted that the DGR will be subject to a rigorous licensing and approvals process in which any unexpected conditions, planned mitigations, and supporting safety analysis will be carefully reviewed by regulators such as the CNSC.   

How many fuel bundles will be accommodated in a cavity for the Teeswater location under safe conditions? According to the Conceptual Design in 2021 – Why is there a 10% allowance necessary in each cavity to account for possible groundwater? Is the container used in Finland and Sweden different in design as well as the actual spent fuel?

Each placement room is expected to store around 340 containers or approximately 16,000 fuel bundles. In the current conceptual design, each placement room is sized to be 10% longer than would be required to store this amount of fuel. This additional space is considered in case any unexpected conditions are discovered during detailed site characterization or construction or if the configuration of the placement rooms needs to be revised for any reason.

As for Finland and Sweden, both the fuel and container are different. Both Finland and Sweden use larger fuel assembles for light water reactors whereas smaller fuel bundles are used for CANDU reactors in Canada. Consequently, the containers in Finland and Sweden are much larger but the overall concept is similar with all containers being made from steel and copper. 

The safety and appropriateness of any potential site is assessed against a number of factors, both technical and social in nature. The process is community-driven. It is designed to ensure, above all, that the site selected is safe and secure and has an informed and willing host. The process must meet the highest scientific, professional and ethical standards. 

By design, the DGR and its multiple barrier system will safety contain and isolate the used nuclear fuel from the surface environment (including the great lakes), ensuring people and the environment are protected. 

• Environmental impacts from release of surface water, dust and noise
• Radiation exposure
• Construction and operation phase traffic including hauling of used nuclear fuel
• Emergency response capability and capacity

In all cases it was identified further assessment of the potential and appropriative mitigative measures is required as the site specific design is developed and advanced.

Environmental - The mitigative measures currently identified for the current conceptual design model (generic site) are considered reasonable and implementable. To determine the potential for environmental impacts at the South Bruce site, the change effects and assessment study will need further work to develop mitigative measures that are directly applicable to the site specific design as it is developed.

Radiological - For the radiation exposure, the current modelling of radiation levels have shown no increase to municipal and environmental receptors and are well below the standards on the surface and immediately adjacent to the DGR facility. The modeling will need to be updated as the site specific design is advanced. The current conceptual design plan has proposed mitigation measures that are best practice in the industry.  This includes designing the facility with appropriate barriers, controlled air flow patterns, filtration of the exhaust air, fuel handling systems, dry decontamination and cleanup methods, process water treatment and monitoring, and ongoing monitoring systems with shutdown capability.

Transportation – The nature and volume of project related traffic and corresponding impacts have been identified, studied and modelled. The need for road improvements, dedicated haul routes and traffic control plans are being identified and developed.

Emergency Response - The emergency response study showed the need to build additional capability and capacity at the municipal level in response to potential radiological exposure and construction injury concerns.  As the site-specific design and plan is not yet in place, further work is required to determine what emergency response capabilities will be provided by the facility and what will need to be implemented in the Municipality. Critical that equipment, human resources and training be updated for municipalities to handle Project-based emergencies for events potentially involving radioactivity.

Mitigation of emergency risks will include site-specific facility and transportation emergency plans and procedures meeting stringent regulatory requirements; implementation of on-site services such as an emergency response team and/or mine rescue team, emergency response training of facility staff, federal and municipal emergency response planning, and provision of training and/or resources to municipal emergency response service organizations (for example, a memorandum of understanding with local hospitals and fire departments).

To Summarize: The Peer Review Team is supportive of NWMO’s conclusion that DGR could be safely constructed with natural barriers in place based on information presented in Confidence in Safety Report. Current conceptual design indicates radiological risk to community is low to negligible. Radon doses must be determined, and monitoring will be required where workers may be exposed to radon. Facility boundary monitors should be in place to respond to community concerns. Individual results from each study should be considered in integration with each other to develop holistic view of potential impacts. The Peer Review Team is aligned with the NWMO’s built confidence in safety to move towards the next phase of design, study and impact assessment.

NWMO: The recreational opportunities at the DGR will depend on what the regulators allow the NWMO to do with the surface area.  Other factors include agricultural and environmental considerations.  After the regulatory phase the NWMO will work with the Municipality to determine what, if any, recreational facilities can be go on the DGR lands keeping in mind that a trail system and a canoe/kayak launch were both mentioned as possibilities in Memorandum of Understanding.

South Bruce: One example of a recreational opportunity that addresses Guiding Principle #6 is the opportunity for kayak and canoe launches on the Teeswater River at the points where it crosses Sideroad 25 North.

The Centre of Expertise will host a Visitor Centre. It will feature local history, culture and tourism displays; a multi-purpose community space; scientific information on the DGR; and agricultural science. It will also include space for education and skills training.

NWMO: The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act establishes a mandate for the NWMO to manage Canada’s used nuclear fuel. Adaptive Phased Management was developed collaboratively with Canadians to meet this mandate. The plan was recommended by the NWMO and approved by the Government of Canada on this basis. In addition, the Hosting Agreement between NWMO and South Bruce clearly states in Section 2.4.2 “NWMO shall not emplace in the DGR or otherwise store or process at the Facility: … (b) any nuclear waste originating from outside of Canada.”

NWMO: The Hosting Agreement mentions road infrastructure specifically because there will be road upgrades needed to support the project itself.  The NWMO will pay for municipal infrastructure upgrades that are directly related to the project.

The Hosting Agreement allows for funding to the Municipality for their infrastructure projects.  What those projects will be is up to the Municipality of South Bruce's elected council. The Municipality is in the best position to determine the needs and priorities of the community, and the NWMO is providing funding to help support those projects.

South Bruce: The Hosting Agreement has various streams of funding, one of which is Community Services.  If the community indicates to Council that programs like daycare are important - which was actually supported and expressed in studies - then Council can choose to support it.

NWMO: NWMO has already published a Confidence in Safety report for each of the two potential sites under consideration to host a deep geological repository. These reports are based on years of research and fieldwork. After a site is selected, the regulatory decision-making process will begin. This rigorous process includes an impact assessment, the requirements of which are set out in the Impact Assessment Act. It involves a detailed analysis of the project’s contributions to sustainability and environmental, socio-economic and health impacts, as well as impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

South Bruce: As per legislation, a binding referendum result is in effect for 4 years, this period was chosen to put a limit on how long South Bruce would wait for a decision.