File: 2.05

e-Doc: 4466613

July 2014

Update to DGR PMD 13-P1.3, Addendum C – Summary of Crown Consultation Activities

This document provides an update with respect to the Crown consultation activities undertaken to date by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC staff or Commission) since the JRP hearings were held in fall 2013. It also includes a summary of the Aboriginal groups’ concerns expressed during the fall 2013 JRP hearings.

Aboriginal Groups’ Concerns Expressed during the fall 2013 JRP Hearings

Representatives from the following Aboriginal groups provided submissions and participated in the fall 2013 JRP hearings on the proposal to construct a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) at the Bruce nuclear site:

  • Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON)
  • Historic Saugeen Métis (HSM)
  • Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO)
  • United Chiefs and Council of Mnidoo Mnising (represents six Manitoulin Island First Nations) (UCCM)

These Aboriginal groups expressed several concerns with the proposed DGR Project to the JRP, including:

  • potential use of the DGR to store used fuel
  • proximity and risk of contamination of lands, waters and fisheries
  • inadequate analysis of potential stigma effects
  • transportation of nuclear wastes
  • change in the scope of the project (potential inclusion of waste from Pickering)
  • incomplete waste inventory
  • undefined Geoscientific Verification Plan
  • insufficient alternative means assessment
  • the potential for the Project to impact their interests, way of life and in particular, change the relationship of their people to their land

Update on Crown Consultation Activities

Since the fall 2013 hearings, CNSC staff have continued to provide updates to all interested Aboriginal groups at key points in the review process, including notice of additional hearing dates. Furthermore, CNSC staff made themselves available to answer any questions and if requested, provide further information.

SON

CNSC staff have continued consultation activities with the SON since the completion of the fall 2013 hearings, including a meeting on February 27, 2014, in Toronto to discuss next steps in the DGR Project review process.

During the meeting, CNSC staff explained how JRP recommendations, conditions within the Minister’s Environmental Assessment (EA) Decision Statement, and the list of commitments in OPG’s commitments report could become licence conditions. The SON expressed that they would like OPG’s commitment to the SON in the August 7, 2013 Mitchell letter to become a licence condition. CNSC staff noted that OPG’s letter could be recognized as part of a licence condition if OPG includes the commitment in the commitments report provided to the Panel. Since the meeting, OPG has confirmed it will include the commitment in the August 7, 2013 Mitchell letter in the draft list of commitments that OPG plans to submit to the JRP. This information was provided to the SON as an update to the February 2014 meeting.

In addition, CNSC staff are working with the SON to organize a meeting to discuss broader and site-wide issues, regarding the Bruce nuclear site, prior to the additional 2014 JRP hearings.

An update on the other issues discussed during the February 2014 meeting was provided both orally and via email (CEAR 1815) to the Panel Secretariat for the JRP’s information and consideration.

HSM

CNSC staff continued to provide updates to the HSM on the key developments in the DGR review process since the completion of the fall 2013 hearings. Although CNSC staff have not met with the HSM to discuss the DGR Project, a meeting was held in May 2014 to provide updates to the Aboriginal group regarding other CNSC-licensed activities at the Bruce nuclear site. No specific concerns regarding the DGR Project were raised during this meeting.

MNO

During their intervention at the fall 2013 hearings, the MNO raised concerns with respect to the lack of their involvement in the selection, and the appropriateness, of the Aboriginal Interests Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). Furthermore, the MNO indicated that they had provided a complete traditional land use study, but noted that this had not been incorporated or used to reach the conclusions in the EIS.

In December 2013, CNSC staff contacted the MNO to discuss these two matters. MNO was informed that their proposed list of VECs, provided in one of their submissions for the fall 2013 hearings, had been reviewed by CNSC staff during hearing preparations. As was indicated during the hearings, CNSC staff determined from their review that the VECs chosen by OPG could be considered adequate representatives of the proposed MNO VECs

Although the traditional land use study that was referenced during the fall 2013 hearings was submitted to the JRP, CNSC staff did not have the opportunity to review the study, as it was sent in confidentiality. CNSC staff inquired whether the MNO had the intention of sharing the study as its information could be useful to ensure that Métis land use is captured within the monitoring requirements of the EA Follow-up Program. Moving forward, it was proposed by CNSC staff that should the MNO believe the information in the traditional land use study to be of value for CNSC staff to design the EA Follow-up Program, then MNO and CNSC staff would discuss the best way to transmit the information. To date, CNSC staff have not received a response from the MNO regarding this proposal.

UCCM

In February 2014, CNSC staff was requested to provide an update on the DGR Project and the review process to the elders’ council and the Lands and Resources Department of the UCCM. In response to this request, CNSC staff informed the UCCM of the status of the review process and in particular, the JRP’s issuance of further information requests to OPG, with responses expected from OPG by the beginning of April 2014. CNSC staff also provided the UCCM with information on the next steps in the review process and offered to further discuss, should that be helpful to the UCCM. To date, UCCM has not requested any additional information from CNSC staff.

1