Financial guarantee for decommissioning of the Chalk River Laboratories

Submission from Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County (CCRC)

In the Matter of a financial guarantee for decommissioning of the Chalk River Laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.

Public Hearing Day Two
May 20, 2005

Submitted May 6, 2005

Summary
1. For over a decade Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County (CCRC) has intervened in numerous public hearings on matters related to AECL's Chalk River Laboratories (CRL). CCRC has identified significant weaknesses in the current Comprehensive Preliminary Decommissioning Plan for CRL. In our view the Plan fails to provide an acceptable costing basis for determining the adequacy of a financial guarantee for decommissioning activities at the Chalk River site.

2. A notable deficiency of the Plan is its failure to provide options for managing decommissioning wastes, including high-level fuel wastes. By over-emphasizing underground disposal options, it gives inadequate consideration to activities such as remediation of waste sites and above-ground storage.

3. The Plan proposes disposal in a "Shallow Rock Cavity". The social and environmental acceptability of such a facility is highly questionable. This disposal option would likely fail to meet a goal of long-term stabilization, containment, and isolation; and would risk exposing future generations to harmful levels of radioactive contaminants, or other toxic substances (such as heavy metals).

4. The Plan does not set positive environmental goals or objectives, and fails to consider potential long-term negative environmental consequences of the proposed disposal facilities. It does not adequately link decommissioning priorities to environmental hazards on the Chalk River site. This would be facilitated by bringing in information from the Ecological Effects Review. The Plan thereby does not provide an acceptable basis for environmental assessment, which is obligatory because decommissioning activities would involve federal funding, on federal lands, under a federal regulatory regime.

Public Consultation is a Federal Government Responsibility
5. The proposed financial guarantee for the site states that liabilities are ultimately the responsibility of the federal government, not the licensee. We note that decommissioning liabilities on the Chalk River site pre-date AECL's existence as a crown corporation. Given the major investment of public funds anticipated for CRL decommissioning, and the uncertainty regarding key issues such the acceptability of and funding for potential "support and enabling facilities" such as the proposed "Shallow Rock Cavity", CCRC strongly feels that a locally-oriented communications and public consultation strategy is unacceptable.

6. We believe that it is necessary for public consultations to be done through a federally-managed process, namely a Panel Review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. While we support the notion of periodic review and monitoring of progress on decommissioning, we strongly feel that there is a immediate need and an opportunity for a publicly-funded and publicly-run process that can study options and environmental impacts related to a long-
term decommissioning plan.

7. In the absence of such a transparent process, we believe that option of long-term, monitored, retrievable above-ground waste storage will not receive fair consideration. The failure to consider this option, which we believe has merits from an environmental and social perspective, could result in significant, negative long-term economic and environmental costs.

8. As a small local public interest group, we recognize that we lack the resources to represent the broader public interest in this matter. We are therefore actively pursuing the establishment of a coalition of public interest groups to represent a better point of contact for the federally-managed process that we believe is needed to address the environmental, social, and economic acceptability of plans to decommission the Chalk River site.

Environmental Protection Should Be Given Priority
9. Waste management is the biggest single element in the cost of dealing with nuclear liabilities. Radioactive waste is an inevitable result of decommissioning activities. Even if all production and research activities at the Chalk River Laboratories were to cease today, the wastes arising from decommissioning activities would require on-going management for over 100 years.

10. While protection of health, safety, security and the environment are noted as "considerations" in the current version of the decommissioning plan (section 1.1.2, page 3), the document lacks overall goals and objectives in this area. It merely states that

the existing infrastructure provided through nuclear materials and waste
management, and nuclear site infrastructure and capability focuses on the protection of health, safety, and the environment.

While we acknowledge that there are important efforts under way at CRL to upgrade waste management practices and site infrastructure, the sum of these efforts cannot be considered as the basis for a comprehensive decommissioning plan. Health, safety and environmental protection are not just "considerations" that can be addressed by ongoing operations.

11. The section of the Plan entitled "Potential Impact on the Environment" (beginning on page 23) is inadequate. It states:

"Decommissioning of structures and features on the CRL site will have little negative impact on the natural environment, especially beyond the perimeter of the Supervised Area."

This assertion is unsupported by any evidence. In fact, some options proposed in the Plan, such as waste incineration, or underground disposal in a Shallow Rock Cavity, could result in serious negative environmental impacts.

12. Section 6.5 of the Plan, entitled "Other plumes", also minimizes the potential for negative environmental impacts and public concern associated with radioactive contamination on the Chalk River site. It describes four plumes originating from the active area, which is immediately adjacent to the Ottawa River. Only one of these plumes that from the NRX fuel bays has been previously mentioned, to our knowledge. It triggered considerable concern when it was first described several years ago, as it directly intersects the river for several hundred meters. Now, for the first time, three additional plumes are mentioned two originating from the NRU, and one originating from Tank 240.

13. One would hope that AECL would take a proactive approach to addressing these plumes particularly given that two of them are from an active, operating reactor. But the Plan merely states

In general, the strategy for the plumes will be continued monitoring and
assessment of the need for capture, although based on current information no provision is seen as necessary for capture and treatment. The purpose of continued monitoring is intended to be confirmatory in nature providing data showing that the plumes are evolving as expected and that impacts are acceptable.

This paragraph raises several questions:
Is current information adequate?
Does the existing monitoring regime address aquatic biota immediately adjacent to the active area (such as freshwater mussels)?
What is meant by "evolving as expected"?
Who determines what "impacts are acceptable" and how is this determination made?

14. The preparation of a site decommissioning plan provides a unique opportunity to take a comprehensive, longer-term look at the Chalk River site. Properly done, it should describe an approach that progressively reduces hazards, with an overarching objective to protect the environment and to ensure the safety of workers and the public. Unfortunately, the current Plan falls short.

Flaws in the "Strategic Approach" to Low-level Wastes
15. AECL's proposed decommissioning plan relies on a structure- and facility-oriented approach that results in inadequate attention to waste management processes and activities. Ongoing activities at CRL continue to generate wastes, yet the assumption is that these wastes can simply be buried in the waste management areas (WMAs) many of which are leaching radionuclides in an uncontrolled fashion. Each WMA, in turn, is treated as just another "facility" that may or may not - eventually be cleaned up.

16. In our view, the acceptability of the overall "strategic approach" for the WMAs in the Plan is in doubt. This approach envisions three phases achievement of a "sustainable safe Passive Operational State (POS)," followed by "storage with surveillance", and "establishment of final end-state," in which most of the low level waste is expected to be "managed in-situ." We find it difficult to believe that "managed in-situ" could be considered as an acceptable "final end-state". Surely the goal of a decommissioning process must be to bring the site to a state where active management is no longer required. Two flaws we have identified in this "strategic approach" are that

transport of radiological substances may be minimized for some shorter period, but fail to meet a goal of long-term stabilization, containment, and isolation; and
leaving the wastes in-situ with uncontrolled access would potentially expose future generations to harmful levels of radioactive contaminants, or other toxic substances (such as heavy metals).

17. A cynic might argue that there really is only one phase in this "strategic approach" carrying on with present practices, trying to convince the regulatory agencies that this is acceptable, and letting future generations deal with the contamination from the WMAs, if they so choose. A more charitable view would cite the discussion of possible "mitigating actions" that could be used to achieve a "sustainable safe Passive Operational State" (p. 41):

A portion of the characterization effort now underway is aimed at identifying priorities for remedial action. These mitigating actions may include a range of technologies in addition to 'Wall and Curtain' and 'Pump and Treat', including caps and covers, soil washing or removal of some of the more of the contaminated source materials.

The Plan should provide details on which WMAs are viewed as candidates for these mitigating actions, and the most promising actions to be taken. There will clearly be a need to transfer some wastes from WMAs to surface facilities, and cost estimates for such surface facilities should be developed prior to acceptance of any financial guarantee for decommissioning.

18. We note as well that the Plan defines a POS (page 40) as one in which:

o the radiological and industrial hazards are reduced to a pre-defined acceptable level;
o transport or migration of radiological and non-radiological substances across the boundary of the WMA are minimized and stable within pre-defined limits;
o access to the facility is controlled; and
o the state of the facility is documented, with particular attention being paid to the radiological and industrial hazards.

In our view, the first two points of this "definition" raise more questions than they answer: "What is meant by a "pre-defined acceptable level?" "Who defines acceptability?" What is meant by "stable within pre-defined limits"? We believe that these questions must be addressed in a transparent fashion, with independent scientific input and public review.

19. A large number of processes are involved in waste management consolidation, storage, within-site transportation, solidification, etc. The decommissioning plan would benefit from giving greater attention to these processes, some of which are key to reducing hazards (e.g., solidification of liquid wastes). Unfortunately, the plan focuses almost exclusively on "disposal" as a desired but often distant end-point for waste management activities.

20. Consider, for example, the section on page 33 dealing with "Waste Arisings & Disposition" from contaminated structures at CRL. It states that

Decommissioning of Listed Nuclear Facilities will generate significant volumes of diverse materials as LLRW with radiological contamination alpha, beta/gamma and activation products The LLRW from facilities that will be decommissioned will be stored in the appropriate WMAs on the CRL site until such time as disposal facilities become available. The current planning assumption is that no large scale or national repositories for LLRW will be available until 2025.

This reliance on continuing use of the WMAs, and eventual waste burial in a "disposal facility", is disturbing. A much higher priority needs to be given to monitored, above-ground retrievable storage facilities at CRL. We strongly support the construction of above-ground facilities for long-term storage for low and intermediate-level wastes. As noted on page E-20, "These facilities may comprise Modular Above Ground Storage (MAGS) and/or Shielded Modular Above Ground Storage (SMAGS)." We would like to see greater detail in the Plan on these facilities, including timetables for implementation and costing estimates.

21. Above-ground monitored retrievable storage has a much higher social acceptability that the current practice of below-ground non-retrievable storage, and is likely to result in greater levels of environmental protection. We are very disappointed that the "MAGS" and SMAGS" facilities are not even featured in Figure E-3, the "Operating Plan for Decommissioning of the CRL Site showing Major Activities and Enabling Facilities." Instead, this Figure shows planning for permanent disposal in a Shallow Rock Cavity (SRC) and Intrusion Resistant Underground Structure as beginning in the current year, 2005. We are aware that planning for IRUS has been ongoing for many years, but the SRC concept has not previously been made public.

Inadequate Consideration of High-level Wastes
22. The Plan's reliance on eventual disposal facilities may account for the relative lack of attention given to high-level and long-lived wastes. While containment of fission products such as Sr-90 and Cs-137 has been and continues to be a very important concern of our group, we also recognize that there are large quantities of long-lived alpha emitters at the Chalk River site. These will pose the greatest risks over the long run.

23. While alpha emitters are relative immobile, and may be confined to "relatively small areas" for periods of decades or centuries, they remain a very significant source of radiological hazard and cannot be ignored on this basis. They are unlikely to remain confined for the longer geological time scales during which they remain hazardous, and this must be taken into account in decommissioning planning. It is very unlikely that society would accept any plan that would involve "disposing" of long-lived wastes in shallow burial sites where they could be mobilized over longer time scales, or result in harmful exposure to future generations not aware of their presence.

24. There are large amounts of high-level wastes at the Chalk River site. These include fuel wastes, high-level liquid wastes resulting from early plutonium production activities, the Mo-99 production wastes, reactor components, etc. The Plan is weak in terms of characterizing these wastes in terms of volumes and activities information that is essential for planning enabling and support facilities. Furthermore, there appears to be a policy void in terms of guidance for addressing these waste types.

25. With regard to high-level fuel wastes, the Plan states (p. 6):

At this point in time, it has not yet been determined if the recommendations of the NWMO for the management of used nuclear fuel will be (i) centralized disposal, (ii) centralized storage, (iii) on-site storage, or (iv) a combination of strategies. The nature of the recommendation and the response of the government, particularly in terms implementation schedule, will impact on the duration, nature, and cost of the CRL decommissioning program. Delays in establishing a disposal facility, the requirement for long-term storage facilities, re-locating wastes, etc. are some of the factors that could affect the costs. AECL continues to work with the NWMO to try and reduce the uncertainties of this issue.

If, for example, extensive processing, packaging, and immobilization programs are required to qualify AECL's highly varied and non CANDU-type waste types to be accepted into a used fuel repository, then major facilities will be required at a significant expense. These same concerns are not generally applicable to those waste generators with primarily CANDU fuel.

Elsewhere (p. E-18), the Plan states

AECL CANDU fuel, and research fuels with very similar characteristics to CANDU fuel will be conditioned and packaged (potentially resized) to meet NWMO waste acceptance criteria. Other research fuels may need to have a variety of physical or chemical processes applied to them in order to be qualified for acceptance into the NWMO long-term management facility.

26. AECL's "highly varied" wastes are currently stored in tile holes in Waste Management Area B. Water has entered some of the tile holes, and those with fuel wastes are the subject of a remediation program (Table D-1, p. D-9). A longer-term strategy for dealing with these highly-varied, high-level fuel wastes is clearly an urgent priority. This is a major gap in the Plan.

27. Public safety and environmental protection considerations must take precedence in developing a high-level fuel waste strategy for CRL, while noting that this will also be an extremely important costing consideration. The NWMO's recommendations on fuel waste management will have a general bearing on the Plan, but the specifics of how to address the unique features of the Chalk River high-level wastes must be addressed by AECL, not by the NWMO.

28. The uncertainty regarding future decisions to be taken by the NWMO is not an excuse for inaction or delay. As mentioned in our submission last fall, our group raised the issue of AECL's fuel wastes when the Seaborn Panel considered issues related to management of Canada's high-level wastes. We argued that AECL's wastes were within the scope of the Panel's mandate, but a decision was made to exclude them. We now fear that AECL may be using "uncertainty" as a reason for not addressing fuel wastes in the Plan.

29. The need for prompt action is emphasized by Figure E-3(D) on page E-12, which indicates that a national spent fuel repository would not be in service until 2055, at the earliest. The Plan should provide a medium-term (~100-year) strategy for monitored, retrievable, above-ground storage of high-level fuel wastes. More generally, it should describe current and anticipated future volumes and activities of high-level wastes at the Chalk River Laboratories, the special challenges that they pose for storage, and how these challenges will be addressed.

Elements Missing from the Decommissioning Plan
Infrastructure
30. The reactor stacks and air ducts leading to them that are currently in use are missing from the lists of infrastructure for future decommissioning. These represent major elements of the infrastructure at Chalk River Laboratories, and are likely to have significant levels of radioactive contamination.

Chemical hazards
31. Analysis fails to consider heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, some of which (e.g., PCBs) are persistent and tend to bio-accumulate. In some cases, these toxic organic compounds are also contaminated with radionuclides, which further complicates the decommissioning process. These chemical hazards are not addressed in any detail in the Plan.

32. For example, the Plan has a very short section (p. E-22) on mercury removal. It states that "Some wastes contain hazardous components other than radioactivity, such as mercury, that may be more easily managed if separated from the waste." Additional details on the extent of this problem, and options for and costs of separation, should be provided.

Actual Cost Estimates Must Include Alternative Approaches
33. There is a heavy reliance in the Plan on "cost and waste" models. It appears that these models are mainly applicable to buildings and infrastructure on the site, and do not apply to the WMAs or affected lands. As is made clear by the 2005 March 18 letter from G.V. Sotirov of CNSC to W.G. Martin of AECL, there is at present no estimate for the costs of major support and enabling facilities that would be essential to carry out the decommissioning activities described in the Plan. Nor has AECL provided a "range of decommissioning costs" that might be associated with alternative strategies.

34. These major uncertainties about overall costs of different decommissioning activities, combined with uncertainties concerning the environmental and social acceptability of the decommissioning plan, makes any determination of the adequacy of the financial guarantee highly premature. The various generic "cost and waste models" referred to in the document should be used to generate actual cost estimates and cost ranges.

35. The gap in the Plan regarding costing of support and enabling facilities must be filled. This should include costing of long-term, monitored, retrievable, above-ground storage facilities such as the "MAGS" and "SMAGS" options mentioned in the Plan.

CCRC Home Page