yankovich iaea rsls(oct2011)-canada documents...canadian nuclear safety commission (cnsc) determined...
TRANSCRIPT
smart science solutions
Balancing Risk:Some Canadian Perspectives on
Remediation of Legacy Sites
T.L. Yankovich, Saskatchewan Research Council, CANA DA
smart science solutions
� JURISDICTION (i.e., provincial and federal)� REGULATORY AGENCY (e.g., Canadian
Nuclear Safety Commission, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, etc.)
� TOPIC (e.g., the environment, radiological contaminants, non-radiological contaminants, fisheries, etc.)
Some General Points:
In general, regulations in Canada are developed and enforced by:
smart science solutions
Key Regulatory Jurisdictions in Canada:
� Protection of the Environment in Canada falls under provincial jurisdiction (under the Canadian Constitution).
For Example:
smart science solutions
Key Regulatory Jurisdictions in Canada:Some Examples
� All aspects of operations and activities pertaining to radiological
substances are regulated at the federal level under the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
� This includes all nuclear facilities in Canada.
� In addition to being regulated federally, some facilities also fall
under provincial jurisdiction (e.g. Canadian CANDU facilities,
which are provincial Crown Corporations in most cases).
� By comparison, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a federal
Crown Corporation.
� The jurisdiction under which a given facility falls with respect to
non-radiological contaminants and other topics (e.g. fisheries)
will define the Regulatory Agencies with which the facility
interacts (i.e., to whom the facility reports).
� CNSC regulates the packaging and transport of nuclear
substances in Canada in cooperation with Transport Canada.
smart science solutions
The Breakdown:
The Provinces
Regulation in
Canada
� Covers all federal works and
undertakings (e.g., those that
are being undertaken in federal
facilities, such as Federal Crown
Corporations).
� Covers any activity that is
regulated at the federal level
(e.g., all nuclear facilities).
� Includes inter-provincial and
international trans-boundary
issues.
� With the exception of any work
and undertakings pertaining to
radiological substances, the
Province is responsible for all
work and undertakings in
provincial facilities.
The Federal House
smart science solutions
Each Regulation and Regulatory Instrument Falls under the Responsibility of a Specific Regulatory Body
The Federal
House
The
Provinces
Regulatory Level
Topic Federal House The Provinces (e.g. Ontario)
Radiological Substances
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
not applicable
Water Quality
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE)
Protection of
Fisheries
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
Protection of
Species at Risk
Environment Canada
OMNR
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
smart science solutions
Taking it a Step Further . . . . .
Therefore, there is a need to ensure
harmonization or coordination between
jurisdictions, which requires producing
guidance at the ‘right’ level of detail.
smart science solutions
These include:
� Regulations
� Standards
� Guidelines
� Codes of Practice
� Notices
� And Others.
There are a Number of Regulations and Regulatory Instruments that are Typically Applied Under Each Level
In Canada:
Canadian regulatory standards are not very prescriptive, allowing the licensee to develop and propose a variety of methods of demonstrating compliance for Regulatoryapproval.
smart science solutions
Critical to the Development of Regulations and Regulatory Criteria:
In Canada, the development of regulations and regulatory instruments must be done in a transparent, defensible and well-defined manner with Public and Stakeholder consultation.
AND . . . . .
smart science solutions
� Establishment of expert working groups.
� Organization of specialized workshops and Public
Stakeholders meetings.
� Invitations of the Public and Stakeholders to comment on
draft regulations and regulatory instruments.
� Peer review and public review.
� Publication of accessible fact sheets and reports
containing technical details supporting regulations and
regulatory instruments.
� Publication of schedules for review and finalization of
draft regulations and regulatory instruments in accessible
publications (e.g. the Canada Gazette, the Ontario
Gazette, the Manitoba Gazette, etc.).
� And other processes.
Examples of Process Transparency:
smart science solutions
The Challenge Lies in Balancing Scientific Understanding with the Need to Decide…
… where time-frame matters (!)
For example, if a protection goal is
demonstration of ‘successful’ site
remediation, it can take decades to
understand; however, risk management
and regulatory compliance typically
happens ‘now’ (and people living in an
area want it now).
WHERE . . . . .
‘Don’t keep studying it, just do it.’
smart science solutions
Decision-Making InputsTechnical Analysis
(e.g., physical,ecological,
socio-economic,other) Decision
Makingprioritizing
problems andactions, ensuring
effective implementation
EIAEIA
Public Involvement
Other Input(e.g., benefit-cost
analysis,political priorities)
Facts/ Values
smart science solutions
In Canada:
� Legacy sites can range from:
o Residential areas requiring remediation (such as in Port Hope, ON) to
o Operating nuclear sites (e.g., Chalk River Laboratories) to
o Abandoned uranium mine/mill sites (e.g., Gunnar and Lorado in northern Saskatchewan)
The question is, can guidance be developed to cover these diverse types of sites, given the
complexity even within a given type of site?
smart science solutions
Some Relevant Conceptsand Terminology:
Those sites for which there is no owner, or the owner cannot or will not finance the costs of remediation.
In general, orphaned or abandoned mines can be defined as:
Responsibility for such sites typically ends up with Government
(Provincial or Federal).
There are >10,000 such sites in Canada, including a number of
uranium mine/mill sites in Northern Saskatchewan.
Reference: Tremblay, 2005
smart science solutions
SRC is managing the Cleanup of the Gunnar, Lorado and 36 Satellite Mine Sites in Northern Saskatchewan on behalf of the Provincial and Federal Governments under Project CLEANS.
Remediation is scheduled for completion in 2015 with long-term monitoring to follow.
smart science solutions
Project Objectives:
1. Eliminate or reduce public safety hazards and environmental risks.
2. Develop options that are technically and economically feasible.
3. Establish a cost-effective environmental monitoring program and minimize long-term care and maintenance at the Site.
smart science solutions
Project Endpoints:
� Site does not pose environmental and public healthrisks.
� Flora and fauna adjacent to and within the site are notsignificantly impacted by contaminants.
� Traditional use of resources adjacent to and within thesite are safely conducted.
� The desire is to have the Site managed through theinstitutional controls program for long-term care andmaintenance.
My current focus is the remediationof the Gunnar Mine Site.
smart science solutions
Other Possible Remediation ‘Aspirations’:
� Environment is safe for humans and non-human biota;
� Long-term adverse effects are minimized;� Reclaimed landscape is stable and self-sustaining;
and,� Restrictions on future land use are minimized.
(from Pollock and Hiller, 2011)
smart science solutions
The History of Gunnar UraniumMine and Mill:
�Operated from 1953-1964�Average grade was 0.18%.� ~8.5 million tons of rock mined and processed�Open pit and underground mine.�Over 5 million tons of unconfined tailings� The pit and subsurface workings were flooded, shaft
plugged with concrete, and mine site abandoned�All buildings, tailings, and waste rock piles were left on site
“as is”.
smart science solutions
Key Aspects of the Gunnar Mine Site:Evaluation of Remediation Options through the Environmental Assessment (EA) Process
Dry Tailings
Buildings and Structures
Mine Pit
Waste Rock Piles
Wet Tailings
Under Licence Exemption until April 30, 2013.
smart science solutions
A Somewhat Simplistic View:
EnvironmentalAssessment
InstitutionalControl
SiteRemediation
Site Licensing(as dictated byrad inventories)
Monitoring and Follow-up
Adaptive Management
smart science solutions
� On July 23, 2010, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) determined that the potential risk to the Public associated with historical buildings on the Gunnar Mine Site should be dealt with outside the EA.
� The Order directed that eleven actions and measures be undertaken to secure the Gunnar Mine Site and ensure public safety.
Not All Sites are Comparable/‘Generic’ :Abatement and Demolition Outside the EA
smart science solutions
�Development of safe work plans, including:� Occupational Health and Safety Plan� Structural Safety Assessment� Hazardous Substances and Materials
Inventory� Demolition Plan� Waste Management Plan
�Establishment of barriers�Removal of overhead hazards�Abatement and demolition of non-
process buildings (e.g., wooden structures; asbestos abatement)
�Securing the site
Before
After
In the Short Term –Securing the Buildings and Structures on the Gunnar Site
smart science solutions
Practicalities: It’s Not Only About Rad
SRC’s Asbestos Expert
smart science solutions
In the Short-term, Mitigation of RiskDemolition of the Gunnar Head-frame:
smart science solutions
In the Long-term, Implementation of EA OutcomesBasic Remediation Alternatives:
� Mine Pit:�Leave as a water body or dewater?
� Tailings and Waste Rock:�Cover or relocate to mine pit?�Relocate ‘contaminated’ waste rock to
an engineered lined landfill and use “clean” waste rock as cover on tailings?
� Waste Disposal:�Dispose of in the mine
pit or an approved landfill?
smart science solutions
� Regardless of whether the mine pit is left as a water body or dewatered, water treatment will be required.
� Benchtop testing is, therefore, underway to test technologies that could be applied to remove uranium, radium-226 and other contaminants from pit and seepage water.
� Toxicity testing is also being done for pre- and post-treatment mine waters.
Gunnar Pit Options:
smart science solutions
Tailings Remediation:
� Covering of the tailings with clean local borrow material is being considered.
� Greenhouse and field testing of revegetationtechnologies at the Gunnar Mine Site using local borrow is underway.
smart science solutions
Waste Rock Options:
� Leave in place and cover.� Relocate into the dewatered pit.� Relocate into an engineering landfill.� Relocate on the tailings footprint.
smart science solutions
Waste Rock Issues:
�Horizontal and vertical heterogeneity.
�Infiltration of contaminants, including radionuclides and chemicals.
�Representation of waste rock contamination throughout the piles using surface radioactivity data.
�Logistics at a remote site.
smart science solutions
From IAEA (2005 ):IAEA, 2005. Plan of activities on the radiation protection of the environment. AP-24.08.2005.
Project/ActivityFeasibility Study
Statement of Intentby the Proponent
AbandonProject
Guidelines for EIA forRegulatory Authorities
Project/Activity SCOPING:Determine EIA Coverage
BASELINE STUDY:Describe the Environment
DESCRIBE the Project
IDENTIFY Impacts
EVALUATION Impacts
Prepare Draft EIS
Preventative Measures
MITIGATION
Final EIS Report
Consideration of All Phasesof the Project/Activity:
•Exploration•Development•Construction•Mining•Remediation•Decommissioning•Post-decommissioning
Mon
itor
and
Rev
iew
Pub
lic C
onsu
ltatio
n an
d C
omm
unic
atio
n / S
ocio
-eco
nom
ic Is
sues
Significant Adverse Effect
NotEconomically
Viable
Project/ActivityFeasibility Study
Statement of Intentby the Proponent
AbandonProject
Guidelines for EIA forRegulatory Authorities
Project/Activity SCOPING:Determine EIA Coverage
BASELINE STUDY:Describe the Environment
DESCRIBE the Project
IDENTIFY Impacts
EVALUATION Impacts
Prepare Draft EIS
Preventative Measures
MITIGATION
Final EIS Report
Consideration of All Phasesof the Project/Activity:
•Exploration•Development•Construction•Mining•Remediation•Decommissioning•Post-decommissioning
Mon
itor
and
Rev
iew
Pub
lic C
onsu
ltatio
n an
d C
omm
unic
atio
n / S
ocio
-eco
nom
ic Is
sues
Significant Adverse Effect
NotEconomically
Viable
smart science solutions
From UNEP ( 1992):Environmental impact assessment training resource manual, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.
smart science solutions
Social Health (SIA)(socio-economic, ethical, cultural, etc.)
EcologicalHealth(ERA)
Human Health(HHRA)
Interactions(Risk
Management)
Project
InteractionsEvaluate the significance of residual
environmental effects
Environment(humans + non-human species)
Social Health (SIA)(socio-economic, ethical, cultural, etc.)
EcologicalHealth(ERA)
Human Health(HHRA)
Interactions(Risk
Management)
Social Health (SIA)(socio-economic, ethical, cultural, etc.)
EcologicalHealth(ERA)
Human Health(HHRA)
Social Health (SIA)(socio-economic, ethical, cultural, etc.)
EcologicalHealth(ERA)
Human Health(HHRA)
Interactions(Risk
Management)
Project
InteractionsEvaluate the significance of residual
environmental effects
Environment(humans + non-human species)
But at what point do we have ‘adequate’ information to determine a path-forward and how do we judge when remediation is ‘complete’?
� Depends of what is considered
‘significant’ (e.g., relative to baseline,
relative to impact, etc.)
� Effort should be commensurate with risk
(e.g., in terms of monitoring requirements
to assess trending over time)
� It is important to deal with the source(s).
� It is important to minimize the footprint.
� Where possible, progressive
decommissioning should be undertaken.
� It is important to avoid perpetual
monitoring.
� ‘Completeness’ of remediation depends
on the desired end-state of the Site.
smart science solutions
Inputs via:
• Historic streambed• Historic drill holes• Surface streams• Catchment 3• Infiltration
Outputs via:
• Seepages
Characterization of the Waste Rock itself
smart science solutions
Conceptual Model of Licensing Packages for CLEANS Sites
smart science solutions
Benchmarking against Remediation of AREVA’s Cluff Lake Site
smart science solutions
A Few Thoughts on Licensing:
� ‘SMART’ licensing is all about traceability and documentation (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time Framed)
� Such an approach is in everyone’s good interest, as the status of remediation efforts is demonstrable and sites (or parts of sites) can achieve institutional control sooner.
� An envelope approach can help with proactive management and prioritization.
smart science solutions
� The rate of release can be smaller at abandoned sites
due to the lack of operational process (and in such
cases, monitoring may be done less frequently).
� Care must be taken during remediation of abandoned
sites, especially if remote, since there is no active
process to address impacts created (e.g., if
contaminated water is generated, it cannot be run
through the mill to reprocess).
� In general, focus should be placed on changes in
environmental quality over time at monitoring locations
following remediation, as opposed to comparing with
regional values (as long as ‘external factors’, such as
climate change, can be accounted for).
Operating Sites ≠ Abandoned Sites:
smart science solutions
smart science solutions
Thank You!
Any Questions?For more info – www.saskcleans.ca