IGNACE — It’s not up to federal officials whether to extend a month-long public comment period for the proposed deep geological repository near Ignace.
That’s according to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. It, along with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, is responsible for the integrated impact assessment process that will decide whether a massive underground storage site for high-level nuclear waste south of Highway 17 gets approved or not.
The assessment formally launched on Jan. 5, when the initial project description submitted by the repository’s proponent — the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or NWMO — was publicly posted. It also marked the launch of a 30-day initial comment period where members of the public can weigh in to regulators for the first time on what the NWMO has submitted to-date.
Shortly after the assessment went online, the federal NDP publicly called on Ottawa to extend that month-long window, citing the “huge” scope of the waste site project, as well as its complexity.
In an emailed statement to Newswatch, the impact assessment agency said once the initial phase of the review has started, “only the proponent can suspend the time limit during the planning phase.”
“At this time, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has not received any formal request from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to suspend the timeline.”
The planning phase is the initial 180-day period that effectively culminates in federal authorities giving the waste management organization final instructions about what more information it needs to provide to assessors, Kathryn MacCarthy, an impact assessment agency panel manager assigned to the deep geological repository project, told Newswatch at a public session in Ignace.
The full assessment is expected to take about four and a half years, she said.
The planning phase is broken down into two periods, she said — an initial 80-day period and a subsequent 100-day one. The first 80 days consists of the initial 30-day public comment window, followed by a roughly 10-day span where the impact assessment agency formulates a summary of issues which is presented to the NWMO.
The waste management organization then has another 30 days to respond, followed by a another 10-day period where the impact assessment agency gathers all information collected so far to determine whether a full impact assessment is warranted.
Should that be ordered (MacCarthy said, given the deep geological repository project’s scope and complexity, “it would, I think, be pretty unlikely” for it not to be), the subsequent 100 days starts with another 30-day window for public comment on draft guidelines from the assessors to the NWMO to “let us know if we got it right,” she said.
Over the subsequent 70 days, the agency will review that second round of public input “and then change the (draft) guidelines to reflect on those comments,” MacCarthy said.
The final instructions will then be presented to the NWMO, she said.
If people miss the initial 30-day public comment window (it closes Feb. 4 at 11:59 p.m.), “comments … will still be welcome and will be considered at the next opportunity for input later in the planning process for the assessment,” IAAC’s emailed statement said.
The waste management organization isn’t indicating it intends to alter that timeline.
“Our intent is to follow the impact assessment and regulatory process as closely as possible,” the NWMO said in an email to Newswatch.
“There will be multiple opportunities throughout the impact assessment and regulatory process to share input with both the government and the NWMO.”
The organization said it’s expecting the second public comment window to be sometime in March, and that it “is always open to addressing concerns and answering questions.”
“The NWMO is committed to a supporting a rigorous review of safety while delivering on our mandate to move this project forward and not leave used nuclear fuel as a burden for future generations,” the waste management organization said.
The project assessment and comment registry can be found at the IAAC’s website.
