Abstract
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Concept for Disposal of Canada`s Nuclear Fuel Waste was released in October 1994 (AECL,1994) in response to the guidelines issued in 1992 by a Panel formed to evaluate this concept (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel, 1992). This response is primarily a statement of deficiencies and thus focuses on the negative aspects of the EIS. The staff review of the EIS was based on the AECB mandate, which is to protect human health and the environment and as such was focused on technical issues in the EIS. These were performance assessment of the multiple barrier system, environmental impacts, concept feasibility, siting, transport and safety as well as general issues of regulatory policy and criteria. The EIS and its supporting documentation have been the sole basis used to judge whether AECB staff expectations of the EIS have been met. The staff response (Part II) considers whether an issue is addressed appropriately and adequately, while taking account of the generic and preliminary nature of the concept. The overall conclusion that AECB staff have drawn from the technical review of the EIS is that the EIS, by itself, does not adequately demonstrate the case for deep geological
More>>
Citation Formats
None.
AECB staff response to the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada`s nuclear fuel waste.
Canada: N. p.,
1995.
Web.
None.
AECB staff response to the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada`s nuclear fuel waste.
Canada.
None.
1995.
"AECB staff response to the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada`s nuclear fuel waste."
Canada.
@misc{etde_217491,
title = {AECB staff response to the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada`s nuclear fuel waste}
author = {None}
abstractNote = {The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Concept for Disposal of Canada`s Nuclear Fuel Waste was released in October 1994 (AECL,1994) in response to the guidelines issued in 1992 by a Panel formed to evaluate this concept (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel, 1992). This response is primarily a statement of deficiencies and thus focuses on the negative aspects of the EIS. The staff review of the EIS was based on the AECB mandate, which is to protect human health and the environment and as such was focused on technical issues in the EIS. These were performance assessment of the multiple barrier system, environmental impacts, concept feasibility, siting, transport and safety as well as general issues of regulatory policy and criteria. The EIS and its supporting documentation have been the sole basis used to judge whether AECB staff expectations of the EIS have been met. The staff response (Part II) considers whether an issue is addressed appropriately and adequately, while taking account of the generic and preliminary nature of the concept. The overall conclusion that AECB staff have drawn from the technical review of the EIS is that the EIS, by itself, does not adequately demonstrate the case for deep geological disposal for nuclear fuel waste. However, AECB staff believe that the EIS information, in combination with a variety of generic national and international assessments, has provided confidence that the deep geological disposal concept is safe and viable. 74 refs.}
place = {Canada}
year = {1995}
month = {Jul}
}
title = {AECB staff response to the environmental impact statement on the concept for disposal of Canada`s nuclear fuel waste}
author = {None}
abstractNote = {The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Concept for Disposal of Canada`s Nuclear Fuel Waste was released in October 1994 (AECL,1994) in response to the guidelines issued in 1992 by a Panel formed to evaluate this concept (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel, 1992). This response is primarily a statement of deficiencies and thus focuses on the negative aspects of the EIS. The staff review of the EIS was based on the AECB mandate, which is to protect human health and the environment and as such was focused on technical issues in the EIS. These were performance assessment of the multiple barrier system, environmental impacts, concept feasibility, siting, transport and safety as well as general issues of regulatory policy and criteria. The EIS and its supporting documentation have been the sole basis used to judge whether AECB staff expectations of the EIS have been met. The staff response (Part II) considers whether an issue is addressed appropriately and adequately, while taking account of the generic and preliminary nature of the concept. The overall conclusion that AECB staff have drawn from the technical review of the EIS is that the EIS, by itself, does not adequately demonstrate the case for deep geological disposal for nuclear fuel waste. However, AECB staff believe that the EIS information, in combination with a variety of generic national and international assessments, has provided confidence that the deep geological disposal concept is safe and viable. 74 refs.}
place = {Canada}
year = {1995}
month = {Jul}
}