CARL Workshop, Antwerp Country Report: Canada

1. CARL Workshop, AntwerpCountry Report: Canada Andrew Brook Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Jo-Ann Facella Nuclear Waste Management Organization Toronto, ON, Canada

2. Background – The Issue • Canada currently has almost 2 million used fuel bundles • Fuel used for electricity production, research, medical uses • May reach 3.6 million fuel bundles assuming 40 year reactor operating life • Currently safely stored on an interim basis at licensed facilities • Used fuel remains a potential health, safety and security hazard for hundreds of thousands of years or longer • Requires long-term management

3. Chapter II: Background & History • 1977: Hare report recommended underground disposal of nuclear wastes • 1978: Canada/Ontario Nuclear Fuel Waste Management Program initiated to research nuclear waste management • 1989: Environmental Assessment (Seaborn Panel) of the AECL concept of geological disposal in the Canadian Shield began • 1998: Seaborn Panel reported that the AECL concept had not been demonstrated to have broad public support; recommended creation of a waste management agency to study options • 2002: Nuclear Fuel Waste Act passed: • Establishment of the NWMO and its independent Advisory Council • Waste owners to finance through segregated trust fund • Study Report & Recommendations, Choosing a Way Forward: The Future Management of Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel, was submitted to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada on November 3, 2005

4. Chapter III: The ‘Seaborn’ Panel The concept of deep geological disposal, as we call it, has been around in Canada since at least the early 1970s. The first serious attempt in Canada to do a broad public assessment of the concept was started in 1989. Official name: Nuclear Fuel Waste Management and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel. Always referred to as the Seaborn Panel – Chair, Blair Seaborn. Interesting mandate: To assess the concept but not anything to do with siting. Operated as regular public hearing of the sort standardly done by environmental assessment panels, though on an historic scale:

5. Seaborn Panel History 1. It held scoping meetings in 14 communities in 1990 and met with aboriginal groups and student groups. 2. It then prepared guidelines for conducting the assessment, releasing them in final form in 1992. 3. AECL submitted its EIS (environmental impact statement) in 1994. 4. The Seaborn Panel then held hearings in 16 communities from March 1996 to February 1997, providing nearly $1m in funds for participants to present to it. It heard over 500 presenters and received in addition over 500 written submissions. 5. It finally reported in February 1998, almost ten years after being formed. Among other things, at least one book has been written about it.

6. Seaborn Panel: Conclusions The conclusion the Seaborn Panel reached was that social and ethical issues had not been properly addressed by the proponent, AECL. It identified a wide range of such issues, perhaps the first time this had been done comprehensively in Canada. It then concluded that, “From a technical perspective, safety of the AECL concept has been on balance adequately demonstrated for a conceptual stage of development, but from a social perspective, it has not.” In short, AECL had proven that their concept was safe technologically but had failed to convince the Canadian people of this, including significant populations of stakeholders such as aboriginal communities. The concept of ‘social safety’.

7. Features of Seaborn Panel Conclusions The conclusions of the Seaborn Panel had some interesting features. • They identified conditions that a socially-acceptable management proposal must have. • They called for the creation of an ethical and social framework within which to develop and assess used fuel management approaches. • They urged that any future proponent be at arm’s length to industry. • As part of developing a used fuel management approach, they called for a full review of the future of nuclear power generation in Canada. So what happened next?

8. Chapter IV:NWMO Next, in 2002 the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was created by Act of Parliament. NWMO was given a broad mandate to develop and recommend a technically and socially-acceptable solution, in line with what the Seaborn Panel had said about the social dimensions of the problem. Interestingly, none of the last three recommendations was implemented in its mandate: • The Act neither contained nor required the generation of an ethical and social framework, though the act said that assessment must be against ethical and social standard. • Far from NWMO being at arm’s length from industry, it is owned by the nuclear industry. • There has been no review of the future of nuclear power generation in Canada.

9. NWMO: Not an EAP NWMO began with some significant advantages: 1. Being a creature of parliament, NWMO came with built-in recognition that used fuel management is a problem for the whole country, not just industry. 2. NWMO was also given an interesting structure from the point of view of the standard stakeholder consultation regime. 3. Rather than assessing someone else’s proposal, it is charged with finding and implementing an approach itself. So it is in some ways both proponent and assessor, as these roles have usually been understood. Thus it is not an EAP. Indeed, it has made little use of hearings of the standard kind.

10. How NWMO operated Because the Act recognized that all Canadians have a stake in the management of used reactor fuel, NWMO had a mandate to reach all Canadians. Being an EAP, the Seaborn Panel had operated in the ‘We’ll visit your community; come and talk to us if you want to’ mode. NWMO took a much more focussed, structured approach to stakeholders. NWMO view of stakeholders 1. In early dialogues, it asked stakeholders what the issues were on which it needed to know what Canadians felt, starting with what the governing values are and running right through to the objectives that should be achieved by the management approach adopted.

11. How NWMO operated 2. 2. It committed itself to acting in accord with stakeholder values, developing a proposal collaboratively, not just listening and then picking and discarding as it saw fit. 3. It committed itself to a multi-stage, ‘iterative and reflexive’ dialogue as the project went through the various stages. All of (1) – (3) are in sharp contrast to the ‘Come and say whatever you like. We’ll listen. But you only get one chance!’ approach of most EAPs. Interactive, iterative and committed vs. passive, one-shot, and uncommitted. 4. NWMO also made extensive and very effective use of the WWW and other recent technologies.

12. Key NWMO Commitment From the beginning, NWMO made a crucial commitment. It committed itself to governing both its procedures and its substantive conclusions by appropriate ethical values, fairness and transparency in particular. In addition to the extensive work it did to learn Canadians’ values, very early on it created a Roundtable on Ethics to identify key values as seen by experts in the field. Membership: A distinguished aboriginal leader, a respected churchman and former federal cabinet minister, and four of Canada’s most accomplished practical ethicists. The Roundtable wrote an Ethical and Social Framework, which NWMO then adopted as the foundation of all its activities.

13. Most significant values The Framework is nearly four pages long. Here are the governing values: • Respect for Life in all Its Forms • Respect for Peoples and Cultures • Respect for Future Generations • Justice • Fairness • Sensitivity This emphasis on values and openness has helped diminish the distrust that bedevils many proposals for managing used fuel.

14. A Large Part of NWMO’s Success Elizabeth Dowdeswell President, NWMO Back to Jo-Ann for what emerged, lessons learned, and the final recommendation.

15. Chapter V: NWMO Collaborative Study Process More than 18,000 contributed to the study, through dialogues, meetings, workshops, submissions (including more than 500 specialists in natural, social and applied sciences). About 50,000 individuals visited the NWMO website.

16. Through Engagement, Common Ground • The Ethical Principles Already Mentioned: Respect for Life; Respect for People and Cultures; Respect for Future Generations; Justice; Fairness; Sensitivity • Furthur Values: Safety from harm; Responsibility; Adaptability; Stewardship; Accountability and Transparency; Knowledge; Inclusion • Objectives: Public Health and Safety; Fairness; Worker Health and Safety; Community Well-Being; Security; Environmental Integrity; Economic Viability; Adaptability

17. Fundamental Points of Divergence • Should the nuclear generation of electricity be continued? • NWMO was mandated to take no view. • Do we have sufficient knowledge to proceed with decision-making? • NWMO’s answer: Yes, we do, but in accord with the precautionary principle. • For which vision of the future should we be planning? • NWMO’s answer: (1) At minimum, we have to deal with existing wastes and those that will come into existence between now and decommissioning. (2) We should aim for flexibility for as long as we can expect stability, then turn to passive management.

18. Points of Convergence: A Hybrid Approach • Extend storage of used fuel at the reactor sites for a definite period of time • Consolidate used fuel at one central location • Leave a period of time for learning • Develop a deep geological repository • Create a period of relatively easy access and retrievability • Make decisions in a staged way; avoid irreversibility

19. Study Outcome – The Recommendation NWMO recommended a hybrid option: Adaptive Phased Management, consisting of two components: • A technical method: • Ultimate centralized containment and isolation in an appropriate geological formation • Optional shallow storage at the central site prior to placement in the repository • A management system: • Phased and adaptive decision-making • Continuous monitoring • Provision for retrievability, And most importantly, • Continuous citizen engagement

20. Lessons Learned for Siting As it moves from approach to siting, NWMO considers that it has learned some lessons, lessons about the importance of: • As we just said, continuous engagement with stakeholders; • Adhering not just to technical standards but first and foremost to ethical and social principles; • Finding a community that is a willing host (which raises issues of informed consent); and, 4. Collaboration in decisions about siting and in the design and implementation of the facility.

21. Thank You!

22. … and soon it will be time for, Thank you