Presentation to NAS Workshop Oct 2016 M. Garamszeghy, NWMO, Canada

Transcription

1 Presentation to NAS Workshop Oct 2016 M. Garamszeghy, NWMO, Canada

2 The opinions given in this presentation represent my own views and observations from more than 35 years of experience in the field of radioactive waste management in Canada and internationally. They are not intended to be construed as official views of the NWMO, the government of Canada or any of the institutions that may be mentioned herein. 2

3 Background Responsibilities Licensing Process in Canada Issues & Challenges Case Study #1: Port Hope Area Initiative Case Study #2: OPG DGR for L&ILW 3

4 Canada currently has 19 operational power reactors at 4 sites (3 in Ontario, 1 in New Brunswick) All are CANDU and owned by provincially-owned electric utilities (Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and New Brunswick Power) 8 reactors in Ontario are leased to a private firm (Bruce Power) for operation (However, OPG still retains ultimate responsibility for waste & decommissioning) 7 other power reactors are in various stages of decommissioning 7 research reactors are in operation at various locations Numerous historic and legacy sites (mostly related to research and historic uranium mining & refining) currently under decommissioning or remediation 4

5 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) the federal nuclear regulator under the Nuclear and Safety Control Act and the responsible authority for nuclear projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Consists of two parts: the Commission (tribunal) and staff. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEEA) the federal agency responsible for administering the environmental assessment process. Joint Review Panel (JRP) joint panel set up by CNSC and CEAA to review the EA and a specific licence application of a nuclear project, as referred to by the Minister of Environment (Note that this is no longer used for nuclear projects. The OPG DGR was the last nuclear project to undergo this process). Proponent (project owner / operator) the eventual licence holder. Prepares the EA, safety report and supporting documentation 5

6 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Obtains authority from the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (2000) Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources Commission members are independent and part-time Commission hearings are public and webcast Federal jurisdiction over all nuclear facilities and activities Regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment Implements Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Significant authorities/powers granted to Commission and inspectors Challenge only through judicial review in Federal Court Transparent, science-based decision making Continuous regulatory oversight to ensure licensees comply with CNSC regulatory requirements Disseminates objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public 6

7 A series of licences are required from the CNSC over the lifecycle of a nuclear project Site preparation and construction licences can be combined Site preparation/construction and decommissioning licence applications generally trigger an Environmental Assessment as well Two step process: EA approval, followed by licensing decision Waste management facilities have separate licences from NPPs Licence conditions and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) are facilityspecific 7

8 Entire process typically takes several years or more to complete for the first licence (Site Prep/Construction), including EA Performance-based and prescriptive regulations Waste disposal projects will trigger an Environmental Assessment Ongoing Aboriginal and public involvement The CNSC and licensees are responsible for regular, clear communications and information to stakeholders and the public Crown (i.e. Federal Government) duty to consult with Aboriginal groups 8

9 Guided by CNSC Regulatory Document G-320, Assessing the Long Term Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Includes: The radiation exposure of people that may arise from the expected evolution of the repository and its environment, referred to as the Normal Evolution Scenario ; The radiation exposure of people that may arise as a result of events with uncertain or low probability which could disrupt the repository system, Disruptive Scenarios ; Assessment encompasses the time of maximum calculated impact (i.e. peak dose); The radiation effects on non-human biota; and The effects of non-radioactive contaminants. For Normal Evolution Scenario: Dose constraint of 0.3 msv/yr to the critical group (i.e. those expected to receive highest annual dose) Evolution of site includes factors such as climate change (e.g. future glaciation, etc.), gradual loss or degradation of engineered and natural barriers over time, etc. For Disruptive Scenarios (e.g. human intrusion, severe barrier failure, etc.): Dose constraint of 1 msv/yr to the critical group For cases which exceed this, case-by-case risk assessment performed 9

10 Canadian (CANDU) NPP waste challenges CANDU heavy water, natural U fueled reactors produce significant quantities of tritium and C-14 during operation (resulting in some wastes as GTCC in the US system) Reactor refurbishment (pressure tube replacement) produces significant quantities of irradiated Zr/Nb wastes (GTCC) Small waste owners No national agency for management of L&ILW. Smaller waste owners may have difficulty selecting and implementing their own disposal solutions, especially for ILW. Non-fuel, heat generating wastes E.g. high activity Co-60 sources, concentrated tritium storage canisters. Fall outside of mandate of NWMO for SF (and HLW) and do not meet the WAC for currently proposed L&ILW disposal solutions. Historic wastes Precise volumes and characteristics may not be well documented Federal responsibility, mostly managed by a national agency (LLRWMO) Surface (engineered mound) disposal purpose-designed to accommodate the range of wastes encountered being implemented or planned at several sites 10

11 Future challenges: Wastes excluded by current WACs: No short-term urgency. Safely stored. Small volume. Significant decay occurring which will simplify future handling. Will learn from the successful startup of planned repositories in Canada, and use that knowledge as part of deciding on best approach NPP decommissioning: current strategy is 30-yr deferred dismantlement. Waste management plans are currently being developed (e.g. potential expansion of repositories). Will require a further EA and licensing process. Small waste owners: Generally no urgency to address in short-term. Considering cooperation in a regional or national solution. 11

12 The PHAI involves two projects: Excavating and cleaning up 18 large-scale sites and ~ 450 small-scale sites (public, private and commercial/industrial properties in Port Hope) and placing waste in a new long-term waste management facility (Port Hope) Excavating ~0.5 million m 3 of waste from the existing Port Granby waste management site and relocating it to the new long-term site (the existing site is considered to be too close to Lake Ontario) in Port Granby 12

13 Port Hope & Port Granby projects are both engineered mound type facilities at surface (2 facilities) Waste is mostly soils and similar rubble Most wastes already located at or near new long-term management sites Capacity of ~1.2 million m 3 (Port Hope site) and ~0.5 million m 3 (Port Granby site) Expected operation in 2017 (Port Granby) and 2018 (Port Hope) 13

14 Early history: 1932: Eldorado Gold Mine Ltd. opens radium refining facilities in Port Hope, Ontario : Production emphasis shifts from radium to uranium refining 1930s-1970s: Properties and sites in the Town of Port Hope become contaminated from spillage during transportation, unrecorded, unmonitored or unauthorized diversion of contaminated fill and materials, wind and water erosion and spread from residue storage areas : Atomic Energy Control Board (forerunner of CNSC) directs a large-scale radiation reduction program in the Town of Port Hope (over 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soil are transferred to a site at Chalk River Laboratories) 1982: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office (LLRWMO) is established by the federal government to manage historic waste in the Town of Port Hope and across Canada 1988: The federal government establishes a Siting Task Force on Low-level Radioactive Waste Management to site a permanent management facility for Port Hope area wastes : Siting Task Force invites all Ontario municipalities to consider hosting a longterm management facility for low-level radioactive waste. A few communities initially volunteer, but no agreement is reached 14

15 Current program: 1997: Hope Township initiates a community proposal to construct a long-term waste management facility for wastes at the Welcome Waste Management Facility 1998: Port Hope and Clarington also develop proposals to establish long-term management facilities for low-level radioactive wastes within their communities 2000: The Government of Canada and Hope Township, Port Hope (now amalgamated to form the Municipality of Port Hope) and Clarington initial Principles of Understanding outlining terms for a project to clean up low-level radioactive waste 2001: The Port Hope Area Initiative begins. A Legal Agreement is signed which commits the federal government and the municipalities to the safe cleanup, transportation, isolation and long-term management of historic, low-level radioactive waste : Environmental Assessments completed for Port Hope and Port Granby projects 2009: CNSC grants initial Port Hope Project licence; in 2012, 10-year licence amendment granted to complete project 2011: CNSC grants 10-year licence for Port Granby Project 2012: Phase 2 construction begins when the Government of Canada commits $1.28 billion to complete the Port Hope and Port Granby projects 15

16 The original siting task force of the 1980s and 1990s identified several potential sites They were all remote from the Port Hope area, and would thus require large scale transport of bulk radioactive material to the new site Considerable public opposition to transportation, especially along the proposed transport routes Environmental and technical studies were conducted and looked promising, but in the end no agreement could be reached between the government and the host communities When agreements fell through, project was re-started to focus on local solutions Project re-start was driven by proposals from the local communities and had broad local support 16

17 Under the legal agreement, Historic Low-Level Radioactive Waste means the Low-Level Radioactive Waste currently situated in the Town of Port Hope, Clarington or the Township of Hope for which the original producer cannot reasonably be held responsible and for which Canada has accepted responsibility It does not include the on-going operational & decommissioning wastes produced by the currently licenced nuclear facilities in the area The Property Value Protection (PVP) Program is an integral part of the 2001 Legal Agreement that established the PHAI The PVP Program compensates eligible property owners in the designated PVP Zone for financial losses relating to diminution of property value that is, a decrease in value realized on sale, rental or mortgage renewal as a result of the PHAI It does not compensate for the longstanding presence of the historic low-level radioactive waste in the two communities 17

18

19 For OPG-owned wastes: Deep Geological Disposal in sedimentary rock Currently under licensing review EA & construction licence decision expected in 2017 Designed for co-disposal of LLW and ILW (community preference & less costly than 2 separate facilities) Reference depth of 680 m Capacity of 200,000 m 3 (as packaged) LLW and ILW Volunteer host community Located on existing Bruce nuclear site, adjacent to OPG s waste management facility Expected operation in mid 2020s 19

20 Only waste from operation & maintenance of OPG owned facilities Waste is typical CANDU NPP L&ILW in non-combustible containers of various configurations (compacted and non-compacted DAW, incinerator ash, IX resins, filters, replaced components, etc.) Facility is sited in a willing host community (community approach OPG to jointly develop a long-term plan for the waste) Community is also currently host to 8 operating NPPs (one of the largest nuclear power sites in the world), one shutdown demonstration reactor, two LILW storage facilities and two used fuel dry storage facilities High degree of nuclear knowledge and acceptance in the area Official hosting agreement was signed in Provides for total of about $30 million compensation to Kincardine and surrounding municipalities over life of project Independently conducted community poll in 2005 was overwhelmingly supportive (60% yes, 22% no, 13% neutral, 5% don t know/refused) 20

21 Original schedule (circa 2010) Submit Preliminary Safety Report V2 Safety Case complete Preliminary Design Report DGR 3-6 drilling and testing complete EA Accepted and receive Const. Licence Submit EIS to Panel V1 Safety Case complete Conceptual Design report DGR 1-2 drilling and testing complete EA Track approved EA Scoping Hearing EA Guidelines received EA Project Description Positive Community Poll 21

22 So what happened after the EA and licensing documentation was submitted in April 2011? A federal election delayed the appointment of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) to Jan 2012 Public comment period from Feb 2012 to May 2013, during which JRP issued a total of ~575 information requests (IRs) for more details or explanations 31 days of hearings held in fall 2013 and fall 2014, 246 participants, 20,000 pages of information reviewed. ~10 additional IRs issued. JRP report submitted May 2015, recommending the EA approval of the DGR to the federal government CEAA held 90 day public comment period on potential conditions related to possible mitigation measures and follow-up programs that may be required if the project is approved to proceed. (Decision was expected in Sept but extended to December.) Minister was supposed to respond by Dec However, another federal election in fall 2015 resulted in a change of government 22

23 So what happened after the EA and licensing documentation was submitted in April 2011 (continued)? New Minister of Environment requested an extension to March 2016 Subsequently requested 3 more technical studies: Environmental effects of alternate locations; An updated analysis of potential combined environmental effects of the DGR site and a potential NWMO used fuel site located close to the proposed site; and an updated list of OPG s commitments to mitigate any identified adverse effects from the project OPG proposed to submit their responses by end of 2016 Minister s EA decision expected in 2017 If positive, project moves forward to the licensing decision phase 23

24 As the regulatory process extended: Scientific evidence and basis remains sound, passing all credible challenges Governments changed, local leadership changed, new residents move in, some move out Current politicians and local community are still supportive, even though municipal politicians who originally signed the hosting agreement are no longer involved Opposition groups from across the country (and the US) were able to mobilize and gain some support by criticising or avoiding the science, making fuzzy claims, etc. Some municipalities around the Great Lakes passed resolutions opposing the project. Resolutions passed with little or no substantive debate. Some of the public became confused between OPG s LILW DGR project and NWMO s separate process in the same area with potentially interested communities for a DGR for used fuel. Others were concerned about the possible combined effects of two DGRs in one region. Some questioned the need for two different DGRs and advocate for a single combined one. 24

25 OPG continues to ensure that government and municipal officials, the public and Aboriginal communities are briefed on the facts of the Project and on OPG s progress in responding to the three additional information requests by the Minister. The Minister has indicated that OPG s responses will be reviewed by the CEAA with support from other regulatory authorities including the CNSC. The Minister would then make her decision with respect to Environmental Assessment approval. 25

26

27 27