Public Involvement in the OPAL Research Reactor Project Ron Cameron Based on material in the public domain and photos supplied by ANSTO Public Involvement in Siting of Nuclear Facilities, Paris. 15-16 February 2011
OPAL Characteristics Multi-purpose 20 MWt reactor to replace the previous HIFAR reactor built in 1956 Open pool reactor with dual shutdown systems and passive cooling in the event of a loss of power Funded by the Australian government on a whole of government basis Argentinian design with 60% local content Major uses irradiation of uranium targets for Mo 99 production, NAA, neutron beam research using thermal and cold neutrons. 2
OPAL History Government inquiry in 1993 indicated overall support provided some conditions met. Government agreement in September 1997 to fund a replacement reactor Environmental Impact Statement required under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as the construction was a nuclear action Regulatory licences required for siting, construction and operation based on the safety case and licensing compliance process Two Senate Inquiries looked at the case for a new reactor and separately at the tendering process Construction commenced in 2001 and first criticality occurred in 2006. Officially opened in April 2007 3
Public Involvement - EIS EIS starts with issue of guidelines and allows 4 weeks of public comment. 118 submissions were received and modified the terms of reference. Final terms then issued. The EIS requires public hearings to take place in local area and nationally Run by a committee appointed by the Department of the Environment, who also commissioned three safety reviews Public submissions are accepted at the stage of the draft EIS (12 weeks) and all submissions must be dealt with in the production of the final EIS. Altogether about 935 submissions but 88% were form letters. Interestingly only about 10% came from the local area, although these included some substantial submissions Department of Environment considered the original application, supplementary responses to concerns, the outcomes of the public hearings and their own safety reviews in arriving at a decision after 10 weeks EIS was approved with 29 conditions related to protection of people and the environment. 4
Public Involvement Parliament The Parliamentary Public Works Committee approval is required for expenditure of public funds. It lasted 3 months, had 76 submissions and 3 days of hearings. It reviewed the EIS process, the case for the reactor and the tendering process It supported the expenditure but called for finalisation of a Community Charter requiring increased transparency and ease of access of information available to the public. 5
Public Involvement - Senate Two Senate Committees established mainly by government opposition senators Each conducted public hearings in major capital cities and were open for submissions over a 12 week period The Committees sought wide views and heard many witnesses, both nationally and internationally The first in 1997-8 received 35 initial and 15 supplementary submissions from a range of individuals and organisations The second committee in 2000-1 on the need and the contract received a total of 178 submissions Main and dissenting reports produced The government supported the process going forward 6
Public Involvement - licensing Safety regulator required separate licensing processes for siting, construction and operation Regulator published safety case and accepted public submissions Public Forum held to allow concerns to be expressed. A three person expert group appointed to conduct public forums Regulator required to provide written justification of the decision in each case. Regulatory decision challenged by Greenpeace but not sustained by courts Major issues were need for the reactor, radioactive waste, transport of spent fuel and accidents Regulatory decisions at took around 6-9 months 7
Public Involvement the process Generally, Australian regulations do not provide for any veto by the local authority The main opportunities for rejection of a proposal come from; a technical objection related to the mandate of the review e.g. safety or environment a political sensitivity major media coverage Politicians are sensitive to public concerns and e.g the waste disposal site in South Australia was abandoned for political reasons, even tough it was an excellent technical site. 8
Public Involvement the process Many opportunities presented for public submissions but there must be justifiable technical grounds for the public regulators to reject the proposal e.g. unacceptable environmental impacts During the OPAL process, there was one major opposing group, SPANR and various initatives by both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. However no technical issue was raised that met the criteria for rejection. Generally, the proponent is required to be proactive in providing information, meeting with local groups and offering opportunities for input. In ANSTO s case, this was by letter drop, public meetings, internet forum, focus groups, mobile displays and open days 9
Public Involvement conclusions The OPAL project had many layers of public input EIS, Parliament Committee, Senate Inquiries and multiple Licensing processes but these are required to conform to regulations The proponent can only work within the existing framework for public involvement although they can be proactive in consultation with the public Current legislation requires for provision of multiple opportunities for input and is strong on freedom of information However, it is Governments that set the environment for public involvement In Australia, political and media concerns have been the drivers for not proceeding with a proposal e.g. Gordon-Franklin dam was rejected as was eventually a pulp paper mill because of public concern. 10