Insights from the Panel Review Process

Abstract

The environmental review process for nuclear waste management and disposal was unusual in that the Panel was asked to examine a concept rather than a specific project at a specific site. The Panel was charged with commenting on the safety and acceptability of the AECL concept, examining criteria for determining the safety and acceptability of any concept for managing nuclear fuel waste, and examining future steps which should be taken. In short, it was asked to provide policy advice to governments. The Panel concluded that safety is a key part, but only one part, of acceptability, and that safety must be viewed from both a technical and a social perspective. It judged that safety of the AECL concept had been adequately demonstrated from a technical perspective, but not from a social perspective. It also concluded that the AECL concept does not have the required level of public acceptability to be adopted as Canada's approach for managing nuclear fuel wastes. The paper examines in some detail the various aspects of the public concerns surrounding the nuclear cycle in general, and the safety of the proposals put forward by AECL for nuclear fuel waste management in particular. It notes the differences between those who look at safety from a technical perspective, and those who look at safety from a social perspective. And it lists the concerns related to acceptability in addition to the key factor of safety. After outlining the Panel's recommendations to governments on future steps to be taken, the paper discusses the extent to which the recommendations respond to the public's concerns. It stresses the importance of Aboriginal participation; of the creation of a new agency to deal with the full range of activities, technical and social, related to long-term management; of the public and decision-makers having more than one viable option to choose from; and of the essentiality of an inter-active process of public participation at all stages of decision-making. Finally, the paper makes some general observations on the concept review process. A significant part of the mandate of the Panel dealt with social and ethical policy questions, and in that sense it had similarities with a commission of inquiry. The limitations of the Panel's terms of reference, and the request to review a concept with no specific site, were a source of difficulty and frustration for many members of the public. The work of the Panel helped further the debate on what Canada should so with its nuclear fuel wastes. But it is necessary to move forward with the public debate on a wider front and to complete the process of public consultation begun by the Panel so that decisions can be made in a timely fashion and implementation begun in the near future.