Page d'accueil

I am pleased to speak to you today about the study led by the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO).

Three years ago, our organization set out on its mission to develop a recommendation for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. Our study has now been completed, and our recommendation was submitted to the Government of Canada on November 3^rd.

I look forward to reviewing with you the conclusions we have drawn, and also the process that led us to that end point.

By way of background, this issue before us is one that has been studied extensively for decades in Canada. One of these approaches – that of burial deep in the granite of the Canadian Shield – had been the subject of an extensive ten-year environmental assessment through much of the 1990s.

From this assessment, known as the Seaborn panel, it was concluded that - on balance, the concept of deep geological disposal had been adequately demonstrated from a technical perspective, but the same was not true from a social perspective. The lesson from this environmental assessment was clear.

To choose the right technical solutions, we must first ask what social requirements the technology has to live up to. And, to develop an approach that is acceptable to society, we need to know what social values citizens want to protect.

Following on this history, federal legislation was enacted that led to the creation of our organization in 2002. Under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, the nuclear energy corporations established the NWMO. We were required to conduct a study of options for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel, and within 3 years present a recommendation to the Government of Canada. As part of our remit, we were required to study, at a minimum, 3 specific technical options of storage and geological disposal. Consultation with the general public and Aboriginal Peoples was also an explicit part of our mandate.

In 2002, we commenced our work to develop a management approach that would reflect – as best as we can – the perspectives of society. Through our study, we sought to develop a way forward that would allow us to benefit from technology while reducing the risks and respecting the values of Canadians.

The structure of our workplan, and choice of engagement was profoundly influenced by two key visions for the study.

First, we viewed our whole study as a process of “engagement” – from the engagement of the public to involvement of specialists who helped us examine specific topics.

Citizens, while respectful of science, believe they have a right to participate in these important decisions that affect them. Scientific and technical knowledge is essential. But the exquisite logic of an analytical process, alone, may not prove convincing. If we were to design an approach that generates confidence about the long term, it must resonate with what matters to people, fundamentally. Individuals are the best judges of the ethical contours of decisions that are going to impact them. Only citizens can judge what risks are acceptable. Values and deeply held beliefs matter a great deal on this issue.

Therefore, we did not hire “experts” to tell us what the answer was. Rather, we designed a collaborative process that would bring specialists and citizens together to help to direct decisions taken – for a dialogue with both science and society.

The second key vision for our study was to allow for a dynamic and interactive study plan, with multiple

points for public engagement, so that our ultimate recommendations would be arrived at through input and direction from Canadians. We conducted our study around four phases -- supported by a series of public discussion documents. Findings from public engagement helped to shape and direct each phase of analysis. In turn, we subjected each phase of analysis to further public review. NWMO’s study from start to finish was a dialogue that involved citizens – to test our ideas, build awareness, and promote discussion of the options.

We knew that this issue was one that elicits strong and polarizing reactions. To make progress, we needed:

We therefore decided to set aside traditional notions of consultation that had too often in the past resulted in one-way conversation. We didn’t feel that the formal model that restricts public involvement to a one-time appearance or filing of formal testimony would effectively move this difficult issue forward.

Rather, we sought engagement in the truest sense, a two-way dialogue that would shape each major decision point in the study. We designed all of our dialogues in way that would bring the greatest possible diversity of perspectives around the table. We created situations that would truly require participants to talk to one another, and listen to one another, to appreciate different views.

In considering the choice of dialogue tools, we expected that there would be some stakeholders from either end of the extremes, who would readily engage in the issue – be they from industry or public interest groups. However, we knew that it would be difficult to engage participation of the middle 70%, the true general public.

From our public attitude research, we heard that most citizens find this to be an important issue on which they have a right to be involved. However, when asked about their own involvement, they responded that they would be unlikely to become engaged in a discussion of a management concept for used fuel.

With these challenges in mind, we actively sought some processes that were deliberately designed to invite comments from a statistically representative cross-section of citizens, to be proxies for the general public – those individuals who would not otherwise involve themselves in our work.

One of the important deliberative exercises we undertook early on was a National Dialogue on Citizen Values. If we wanted the study to be driven by the values of Canadians, we would need to know what matters most to people. What overriding objectives were seen as important? Guided by this research, we would then seek to develop a recommendation that would resonate with these values – for a recommendation that is responsive to citizen direction.

We brought together over 450 Canadians, chosen as a representative cross-section of the national demographic, for day-long meetings in 12 cities coast to coast.

This dialogue identified overarching requirements and values that Canadians felt should be key characteristics of a long-term management approach. When we asked people to sit around a table to discuss what matters most, there was a remarkable degree of consensus that emerged. We uncovered a shared understanding of what should guide our recommendations -- key values relating to such concepts as responsibility, inclusion, accountability and transparency. This work on citizen values was central in setting the foundation for our analysis and understanding societal expectations.

In subsequent phases of our study we asked the public for input on key cornerstones of our assessment. We provided time for public reflection and feedback. In this way, the research questions, assessment methodology and key decision points were discussed, fully contemplated and validated -- before proceeding with the next key strategic direction for the study. This process of validation was instrumental if we were to arrive at a recommendation that would be ethically acceptable to Canadian society.

Our study is really a tribute to the thousands of people who participated in our work. We conservatively estimate that more than 18,000 citizens contributed directly to our discussion.

This included more than 500 specialists from scientific and technical disciplines.

The majority of participants were Canadians from the general public, unaffiliated with industry or organized groups. They came to information and discussion sessions across the country. They visited open houses, and met with us reactor site communities. They made written submissions and engaged with us electronically through our internet-based e-dialogues. Some 2,500 aboriginal people participated through dialogues designed and delivered by their own organizations. And thousands more were invited into the process through our public attitude research and our National Citizens’ Dialogue on values.

Through our public engagement we came to know a broad range of views. But importantly, much common ground also emerged amongst citizens and specialists alike who came to the issue from different perspectives, demonstrating wisdom is widely held.

In assessing the management options, we were required by legislation to compare the risks, costs and benefits of three technical methods: deep geological disposal in the Canadian Shield; centralized storage above or below ground; and storage at nuclear reactor sites. The legislation made explicit a requirement that we include ethical and social considerations, along with the technical.

As we conducted our assessment of the options, we benefited from a vast base of technical, engineering and financial research conducted in Canada and around the world over the last 50 years.

We developed an assessment framework through which to examine the options. The framework was developed with specialists and reflected the ethical principles and objectives identified by citizens: health and safety, fairness, community well-being, security, environmental integrity, economic viability and adaptability.

We were challenged to propose a system which must meet rigorous standards of safety and security for periods longer than recorded history. A timeframe over which we do not know what technologies will be available. Nor do we know what changes there will be in institutions, values, political perspectives or financial circumstances.

The view of our specialists and general public alike was that while each of the approaches had distinct advantages, no one method, on its own, perfectly addressed all objectives which citizens said were important. This led us to consider a fourth option, one that would build upon these three methods.

The recommendation that we have submitted to Government is an alternative approach that we call “Adaptive Phased Management”. It provides clear direction and an end point: ultimate centralized containment and isolation of used fuel, deep underground in a suitable geological formation.

Viewed only through a technical lens, it appears similar to a model of disposal advanced previously in Canada, decades earlier.

First, our recommendation includes not only a technical method, but also a management system which responds to expectations of citizens. Recognizing that implementation would unfold over many decades, citizens have set out the terms and conditions for this collective journey.

The hallmarks of a socially responsive implementation plan, now embedded in our recommendation, include:

It is against such principles that we believe we would have the social licence to move forward with a management approach.

Finally – a perhaps subtle but key point of distinction --- we arrived at our recommendation of a deep geological repository in a very different way. The original disposal option advanced in Canada years ago was developed and proposed almost exclusively by scientific and engineering specialists. In contrast, our recommendation -- a true product of collaboration -- was arrived at through a process of engagement with citizens - as well as specialists - as they thoughtfully considered the options. Specialists provided technical information. The social and ethical platform derived directly from citizens.

Since our recommendations were first published in draft form in May, we have heard many views on the proposal and related issues. There are, for example, some who would like to see this issue of waste management deferred, to be addressed in the context of a broader national debate on the future of nuclear power. But fundamentally, most Canadians we engaged with believe our recommendation to be reasonable and appropriate.

We know that earning trust on such a potentially divisive issue takes time. We have aspired through our public engagement to enhance societal understanding and acceptance for our recommendations.

Our recommendation is that we know enough now to take the first steps, and we have an ethical obligation to do so. We hope that through our work we will have provided a level of public confidence required to support government decision-making in Canada.

Once the Government decides upon a long-term management approach for Canada, the NWMO will become the implementing organization. In our future work, we will continue to be tested. The degree of inclusiveness, and the integrity of the process by which decisions are taken, will most certainly be key to ensuring momentum on this important policy issue.

Speech of Mrs Kathryn Shaver - 2005/11/25