Transcript Pick a title, any title will do…

Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
for Continued Success in the Development
of Nuclear Power Projects
26-28 June 2013,
St Petersburg, Russia
Sylvain Saint-Pierre, Vice-President Marketing, Energy & Nuclear
SENES Consultants Limited, [email protected]
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Public support
=> Not to be confused with public acceptance
Seek, gain and maintain it
Really need to pay attention to public support
This builds on necessary robust environmental &
safety in support of nuclear projects
2
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Two extremes:
1. Fixed upfront
design & planned activities for a
proposed nuclear project and then seek support
=> Increasingly fails
2 Give in on all fronts about a proposed nuclear project
with a view to secure permitting
=> Greatly reduces operational margins
3
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Pay attention upfront to public interest and adapt
Environmental, safety, etc. issues not necessarily
the only interest or concern for the wider public
Better to seek public interests and concerns
…than guessing them (educate is a 2 way street)
Ignoring
interests and concerns (social,
economical , environmental) come at a price
4
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Evolving from DAD to MUM (ICRP, R. Clarke):
• DAD: Decide, Announce and Discuss
• MUM: Meet, Understand and Modify
A “real game changer” that often conditions
success in the deployment of large projects
5
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
An evolving situation on the coverage of
environmental, safety, …socio-economic issues
Past
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Recent/Current
• Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)
Current/Future?
• Social and Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA)
6
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Public interests creep in via the “backdoor” and
tend nowadays to stand upfront
Past
7
Current
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
A possible useful way forward:
• Proponents to seek upfront public input on their
proposed nuclear projects – Proceed with flexibility
=> Important to screen for such input
• Account for it in project shaping & development to gain
and maintain public support - Proceed with flexibility
=> Build consensus
8
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
A possible useful way forward:
In support of going from points “A” to “B”
through gradual consensus:
• Develop and analyse the pros and cons of options and
of their justifications (around a core project)
• Readiness to consider justified options
• Make room for surprises
9
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
A possible useful way forward:
• Reach a social economical environmental “deal”
• Next move to standard regulatory licensing
permitting procedures for nuclear projects
&
– Regulatory procedures may not be sufficiently flexible to address
socio-economic environment deal from cradle to grave
10
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
“Linear” Approach
=> More suited for regulatory licensing
A
B
Tends to overlook the underpinning public interests that
often count significantly in projects
11
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
“Spiralling” Approach
=> More suited for public interests
Regulatory
“linear” part
B
A
Tends to better capture the underpinning public interests
that often count significantly in projects
12
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Keep on top
opinion/support
of
the
game
on
Public
• Pay attention to public opinion on project
• Public interest in a project and the time for it
tend to be short
• Yet, the public will make its own opinion which
will form more or less public support
13
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Keep on top
opinion/support
of
the
game
on
Public
• Advocate all along a sound and constructive
public narrative for project support
• Advocate the process that led to the set of
retained justified options which shape and
support the project
• This should serve as a basis for the subsequent
project review/approval as part of regulatory
licensing & permitting
14
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
SENES as part of the ARCADIS Group
• A global engineering and consultancy group
which consists of over 22,000 professionals
• Offers global, integrated and innovative
solutions which often balance needs related to:
– Infrastructure, Water, Environment and Buildings
• With an efficient dedication to help clients
address public support as part of project
development and deployment
15
Paying Greater Attention to Public Support
Fashionable expressions may not necessarily be
consistent and clearer
• “SOCIAL LICENCE”: Social versus Licence?
• Social implications point at greater flexibility
• Whereas licence implications point at more
rigidity, control, ….regulations
• May be “SOCIAL CONSENSUS” is better
16
Example of
“DAD” and “MUM” Case Studies
17
MUM Case Study: Detroit River
International Crossing
• The Detroit –Windsor bridge crossing is the major commercial
trade connection between the USA and Canada
• About 70% of all trade between USA and Canada uses this
bridge
• Current bridge access from Ontario’s major highway is through
downtown Windsor with associated traffic congestion
• The use of the existing bridge is beyond current capacity and
an inhibition to growth of trade leading to considerable
economic impacts
• Need to expand infrastructure capacity and reduce congestion
and traffic delays
18
MUM Case Study: Detroit River
International Crossing
• Project includes a new International bridge and highway
extension through the Windsor area
• Highway connecting the bridge was at grade
• Public, municipalities, and regulators were very concerned
with issues of reduced air quality, lack of green space and
reduced pedestrian access
• There were many meetings with local representatives (and
regulatory agencies) to discuss possible design alternatives
that were available
• Highway access was redesigned to include recessed roadways
and tunnels with green space above the tunneled sections
19
Practical Alternatives
20
Technically and
Environmentally Preferred
Alternative
21
MUM Case Study: Detroit River
International Crossing
• The long-term energy policy of the Ontario Government
maintains a commitment baseload nuclear generation capacity
of 14,000 MW be maintained
• The government has planned to decommission nuclear plants
at Pickering Ontario
• New nuclear capacity was proposed for construction at existing
nuclear sites, starting with OPGs site at Darlington
• The proposal is for an additional 4800MWe at Darlingon
• Several nuclear generation options are being considered
among them Candu, EPR,
• Although all existing nuclear plants in Ontariuo use oncethrough cooling (all plants are on very large water bodies), the
Joint Review Panel and the national regulator (CNSC) required
an examination of cooling tower alternative
22
MUM Case Study: Darlington New Nuclear
• Although all existing nuclear plants in Ontario use oncethrough cooling (all plants are on very large water bodies), the
Joint Review Panel and the national regulator (CNSC) required
an examination of cooling tower alternatives – both natural
draft and mechanical
• Special technical studies were done to investigate the options
to once through cooling, including environmental and social
impacts – for example, use of neighbouring land and visual
impacts
23
MUM Case Study: Darlington New Nuclear
• Construction and operation of new nuclear facility at
Darlington, Ontario
24
MUM Case Study: Darlington New Nuclear
• New nuclear facility to be located on existing nuclear site
owned and operated by the proponent
• Existing facility at Darlington includes 4 units of 881 MW each
totaling 3,524 MW
25
MUM Case Study: Darlington New Nuclear
• New nuclear facility will involve the construction and
operation of up to four nuclear reactor units supplying up to
4,800 MW of electrical capacity
• Will use once through cooling system similar to existing facility
located on site
26
Darlington New Nuclear
Strong public opposition to cooling
towers, led to consideration of
once-through cooling system
Public concern with disruption of
use of on-site recreational
features (e.g. soccer fields,
trails). Commitment made to reestablishment full access in
stages
27
DAD Case Study: Prosperity Mine
• An open pit gold-copper mine approximately 125 km
southwest of Williams Lake in British Columbia, Canada
proposed by Taseko Mines Limited
• Production capacity of 70,000 tonnes per year of mineral ore
• The mine site would cover a 35 square km area in the Teztan
Yeqox (Fish Creek) and will operate for 20 years
• The area is considered by citizens as a pristine, untouched,
and unique ecosystem with exceptional vistas, clear glacial
fed lakes and streams, relative remoteness and abundant
wildlife
28
DAD Case Study: Prosperity Mine
• The mine would involve the destruction of Teztan Biny (Fish
Lake), Y’anah Biny (Littke Fish Lake)and portions of Teztan
Yeqox (Fish Creek)
• Destruction of approximately 90,000 rainbow trout in
• Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) and Y’anah Biny (Little Fish Lake)
• For First Nations, lake trout are an important and well
established food source when salmon populations are low
• Teztan Biny is also a fishing lake valued by recreational
fishers
• A new lake, called Prosperity Lake, would be created as part
of the fish and fish habitat compensation plan, however,
designed to support approximately 20,000 larger rainbow
trout. Does not meet Fisheries and Oceans Canada No Net
Loss policy nor provide assurance to First Nations that the fish
would be safe for consumption
29
DAD Case Study: Prosperity Mine
• First Nations have continued to occupy and use the Project
area for traditional purposes since pre-European contact. The
First Nations that would be affected by the Project include the
Tsilhqot’in and Secwepemc Nations
• Current use of the mine site for traditional purposes includes
hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering of plants and berries for
food and medicinal purposes, as well as ceremonial and
spiritual activities
• The mine would reduce the area available for current use
activities for traditional purposes
• The availability of other areas for traditional purposes has
been reduced due to logging, ranching and private land
ownership in the area
30
DAD Case Study: Prosperity Mine
• Government Review Panel held 30 day public hearing
attended by 2,700 people.
• Concern for the current and future economic condition of the
region was top of mind with the majority of public comments
received
• The Panel concluded that the Project would have a high
magnitude, long term, irreversible effect on the Tsilhqot’in
First Nation
• The Panel concluded that the Project would have a significant
adverse effect on established Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights, as
the area of the proposed mine site would no longer be
available for their use in exercising these rights throughout all
phases of the Project.
• In addition, the Project would have significant adverse effects
on fish and fish habitat and navigation
DAD Case Study: Prosperity Mine
• Project was denied approval by Government of Canada agreed
with the Panel’s conclusions and the Project was denied
approval by the Government of Canada.
• Proponent has since made significant changes to the Project in
order to reduce environmental impacts
• Currently seeking approval for new design
• Preservation of the 111 ha Fish Lake and the lower portions of
Upper Fish Creek as well as preservation of reaches of Fish
Creek required for spawning and other small tributaries
feeding the lake
• Redesign will enable future generations' use of these waters
for navigation, fishing and recreational activities and will also
mitigate impacts on current use of the land by aboriginal
people
• A waiting decision by Review Panel and Government of Canada
32