Paying Greater Attention to Public Support for Continued Success in the

Developmentof Nuclear Power Projects

26-28 June 2013,St Petersburg, Russia

Sylvain Saint-Pierre, Vice-President Marketing, Energy & Nuclear

SENES Consultants Limited, ssaintpierre@senesuk.com

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 fails2 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 issuesPast• 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

7

Paying Greater Attention to Public Support

Past Current

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

Tends to overlook the underpinning public interests that often count significantly in projects

11

Paying Greater Attention to Public Support

A B

“Spiralling” Approach=> More suited for public interests

Tends to better capture the underpinning public interests that often count significantly in projects

12

Paying Greater Attention to Public Support

A

B

Regulatory “linear” part

Keep on top of the game on Public opinion/support• 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 of the game on Public opinion/support• 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

Paying Greater Attention to Public Support

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

21

Technically and Environmentally Preferred

Alternative

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 once-through 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

once-through 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

27

Public concern with disruption of use of on-site recreational features (e.g. soccer fields, trails). Commitment made to re-establishment full access in stages

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