Canada and Agenda
21Canada and Agenda
21
CHAPTER 22
Safe and Environmentally Sound Management of Radioactive Wastes
-- Gordon Clifford --
Gordon Clifford is a consultant with Consulting and Audit Canada. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author who received comments from a number of stakeholders, and do not represent the views of Consulting and Audit Canada or the Projet de Société.
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
At the end of 1991, approximately 17% of the world's electricity was derived from 420 nuclear reactors with an installed capacity of 327,000 MW(e). For the year 1990 the total volume of spent fuel, high, medium and low level wastes produced in the OECD countries was about 170,000 cubic metres for all industrial operations, from fuel fabrication to reactor operation and reprocessing. The safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes, including their minimization, transportation and disposal, is important given their potential risks. In most countries with a substantial nuclear power programme, technical and administrative measures have been taken to implement a waste management system. However, in many countries which are still in the process of preparing for a national nuclear programme or nuclear applications (i.e. the use of radionuclides in medicine, research and industry), such systems are still needed.
The radiological and safety risk from radioactive wastes varies from very low for short-lived, low-level wastes to very high for high-level wastes. The amount of such waste is increasing as more nuclear power plants start up and others are decommissioned. Although the use of radioactive substances in medicine, research, and industry produces much smaller amounts of waste -- typically some tens of cubic metres or less per country per year -- the use of such radioactive substances is growing, and so is the waste.
PROGRAM AREAS AND OBJECTIVE(S)
The objective for this program area is to ensure that radioactive wastes are safely managed, transported, stored and disposed of. This objective was set with a view to protecting human health and the environment, within a larger context of encouraging an interactive approach to radioactive waste management and safety.
CANADIAN POSITIONS AT RIO
1. Official Canadian Position
The official Canadian position was to not pre-empt the work being undertaken in other international fora, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the London Convention. Moreover, although the official Canadian position supported some reduction of the generation of radioactive waste, Canada was against calling for the "prevention" of radioactive waste; in effect Canada asserted that to seek to prevent radioactive wastes is to seek to abolish the use of nuclear energy. Assuming that countries make use of nuclear energy in their national energy programs, Canada's objective was to ensure that the resulting risks to the environment and to members of the public do not pose any undue risks and are as low as reasonably achievable. Similarly, Canada was against specific reference to "transmutation", calling instead for wording which would allow greater flexibility in determining direction of research efforts.
2. Non-Governmental Organizations
Canadian NGOs saw the government position on radioactive wastes limited to supporting reduction, but not prevention. The issue of the need for nuclear technology (energy) was broached, but was not considered appropriate by the government representatives. NGOs differed greatly from government and business on this issue, favouring restraint and prevention.
Some Canadian NGOs felt very strongly that until there were socially and environmentally acceptable methods for disposal of radioactive wastes, the activities generating these wastes should be discontinued. Moreover, some Canadian NGOs felt that Canada should propose the formation of a UN agency which would establish a coordinated international regime to deal with the long-term management of toxic wastes of all kinds, both chemical and nuclear, and which would have no promotional function.
One of the main NGO critiques of the UNCED process was that the issue of demilitarization/disarmament was not covered as a separate issue, and indeed that the issue of radioactive wastes resulting from military activities and weapons was not even addressed in Agenda 21's Chapter 22.
3. Business and Industry
Business supported the Canadian government positions on this chapter.
4. Indigenous
Indigenous Peoples identified the need for the development of protocols which requires the involvement of Indigenous Peoples at all levels of discussion and decision making since international activities always affect Indigenous Peoples. Under Agenda 21, Indigenous Peoples were to be informed, consulted and allowed to participate at the national level for decision making.
COMMITMENTS MADE BY CANADIANS
1. Legally-binding Documents
None.
2. Political Pronouncements
None.
3. Alternative NGO Treaties and Kari-Oca
NGO Treaties
At the same time as UNCED, two major international events were also held at Rio. One was the International Non-Governmental Organization Forum (Global Forum). At the Global Forum, 3,100 NGOs discussed a number of matters related to environment and development and produced a parallel set of documents: an NGO Earth Charter and 38 Alternative NGO Treaties. Canadian NGOs played a significant role in developing the Treaties and took a lead in coordinating their dissemination. Of these treaties, two addressed the issues discussed in Chapter 22.
NGO Treaty on Waste
This treaty is based, in part, on the principle that, "(t)he problems induced by industrial, hazardous and existing nuclear wastes must be prevented and solutions must be funded by the producers themselves. These solutions must be licensed and monitored by the authorities as well as by elected citizen bodies. All of these management or clean up costs, direct or indirect, must be assumed by the producers themselves. The security and health of the workers must be assured."
NGO Treaty on the Nuclear Problem
This treaty is based on NGOs concern about the nuclear dilemma and presents a number of alternatives to the nuclear threat with which all living species of our planet now live. In discussing these options, the treaty refers a number of times to the reduction and treatment of nuclear waste.
NGO Treaty on Militarism, the Environment and Development
This treaty is relevant to Agenda 21's Chapter 22 in that radioactive wastes can result from the production and use of military weapons. The treaty demands that the impact of militarism be put on the post-Rio agenda and calls for: the elimination of military activity; education in conflict resolution; and promotion of peaceful resolution of disputes. With regards to radioactive wastes, the treaty calls for the immediate prohibition of the use of uranium, the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction, and the elimination of the development, production, transport and storage of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as weapons systems and nuclear power.
Kari-Oca
The second alternative forum at Rio was the International Conference on Territory, Environment and Development (the Kari-Oca Conference). The Kari-Oca Conference was held immediately prior to UNCED by and for the world's indigenous peoples. More than 650 indigenous representatives participated in meetings and cultural events during the conference. They developed and adopted a 109-point Indigenous Peoples Earth Charter.
DEFICIENCIES, GAPS AND CONSTRAINTS WITHIN CHAPTER 22
The extent of the problem is not thoroughly enough described, both in terms of environmental effects and in terms of what countries are in fact affected by this issue.
The views of developing countries with regard to radioactive waste management are not as explicit as they might have been. While developing countries often do not have nuclear programmes, they can still be adversely affected by the mismanagement of radioactive wastes on the part of countries which do have such programmes. This problem could have been more explicitly recognized.
The issue of low-level radioactive mine wastes and tailings (e.g., from the exploitation of uranium, bauxite, copper, phosphate, etc.), notably in developing countries, is completely omitted from the "Basis for Action" section of the chapter.
Nothing is said about the handling of radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and the consequent threat of environmental contamination. It should be noted that the UNCED Secretariat deemed military wastes to be beyond the scope of this chapter on the grounds that it would be covered more generally under the principles of the Rio Declaration.
The importance of public awareness and participation in decisions relating to radioactive waste management is given inadequate attention. Again it was intended that this matter would be addressed more generally under the principles of the Rio Declaration.
Some NGOs have objected to the use of the term "disposal" in the context of radioactive waste. They felt that the chapter should have admitted that: (1) human society has never successfully disposed of any indestructible toxic materials, (2) no reliable scientific criteria exist to determine whether or not a proposed disposal scheme will in fact work for the indefinite periods of time involved, and (3) perpetual monitoring and retrievability should be the hallmarks of any responsible toxic waste management scheme until such time as disposal has been scientifically defined and experimentally verified.
Related to Chapter 20, some NGOs also felt that the separation of the waste issues into separate chapters was not beneficial, detracted from consideration of the entire waste issue, and lost the linkages between the various types of wastes. In particular the separation of hazardous waste, toxic chemicals and radioactive wastes was questioned in that they are related both in nature and remediation approaches. This concern is emphasized in that the four chapter on waste were not consistent in their general approach or specific actions recommended, despite their similarities. In addition, not only were the waste issues discussed in isolation of each other, but there was inadequate discussions of other Agenda 21 issues, (such as freshwater, atmosphere, technology transfer, and financial resources), which are strongly related to the issue of radioactive wastes.
As a final comment, the omission of uranium mill tailings and post-reprocessing nuclear wastes as matters of urgent international concern, was considered by some NGOs to be the most obvious deficiency in Chapter 22.
COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POLICY AND COMMITMENTS MADE
The commitments made at UNCED by participating countries were generally to manage radioactive wastes in a responsible manner. A commitment was also made to support the efforts of international organizations working in this area and especially those which provide assistance to developing countries. In this context, Canada's performance is quite strong. Canada has a strict regulatory regime with regard to the management of radioactive wastes and is actively supporting the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA has two budgets to which Canada contributes. The main budget receives mandatory set contributions from member countries and the Technical Assistance and Cooperation (TAC) Fund receives voluntary contributions for which a target is set by the IAEA. Extra-budgetary resources may also be received. Canada faithfully pays its annual dues to the main budget and has contributed fully to the TAC Fund. Canada can be seen as fully supporting the IAEA and consequently already follows the spirit of the recommendations made in this chapter.
CANADIAN ACTIVITIES EVOLVING THROUGH THE SUSTAINABILITY PROCESS
In 1982, the government established the Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Office as the federal agent responsible for the clean-up of sites contaminated by historic wastes (where those who created the contaminated sites can no longer be held responsible). In the Spring of 1990, the government renewed its commitment to continue the operation of the Office.
The federal government policy on the management of high and low level radioactive wastes is based on the principle that the producer/owner is responsible. As such, insofar as possible, disposal technologies must not rely on the maintenance of institutional controls, permanent disposal must be instituted at an appropriate time, and risks transmitted to the future must not be greater than the risks of the present.
Within these regulatory guidelines, waste producers can propose their own long-term waste management strategy. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), for example, is currently proceeding with an application to the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) for approval to construct and operate a demonstration unit of a modular near surface disposal system at their Chalk River Laboratories site. It would be used for low level wastes produced by AECL, and for wastes received on a commercial basis from small volume producers who have no interest in developing their own facilities for long term management.
In addition to the regulatory requirements of the AECB, it has become the practice in Canada to carry out independent and public processes of environmental review and consultation for major new activities or major new initiatives related to existing activities. In particular, most new nuclear facilities in Canada are now referred to the federal Minister of Environment for a formal public review by an independent panel, with full opportunity for public hearings, and with funding for intervenors.
A detailed and comprehensive research program was initiated by AECL in 1978 to develop a disposal concept for high-level radioactive waste using a geologic repository in crystalline rock. One of the major research facilities is an Underground Research Laboratory located in Manitoba, close to the Whiteshell Laboratories of AECL Research. Construction of this facility is now complete and experiments are continuing.
In October, 1989, the Canadian Minister of the Environment appointed an independent panel to conduct an environmental assessment and review of the concept of deep geologic disposal of nuclear fuel wastes in Canada and other related waste management issues. AECL expects to table an extensive Environmental Impact Statement on the disposal concept with the Panel in early 1994. The entire review is expected to take about five years. (Funds to pay for disposal of used fuel are currently being accrued by the nuclear utilities).
OTHER RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY-RELATED FORA
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
The London Dumping Convention (this Convention initiated a moratorium on the dumping at sea of radioactive wastes)
Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
SUGGESTED READINGS AND INFORMATION SOURCES
Atomic Energy Control Board. Controlling Low-Level Radioactive Wastes, (Ottawa: Atomic Energy Control Board, 1989).
. Annual Report.
Government of Canada. Canada's Green Plan, (Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1990).
. Canada's Green Plan and the Earth Summit, (Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1992).
. Canada's National Report: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Brazil, June 1992, (Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1991).
. "Radioactive Waste Management Policy in Canada", Paper presented at Waste Management '92, March 1992, Tucson, Arizona, (Ottawa: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1992).
International Atomic Energy Agency. Annual Yearbook.
International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Agenda 21: Abstracts, Reviews, and Commentaries, (Theodora Carroll-Foster, editor), (Ottawa: IDRC, 1993).
. Agenda 21: Green Paths to the Future, (D. Spurgeon, editor), (Ottawa: IDRC, 1993).
. A Guide to Agenda 21: Issues, Debates, and Canadian Initiatives, (Theodora Carroll-Foster, editor), (Ottawa: IDRC, 1993).
Keating, Michael. Agenda for Change: A Plain Language Version of Agenda 21 and the Other Rio Agreements, (Geneva: Centre for Our Common Future, 1993).
Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Nuclear Energy and its Fuel Cycle, Prospectus, (Paris: OECD).
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Information Sources:
Atomic Energy Control Board, PO Box 1046, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5S9, tel (613) 995-5894, fax (613) 995-5086.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., 344 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0S4, tel (613) 237-3270
Energy Probe, 225 Brunswick Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2M6, tel (416) 964-9223, fax (416) 964-8239.
Federal Department of Natural Resources, Electricity Branch, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E4, tel (613) 992-4261, fax (613) 995-0087.
Ontario Hydro, 700 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X6, tel (416) 592-5111.
Cite as: Projet de société: Canada and Agenda 21.Winnipeg: IISD, 1995. Online. Internet. http://iisd.ca/worldsd/canada/projet/c22.htm.
