Seaborn Panel

Revision: Feb 3/2016 - DGR 25F The science behind safe nuclear waste disposal: decades of research

Used Nuclear Fuel Project The Seaborn Panel, a federal environmental assessment review The Seaborn Panel submits its report, The governments of Canada and panel, is established to independently From 1996 to 1997, the Seaborn Panel which includes recommendations to The Government of Canada reviews Ontario announce the Nuclear Fuel review AECL’s deep geological disposal conducts public hearings in five the federal Ministers of the the Seaborn Panel report. Waste Management Program. concept. provinces – Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Environment and Natural Resources. Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The panel’s key conclusions are the following: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited AECL submits its environmental From a technical perspective, safety (AECL) is directed to develop the AECL continues to develop the impact statement (EIS) for the concept of the AECL concept has been on concept of deep geological disposal of geological disposal concept, informed The AECB continues independent to the Seaborn Panel. No specific site is balance adequately demonstrated used nuclear fuel and to demonstrate by research performed at the research on geological disposal in identified. for a conceptual stage of the feasibility for its disposal at depths underground research laboratory in Canadian Shield granite, pending a development, but from a social of hundreds of metres in a granitic Whiteshell, Manitoba. decision on the Seaborn Panel report. perspective, it has not. rock formation in the Canadian Shield. The AECB reviews the EIS submitted Research on the long-term The AECB publishes its findings in by AECL and participates in the public As it stands, the AECL concept for performance of granitic rocks The AECB continues its independent reports, scientific journals, and hearings as one of the primary deep geological disposal has not continues. Experiments are conducted assessment and research program, conference proceedings. intervenors. been demonstrated to have broad at underground research laboratories To review AECL’s research, the which consists of in-house research, public support. The concept in its in Canada, Japan and Switzerland, Canadian nuclear regulator (called the collaboration with external experts, as The conclusion, based on multiple The overall conclusion is that the current form does not have the among others. AECB staff develop Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) well as participation in international lines of evidence, is that geological concept proposed by AECL is required level of acceptability to be mathematical models to interpret data until 2000) begins an independent working groups on geological disposal. disposal of used nuclear fuel in the acceptable based on multiple lines of adopted as Canada’s approach for generated from these experiments. regulatory research program focused The AECB also participates in Canadian Shield would be feasible. evidence. AECB staff advise the managing used nuclear fuel. on granitic rock. workshops organized by AECL and Seaborn Panel that Canada should reviews their interim reports. proceed with site selection.

Nuclear Fuel Waste Seaborn Panel is established AECL submits its environmental Seaborn Panel conducts Seaborn Panel submits its Government reviews Management Program begins to independently review results impact statement (EIS) public hearings report to the Government of Canada the Seaborn Panel report

1978 1989 1994 1996 1998 1999

AECB: Atomic Energy Control Board AECL: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Decisions APM: Adaptive phased management CARP: Coordinated Assessment and Research Program Research Government Agencies CEAA: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CNSC: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Reports Activities related to Used Nuclear Fuel project DGR: Deep Geologic Repository EIS: Environmental impact statement Review IAG: Independent Advisory Group Activities related to OPG’s DGR project JRP: Joint Review Panel NWMO: Nuclear Waste Management Organization Public/Panel Hearings Activities by Canada’s Nuclear Regulator OPG: Ontario Power Generation The Government of Canada brings into force the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act and The NWMO recommends an adaptive waste producers establish the Nuclear phased management (APM) approach Waste Management Organization to manage used nuclear fuel for the (NWMO). long term. CNSC publishes regulatory document The Government of Canada accepts G-320, which provides guidance on NWMO’s APM approach for the The APM approach provides a high how to demonstrate the long-term long-term management of used degree of flexibility and adaptability safety of radioactive waste, consistent nuclear fuel. with explicit decision points along each with international best practices. The NWMO is tasked with exploring phase. three options for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. G-320 defines the concept of the Under the APM approach, an informed safety case: an integrated and The NWMO starts to develop a site The NWMO commences site selection community must volunteer to site a documented set of arguments to selection process among volunteer process, inviting Canadian They will recommend the preferred deep geological repository. demonstrate the long-term safety of communities. communities to learn more about the option and, if accepted by the radioactive waste disposal. APM approach to long-term used government of Canada, implement Both sedimentary and crystalline rock nuclear fuel disposal. that option. The NWMO is to work formations in the Canadian Shield will Central to the safety case is the safety collaboratively with Canadians at all be considered. stages and be funded by nuclear assessment: a systematic and energy corporations. quantitative analysis of the level of protection provided by the proposed waste management facility. The safety The CNSC begins the Coordinated assessment must be supported by Assessment and Research Program additional arguments and lines of (CARP) on sedimentary rock as a The AECB becomes the Canadian evidence. candidate host formation for the Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in disposal of used nuclear fuel. 2000. The CNSC continues with The CNSC continues its independent Regulatory document G-320 will be independent regulatory research on regulatory research on geological used by the NWMO to demonstrate deep geological disposal. disposal. the long-term safety of its project.

Nuclear Waste Management NWMO recommends an adaptive CNSC publishes regulatory The adaptive phased management The NWMO invites Canadian Organization (NWMO) is established phased management approach document G-320 (APM) approach is accepted communities to learn about APM

2002 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) The Commission recommends the DGR Research starts on CNSC and CEAA publish the JRP submits a project description for DGR project be referred to a review panel sedimentary rock Agreement and the EIS Guidelines

The federal Minister of the The CNSC and the Canadian Environment refers OPG’s DGR Environmental Assessment Agency project to an environmental (CEAA) publish the final assessment by a Joint Review Panel Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (JRP). Guidelines and the JRP Agreement.

The EIS Guidelines identify the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) information needed for OPG to submits a project description for the prepare the EIS, which will provide a disposal of their low - and detailed analysis of the potential intermediate- level waste in a Deep environmental effects of the proposed Geologic Repository (DGR) within a DGR project. It also lists the CNSC posts a notice of environmental requirements for a licence to prepare sedimentary rock formation beneath assessment (EA) for the DGR project. the Bruce site in Kincardine (Ontario). the site and construct the DGR. Following a public hearing in The JRP Agreement establishes how Kincardine, ON, the CNSC the panel will function and the terms recommends that the Minister of the of reference for conducting the The Canadian Nuclear Safety Environment refer the DGR project to The CNSC begins the Coordinated environmental assessment, and for Commission (CNSC) reviews the Deep a review panel. Assessment and Research Program considering the licence application to Geologic Repository (DGR) project (CARP) on sedimentary rock at the prepare a site and construct OPG’s description submitted by OPG. Bruce site. proposed DGR project. The CNSC publishes regulatory document G-320, which provides The draft EIS Guidelines and JRP guidance on how to demonstrate the Agreement were drafted in long-term safety of radioactive waste. consultation with the Saugeen Ojibway OPG’s Deep Geologic Nation (SON) and subject to public Regulatory document G-320 will be consultation. They were amended Repository Project used by OPG to demonstrate the following consideration of the long-term safety of its project. comments received. Results from the CARP show that sedimentary rocks of the Michigan Basin in Southern Ontario have many favourable properties for the potential disposal of used nuclear fuel: The NWMO continues site selection among nine volunteer communities, all The Cobourg limestone (the host located in Ontario. formation) has good mechanical strength and very low permeability.

The many layers of shale that overlay The CNSC establishes the the Cobourg limestone have very low Independent Advisory Group (IAG) to permeability and high sorption In 2012, CNSC extended the CARP to provide CNSC with an independent capacity (to retain radionuclides). include experimental and theoretical review of both the CNSC’s and research on the long term NWMO’s research programs. The formations have beenresilient to performance of clay seals and their nine cycles of glaciation during the interaction with sedimentary rocks and The Coordinated Assessment and last million years. IAG’s members are Canadian brine groundwater. The research geoscientists who are internationally Research Program (CARP) continues. included natural analogues, and the recognized for their scientific Its results will help with the Southern Ontario is a low seismic development of computer models to region. No evidence of major contributions to geology, independent review of the NWMO’s perform a long-term safety fracturing was found. hydrogeology, geomechanics and APM plan. assessment. geochemistry.

Research on sedimentary rock Research starts CNSC establishes the CNSC research continues in preparation show favourable properties on clay seals Independent Advisory Group for the review of the NWMO’s APM

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

OPG submits the environmental Joint Review Panel (JRP) JRP holds 25 days JRP holds additional JRP submits its report impact statement for DGR is established of hearings hearings for the DGR and recommendations

The Minister of the Environment and The Joint Review Panel holds 25 days The JRP holds an additional 8 days of The JRP for OPG’s proposed DGR the CNSC President announce the of public hearings in Kincardine and public hearings in Kincardine, ON. submits its report to the Minister of establishment of a JRP for OPG’s Port Elgin, ON. Overall, there were 33 days of the Environment with a positive OPG submits the EIS for the proposed proposed DGR project. hearings and 239 participants, recommendation for the project. DGR on the Bruce site. including representation from The members of the JRP are also Aboriginal groups and the United The report includes 97 OPG also applies to the CNSC for a announced. States. More than 20,000 pages of recommendations on proposed licence to prepare the site and informationwere reviewed. environmental and health and safety construct a DGR, and submits the EIS protection measures over the lifetime and a preliminary safety report in of the project. support of the application. The report is consistent with the CNSC’s conclusions. The CARP concludes that the many layers of sedimentary rock at the Bruce site would constitute robust barriers for the long-term containment of low- and intermediate- level waste, based on the following CNSC staff conduct a detailed The results of CARP provide major findings: technical and scientific review of input to CNSC’s staff interventions at OPG’s EIS that results in more than 50 the JRP public hearings. Groundwater at depths of more requests to OPG for additional than 500 m has remained isolated information. CNSC staff conclude that the DGR from the near-surface waters for project will not cause significant hundreds of millions of years. adverse environmental effects nor impact aboriginal treaty rights, and The rock at depths of more than a recommends to the JRP the issuance few hundred metres was unaffected of a licence to prepare site and by nine glacial cycles over the last construct the DGR. million years.

Damage of the rock due to the construction of the repository, and future perturbations such as glaciation and gas generation would be limited.