Radioactive waste management in Europe

1
Radioactive waste management in Europe
European Commission Directorate General
Transport and Energy
(European citizens views)
Ute Blohm-Hieber European Commission
GMF Project Cernavoda, 5 6.04.2006
2
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Nuclear energy and radioactive waste

• The use of the nuclear energy tackles climate
  change concerns by contributing to guarantee
  energy supply in Europe

• But reliability on nuclear energy is linked to
  find more acceptable solutions for the management
  of radioactive waste generated in NPPs

• Confident management solutions should be
  implemented while developing public acceptation
  and technical solutions based on sustainable and
  long term safer fuel cycle operations

3
Radioactive waste management in Europe
2005 Eurobarometer on radioactive waste

• Third survey to know the attitudes of European
  citizens as regards the issue of radioactive
  waste (previous EB published in 1999 2002)

• 24.708 interviews carried out between 09.02.05
  and 20.03.05. (on average 1.000 per MS, ranging
  from 500 in Malta to 1.532 in Germany)

• Multipurpose tool with a major objective policy
  instrument contributing to bring decision making
  processes closer to citizens

4
But, there are differences Information on
Radioactive Waste (Eurobarometer 2005)
Percentage of Well informed

• Citizens of Sweden, Finland and Slovenia feel
  the most well informed in the EU (51)
• Spanish and Portugese the least (15)

5
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• Attitudes towards nuclear energy
• Six citizens out of ten acknowledge the benefits
  of the use of nuclear energy as regards
  diversification of energy supply, reduction of
  oil dependence and save of greenhouse gas
  emissions
• Nevertheless, only 37 are in favor to the use
  of the nuclear energy, vs. 55 opposed

6
Acceptance of Nuclear Power Details per MS

• top Hungary, Sweden, Czech Republic,
  Lithuania, Finland
• most opposed Austria, Greece, Cyprus,
  Ireland AVERAGE EU-25 37

7
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• But if the issue of radioactive waste were
  considered as solved
• Among those opposing to the use of the energy
  nuclear, 38 would change their opinion
• e.g. in total 58 of European citizens would be
  in favor to the use of nuclear energy, while 31
  would be opposed

8
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Information seems not enough

• Three out of four citizens in the EU do not feel
  well informed
• NGOs and independent scientists are largely the
  most trusted sources of information (four
  citizens out of ten)

9
Radioactive waste management in Europe
confirmed by a medium/low level of actual
knowledge on radioactive waste issues

• The average of corrects answers to specific
  questions were
• 53 about the nature of radioactive wastes
• 44 about management techniques

10
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Most significant misunderstandings about the
nature of radioactive waste (1)

• All radioactive waste is very dangerous (8 out
  10 citizens)

Radioactive waste is categorised according to how
hazardous it is, which depends essentially upon
the activity level (Bq of activity per unit of
volume or mass) and the time to return to a level
close to the original mineral level
11
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• Short-lived very low-level waste
• Lifespan lt 30 years
• Activity lt 100 kBq of beta/gamma per tonne
• Origin decommissioning of nuclear installations
• Handling normally without particular shielding
• Management disposal or recycling after some
  years

Some examples about natural radiation Earth 5 to
50 kBq of beta/gamma per tonne Apple 15 kBq of
beta/gamma per tonne
12
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• Lifespan of long-lived high-level wastes

Activity gt 12 GBq beta/gamma per tonne
10.000
1.000
Decay without partitioning and transmutation
100
Relative radiotoxicity
10
Radiotoxicity of uranium ores
340.000 years
1
0,1
10
100
100
100.000
10.000
1.0000.000
years
13
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Most significant misunderstandings about the
nature of radioactive waste (2)

• Radioactive waste is produced in similar
  quantities to other dangerous waste (1 out of 2
  citizens)

The amount of toxic waste produced in Europe is
about 5.000 to 10.000 higher than the amount of
produced dangerous radioactive waste
14
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• Total radioactive waste per year (EU-25)
• Whereas...
• Long lived low level waste
• High level waste, vitrified
• Spent Fuel
• In comparison (EU-15, 2000)
• Toxic waste

40.000 m3 90 cm3 per person
3000 m3 7 cm3 p.p.
240 m3 0,5 cm3 p.p.
2400t 5 g p.p.
36 million t 100 kg p.p.
15
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Most significant misunderstandings about the
management of radioactive waste (1)

• Radioactive waste is currently buried deep
  underground at special disposal sites (58 of
  EU citizens)

As regards high level radioactive waste, in the
EU just Finland has currently decided on the
management strategy (underground disposal), but
the repository would not begin operation until
2020
16
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Most significant misunderstandings about the
management of radioactive waste (2)

• Radioactive waste is sent to other countries
  for disposal (final storage) (52 of EU
  citizens)

Current practices in the EU show that no country
likes to bury radioactive waste from abroad
(specially high level waste), existing also in
many countries national laws that prevent such
possibility
17
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Most significant misunderstandings about the
management of radioactive waste (3)

• Radioactive waste is dumped at sea (35 of EU
  citizens)

London Convention of 1972 prohibited the disposal
of high level radioactive waste in the marine
environment. This measure was extended to all
type of radioactive waste from 1994.
18
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Overestimated risk perception as regards
transport and storage

• The transport and the storage of low level
  radioactive waste are things that represent high
  risk (7 out of 10 EU citizens)

Over 1 million packages of radioactive material
are transported each year, primarily for use in
medicine, research and industry. Exposures of
members of the public are trivial and represent
only a minor fraction of the relevant dose limit

19
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Gap perception as regards recycling of clean
materials

• Recycled non- contaminated materials coming from
  nuclear industry cannot be used for any purpose
  (44 of EU citizens)

No comments
20
Radioactive waste management in Europe
R 0,62

21
Radioactive waste management in Europe

• R0,86

22
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Therefore, those Member State whose citizens
shows

• higher knowledge as regards nuclear waste
  (EU-25)
• lower risk perception of waste (EU-15)

are more in favor of the use of the nuclear
energy

• Two remarks
• Not valid for individual citizens (only at MS
  level!)
• Nevertheless relation cause-effect is a complex
  phenomenon needing deep analysis

23
Radioactive waste management in Europe
Public opinion

• Solutions for highly radioactive waste should
  be developed now and not left for future
  generations (9 out of 10 EU citizens)

and public involvement

• Decisions in case of construction of an
  underground disposal site near their home
• 6 out of 10 EU citizens would like to be
  directly consulted and to participate
• 2 out of 10 want local NGOs participate

24
Radioactive waste management in Europe
25
Radioactive waste in Europe
In general European citizens

• feel themselves unsatisfactory informed and have
  a medium to low actual knowledge about
  radioactive waste
• demonstrate a relatively low acceptation of the
  nuclear energy that change substantially if the
  problem of radioactive waste would be solved. The
  acceptation by country seems also to be related
  in some way to the level of its average actual
  knowledge.
• are sceptical about a safe way of getting rid of
  highly radioactive waste, appearing deep
  underground disposal as the most appropriate
  solution but only with the support of a half of
  EU citizens
• show an important gap perception about the risk
  associated to radioactive waste issues
• ask for finding solutions now and for being
  involved in decisions
• supports EU intervention in matters as regards
  this issue

26
Radioactive waste in Europe

• At Community level demonstration facilities

• Technologies aiming to reduce the volume and
  danger of radioactive waste
• Recycling of nuclear fuel sustainability and
  security of supply
• Support for decision making processes,
  participated by public
• Communication instrument
• Innovation vector

27
Radioactive waste in Europe

• Local level

• The high diversity in knowledge and attitudes
  among local communities hosting nuclear
  facilities is an opportunity for improving the
  actual knowledge in EU countries by
• Identifying good practices in the most
  successful areas
• Analysing the best practices
• Transferring knowledge to areas having less
  experience
• Accompanying knowledge management activities
  (implementation, dissemination, etc.)

e.g. GMF action supported by EC