GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC

1. GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Liblice Věra Šumberová Radioactive Waste Repository Authority(RAWRA) Czech Republic RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 1

2. Nuclear energy: Secure, sustainable and economically competitive source Sustainable: effectivity, the provision of energy such that it meets the needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs - consuming raw material at the rate by which substitutes are created • optimal utilisation of raw material • minimisation of waste production • final waste management- acceptable impacts on the environment – geological disposal Geological Repository - for final disposal of HLW unacceptable to existing repositories - for final disposal of SNF or HLW in its reprocessing Necessary even in case of advanced separation methods and future utilisation of generation IV reactors including transmutation reactors – impacts on required capacity, life cycle, design etc. Responsibility To demonstrate that there is a feasible solution to HLW task To assess costs to collect sufficient payments to finance the repository – to minimise the burden of future generations In CR repository operation foreseen only from 2065 Need for Geological Repository RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 2

3. EU attitude to RWM Link between energy and RWM made by Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET) – crusial importance of implementing appropriate waste management solutions in short to medium term. Technology Platform for Implementing Geological Disposal (IGD-TP) of nuclear waste was launched in Brussels in November 2009 with the support of the European Commission. Mission: to define and implement a strategic research agenda to address the remaining scientific, technological and socio-political challenges. Final aim: to implement geological disposal of nuclear waste while respecting the highest levels of safety and environmental protection. To further enhance societal confidence in geological disposal and to promote the development of disposal solutions across the EU. Europe- leading role in geological disposal Most advanced countries: Finland (2020 operation), Sweden, France, Germany (resumption of the Gorleben site) RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 3

4. Czech Policy of Radiaoctive Waste Management Concept ofRadioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the Czech Republic - Government Decree No.487 (of May 15th, 2002) LLW-ILW – to utilise the whole potential capacity of repositories in operations Conceptual recommendations for HLW and SNF management: The developmentof a deep geological repository for disposalof spent nuclear fuel is a priority Advancedpartitioning and transmutations methods of SNFwill be financially and scientifically supported The milestones for DGR development: 2015........incorporation of two sites in land use plan 2025.......examination of one site suitability 2030.......construction of confirmation URF 2065.......operation of DGR RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 4

5. Deep Geological Repository Development: Legislation Spatial(Regional) Development Policy of the Czech Republic According the Building Act amendment (2007): The Policy is a binding document upon communities and regional authorities Part of the policy is an assessment of the policy's impact on the sustainable regional development Proposal made public, public hearings (22nd July 2008 in Prague, 17th September 2008 in Brno) organised by the Ministry for Regional Development June-September 2008 – consultation with neighbouring states Negative statement of the Ministry of the Environment Approved by the government ( Goverment Decree N.929 from 20th July 2009) Siting of a deep geological repository „Reservation“ of potentially suitable sites – with the aim of ensuring protection of the sites against any changes in their utilisation which would adversely affect repository construction in the future. Task for RAWRA: Initiation of geological survey of sites up to 2009 with for the selection of the two most suitable sites before 2015 with the communityinvolvement. RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 5

6. Reference design 2011 Basic requirements Safety Technical and economical feasibility Public acceptance (both on national level and on local level -host region) Update of the reference design from 1999 located at a hypothetical site with average characteristics High level waste and spent nuclear fuel from the operation of the existing NPPs: –HLW 3000 m3 –SNF–DukovanyNPP –1940 t (40 year operation) –SNF–Temelin NPP – 1790 t (40 year operation) Update of the technology, costs RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 6

7. Reference design 2011 New option considered: new sources –3 new reactors (60 years of operation) – increase of HLW to: –HLW –5 000 m3 –SNF– 9 000 t » » » 5 880 disposal containers: 2050 (type440) +1 130(typ 1 000)+ 2 700(new type) Horizontal disposal – significantly decreases dimensions of galleries and excavation requirements Inclined access tunnel (helix) x vertical shaft Total area of surface facilities – 22 ha Total underground disposal area – 314 ha Total volume of excavated rock – 1.8 mil. m3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 7

8. Reference design 2011 RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 8

9. Reference design 2011 RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY Liblice April 2010 9

10. Deep Geological Repository Development: Siting Identification of sites : step-wise process started in 1991 based on legal requirements and existing (geological) data – 11 potentailly suitable sites identified - 6 sites with granites chosen 2004: geological information obtained through indirect methods (remote sensing, helicopter-born geophysical measurements and satellite photographs) and historical geological documentation Pre-feasibility study concerned mainly with the surface area (availability of required size, respecting statutary requirements, connection to road or railway network, infrastructure, conflict of interests, capital requirements and risk analysis) Moratorium of geological works at 6 sites up to 2009 at minimum (Government Decree N. 550 of June 2nd 2004) RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 10

11. Deep Geological Repository Development: Siting 1 Lubenec 2 Pačejov nádraží 3 Božejovice 4 Pluhův Žďár 5 Rohozná-Růžená 6 Budišov Sites identified as potentially suitable – granitic massives RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY

12. Deep Geological Repository Development: Siting -6 suitable sites + 2 military training areas RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY

13. Siting of a deep geological repository: Proposed way forward Narrowing down the number of sites in a transparent process Application of RAWRA for the establishment of exploration areas Provided by the Ministry of Environment (Act N. 62/1988 on geological works) The parties of the procedure are applicant, municipality and civic associations) Reasons for potential denial are given in the Act (overlapping with territory of other clients or prior permissions etc.) RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY La Grande Motte 22nd - 24th April 2009 13

14. Geological Repository Development:communication During moratorium affords aimed at modification of legislation: Communities and civic associations for the right of veto of nuclear facility Financial benefits for municipalities at the stage of geological survey RAWRA aims at tolerance (support) of municipalities for the planned geological survey (support does not mean approval of the DGR construction at the lataer stages): 2009, 10: Meetings with local representatives at sites, papers in the media Currently: 1 site indicated conditional approval 1 site rejection Support is not required by the legislation Constructive dialogue is difficult especially in municipalities where local referenda resulted in repository rejection – seen as binding decision by local representatives RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY La Grande Motte 22nd - 24th April 2009 14

15. Public opinion survey (2007) Local citizens: Would you agree with the geological survey in your neighbourghood? RADIOTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 15

16. Role of the public Support (or tolerance): Pros and cons - balanced ↔Access to information, experience (visits to nuclear facilities, etc). ↔ Economical measures, local development projects etc. ↔ Clear roles of all stakeholders, fair and open process Local opposition: 1.insufficient understanding + fear 2.potential benefits are too distant in the future 3. role of the public considered insufficient (communication is not structured and meaningfull) Concerns for radioactivity, health impacts Social and economical concerns Governance issues RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 16

17. Role of the public (2) Access to information (information centres proposed at all sites) Socio- economical benefits Conference „Deliberation – way to the geological repository“ (November 2009) Participation of 2 ministers, senators, representatives of Andra, OECD,communities and NGOs Payments 8-12 milion Cz/per site in the stage of the geological survey offered- change of the Atomic Act (probably only after elections) required 3. Meaningful dialogue with communities EC project on governance Argona (first time ongoing dialogue of representatives of state, NGO‚s and local communities) Proposal of a working group with increased legitimacy (under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry and Trade and Ministry of the Environment) with the aim to discuss and design the rules for the decision-making process –outputs will be submitted to ministries European project IPPA proposed to evaluate siting process in 2011-2014 and to provide feedback based on foreign experience RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 17

18. Role of the public (3) Conclusions: Environment for the geological repository siting process in CR is slightly changing (e.g. public involvement required by government document) Afford is made to create transparent decision making process (seen as fair and open) with clear roles of all stakeholders Conditions for structured and meaningful discussion are gradually formed Sufficient time needed for all parties to learn their roles and to create trust of local inhabitants RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 18

19. Thank you for your attention RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 19

20. Public opinion survey (2007) Local citizens: Who should have decisive power in siting of…? RADIOTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY AUTHORITY 20