XA04CI287

Good Acceptance: Public Opinion about Nuclear Energy in

Andrej Stritar,Radko Isteni& "JoffefStefan "Institute, Nuclear Training Centre, Jamova 39 Ljubljana, Slovenia andrej.stritarys. si

Introduction Nuclear Training Centre Milan topi6 at the Jo2ef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana is performing extensive public information activities. All the elementary and high schools in Slovenia are invited to visit our permanent exhibition and attend the lecture about the nuclear energy or radioactive waste disposal. In the year 1998 7427 visitors visited us. Most of them are from the 7hand 8hgrade of elementary school, age 14 to 15.

Every year in the spring we ask several hundred of visitors the same set of questions about their knowledge and opinion about nuclear energy. They are polled before they listen to the lecture or visit the exhibition. In that way we are trying to obtain their opinion based on the knowledge they obtain in everyday life.

Result of the 1999 Poll With this set of questions we are trying to evaluate understanding and opinion about the nuclear energy. They were defined already some years ago, when there was substantially stronger anti-nuclear movement in our country.

From the answers to the question What are the reasons for the use of nuclear energy? we can conclude that there was a shift in positive direction regarding the understanding of environmental friendliness of the nuclear energy.

From the answers to the similar question What are the reasons against the use of nuclear energy we can see that the disposal of the waste and radiation from NPPs are only slightly loosing on importance. We can observe that more people are aware about the possibility of an accident in the NPP.

Next question was What will be stored in the low-level radioactive waste repository? It is obvious from the answers that there is considerable misunderstanding of the facts. There were several answers possible.

This year we have slightly changed the last question in this group. Until last year we were asking about the future of the NPP Kr9ko: When should NPP Kr9ko be shut down? Possible answers were: immediately, in five years, at the end of its life time and I don't know. This question was prepared in the beginning of nineties when there was serious threat from green overnment to shut down NPP Kr9ko in next years. Since there is no such threat anymore, the question was becoming irrelevant.

The new formulation for this question is the following: What should be the future of nuclear energy in Slovenia? Possible answers were: shut down NPP Kr9ko immediately, shut down NPP r9ko in five years, operate NPP r9ko until the end of its life time, build a new NPP to replace old fossil plants and I don't know. Assuming that those for the new plant are also for the continued operation of the NPP Kr9ko, we can still compare results over the years.

151 Shut down NPP Kitko immediately

0,78% Shut down NPP Kr4ko in Wars 51 66,60% Shut down NPP K§ko at M281/6 the end of its life time

Build a new NPP

Is's% I don't know and No answer 521/

0% 10% 200/6 300/6 40% 50% 600/ 70% 80%

c3 1999 m 1998 a 1997 0 1993

What should be the future of nuclear energy in Slovenia?

This year we can see the fourth year of the drop in the number of people against . For the new nuclear power plant were 765 of polled population. If we add that to 70.49 of those, that think the NPP Kr9ko should operate until the end of its life time, we get slightly higher number of supporters than last year 78.14 compared to 77.33 last year)

Questions about the environment

With these two questions we are trying to determine what is the relationship of the person towards the general environmental issues.

From the answer to the question What is most harmful to the environment? we can see how media are influencing perception about importance of environmental problems. Several years ago everybody was talking about ozone holes, so this problem has attracted more concerns. Today ozone holes are less discussed in the media; therefore they have lost on importance among the polled population.

The positive trend can be observed from the answer describing the fear of radiation from NPPs. It has fallen from 12.79 in 1993 to 8.1 in 1999. However, one of the major public concerns about nuclear energy is permanently gaining on importance: number of people, who consider radioactive waste to be a major concern for the environment is steadily increasing (from 13.64 in 1993 to 18.6 this year). This year that was even the major concern of all other issues.

Finally, we are asking every year our visitors about their acceptance to live close to some industrial or otherwise disturbing facility. Regrettably, this year again people are more afraid of the radwaste repository than of the operating nuclear power plant. Last year was the first time this has changed. But that was obviously not a beginning of the longer trend.

152 1999 How acceptable is for you to live in the vicinity of:

Nuclearpowerplant 34,4/ MM m acceptable

Mine repository 34,6% 0 partly acceptable

Hann 20,2% A", 0 not acceptable

:"M.:..y L31don't know and No answer "Cit-ay 20,r/ Ps

Low and interniediate RN 40,5% repository 1

Fossil powe plant 31,9%

2/. 40-. 60% 80%

Conclusions Comparison of the results with previous years shows stable and steadily improving public acceptance of nuclear energy in Slovenia. The following conclusions can be obtained: • Cleanliness of nuclear power is not well understood and should be stressed in information activities • Radioactive waste is still considered as a major problem of our industry and is even gaining on importance. • Percentage of people believing that NPP r9ko should operate until the end of its lifetime is high and steady. For the first time we have determined, that almost of people would accept a new nuclear power plant in the country. No correlation between social environment and understanding of nuclear energy could be found. But, relatively favourable public acceptance can change over night. Therefore a permanent information activity is essential.

References: I Skupina avtorjev Slovenskojavno mnenje 1986 Univerza v Ijubijam, Fakulteta za sociolo.gijo, politidne vede in novinarstvo, Center za. raziskovanje javnega nmenja in mnoh6nih komunikacij Ljubljana, 1986 2 Skupina avtorJev Slovenskojavno mnerje 1987 Delavska enotnost, Ljubljana, 1987 3 Skupina avtorjev Slovenskojavno mnenje 1990 Univerza v Llubljani, Fakulteta za socicilogljo, politi6ne vede in novinarstvo, Center za raziskovanjejavneoa mnenja in mno2idnih komunikacij Ljubljana, 1990 4 Izved1jivost zapiranja NE Kr9ko Ministrstvo za energetiko Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana, Maribor, junij 1993 5 Toma2 Kukovica, rena Mele, Andrej Stritar. Development and Implementation of Public Relations Strategy Nuclear Society of Slovenia 2'd Regional Meeting Nuclear Energy in CentralEurope Portoro2 1995, p 363-367 6 Andrej Stntar. Public Acceptance, a Key Issue ofNuclear Energy Nuclear Society ofCroatia Nuclear Option in Countries with Small and Medium Grid, OpatUa, 1996, (I996), p 134-140 7 Andrej Stritar, Radko Istem Public Debates about Nuclear Energy in Slovenia During 1995/96 International Workshop on Nuclear Public Information in Practice, Brugoe, 1997, Transactions, 1996), p 32 9 Andrej Stntar Lessons Learned from Public Debates about Nuclear Energy in Slovenia During 1995/96 Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Portoro, 1996, Proceedings, 1996), p 546-552 9 Andrej Stritar Informing Public about Nuclear in Slovenia Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference 1998, Banff, 1998 1 0 Andrej Stntar, Radko Isteni6 Changing perception about nuclear power in Slovenia in the changing political climate International Workshop on Nuclear Public Information, Maastricht, 1998, Transactions, 1998) I Andrej Stritar, Radko Istern6 Public Opinion about Nuclear Energy - 1998 Poll Nuclear Energy in Central Europe 98, ilatet 1998, Proceedings, (I 998), p 399-406

153