Boundaries of nature in negotiating Czech geological disposal for spent nuclear fuel
Karel Svačina, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Paper prepared for the “Writing Nature” course at University of Oslo, October 29 – November 2,
2012.
This is a draft version of the paper as of October 1, 2012.
Introduction
Negotiating geological disposal is a complex sociotechnical process.1
Underground, there are
geological formations that need to be explored, drilled into, and into one of which the long-lived
and highly radioactive waste will once be placed. Above the surface, there are villages, recreational
areas, people who pick mushrooms in the forests, but also laboratories where materials are tested,
international relations, and so on. It may seem that the geological formations do not change – in
terms of our civilization, they have been here for ever, and will stay here for ever. As a matter of
fact, that is one of the main arguments when proving the long-term safety of the future repository.
However, when we look closer, we will see that the world underground interacts with the world on
the ground. Once the geological repository is negotiated between state organisations and
municipalities, once it is talked about in public discussions, the rock-solid geological formations
sometimes start to change. This paper will explore these changes – it will look into how nature is
dealt with in the negotiation process of geological disposal, how it is used as a resource for
arguments, and how its boundaries are maintained or changed when taken from the underground
into the world of politics.
Nuclear power and spent nuclear fuel in the Czech Republic
The Czech Republic operates two nuclear power plants (NPP): NPP Dukovany, which started
operation in 1987, and NPP Temelín, which started operation in 2002. The projected operating
lifetime of both of the NPPs was originally 30 years, and in Dukovany it will likely be extended to
50-60 years. These two NPPs make up for about 30% of electricity production in the Czech
Republic. They are owned and operated by ČEZ, the largest and dominant Czech energy producer
and distributor, which is 70% owned by the Czech state. Nuclear power seems to be quite popular in
the Czech Republic: all major political parties support it, and according to surveys, the Czech public
is one of the most supportive within the European Union (see e.g. Eurobarometer 2008, p. 8).
Recently, the Czech government together with ČEZ have put forward a proposal to build two new
reactors at the Temelín power plant. In 2011, three companies who are bidding for the construction
received documentation for the bid. In addition, there is a long-term plan to construct an additional
nuclear block at Dukovany. After Fukushima, Prime Minister Petr Nečas has repeatedly said that the
disaster will not influence the plans for nuclear new build in the Czech Republic (see Svačina and
Konopásek 2012, p. 2).
As a country with nuclear power, the Czech Republic produces spent nuclear fuel and
highly radioactive waste. The two NPPs are expected to produce about four thousand tonnes of
spent nuclear fuel and three thousand cubic metres of highly radioactive waste during their 40 years
lifetime. Should the currently proposed nuclear new build be completed, the amount would rise to
nine thousand tonnes of spent nuclear fuel and five thousand cubic metres of highly radioactive
waste.
1 Much of the empirical research that this paper draws on was carried out during our work on the InSOTEC project
funded within the EC-FP7 (www.insotec.eu).
1
After the fuel is taken out from the reactors and cooled in water pools for several years, it
is put into “dry” storage containers and placed in storage facilities adjacent to the nuclear power
plants. These storage facilities are large enough to contain the four thousand tonnes of spent nuclear
fuel. The fuel is expected to stay there for several decades, during which its heat output as well as
radioactivity should decrease significantly. Nevertheless, its radioactivity will remain dangerous for
living organisms for more than a hundred thousand years. Therefore, the radioactive waste needs to
be dealt with in the long term.
By the Czech law, the state is responsible for the management of all kinds of radioactive
waste. To this end, a state organisation called Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RAWRA),
which is subordinate to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, was established in 1997. Similarly to
many other countries, the preferred way of dealing with highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel in the Czech Republic in the long term is the construction of deep geological disposal. This
strategy is put down in a governmental document called “Strategy for dealing with radioactive
waste” (MPO ČR 2001). In addition, this document contains a schedule for implementing
geological disposal. According to this schedule, a “primary” and a “backup” site with “the best
geological conditions” are to be identified by 2015. By 2025, this selection is to be confirmed by
detailed geological research. The construction of the repository is planned to start in 2050 and be
finished in 2065 (MPO ČR 2001, p. 22; cf. also Svačina and Konopásek 2012, p. 8). This schedule
is followed by RAWRA, although the 2015 deadline is deemed unrealistic, and has been moved to
2018.
A short history of the preparation of Czech deep geological disposal for radioactive waste
Deep geological repository is essentially a mine excavated in a stable geological environment (these
can be for instance salt formations, clay, tuff, or granite). The general concept is that radioactive
waste is placed in a system of “engineered barriers”, often comprising of a metal container and
bentonite seals, and put into holes drilled deep (usually between 300 and 1000 metres) in the stable
geological formation. It is expected that this combination of engineered and natural barriers will
keep the waste isolated from biosphere until it ceases to be dangerous for living organisms (i.e. until
its radioactivity decreases to a level of naturally found uranium).
The preparation of a Czech deep geological disposal started in the early 1990s when it
became clear that Czechoslovakia and later the Czech Republic would not be able to export its spent
nuclear fuel to the Soviet Union and later Russia, as had been previously planned. There was no
specific organization dedicated to radioactive waste management at that time. Radioactive waste
management was overseen by several ministries, mainly the Ministry of the Environment and the
Ministry of Economy. In the early 1990s the Czech Geological Survey under the Ministry of the
Environment carried out research which identified 27 areas potentially suitable for constructing
deep geological repository. This number was later narrowed down by the Nuclear Research Institute
to eight smaller areas. The criteria in this process were first and foremost geological – the goal was
to identify the most suitable places in terms of geological conditions.
When RAWRA was created in 1997, it took over the geological disposal development
programme. It revised the work done by the Czech Geological Survey and the Nuclear Research
Institute and started a new process of “regional mapping”, which considered primarily geological
criteria, but included also other criteria for finding the most suitable places for geological disposal,
such as proximity of the identified sites to valuable natural resources, industrial objects, or natural
reserves (Svačina and Konopásek 2012, p. 5). This endeavour resulted into a list of eleven locations
in various geological environments. Seven of these locations were in granite rock, and RAWRA
decided to focus on six of them.
When the six preselected sites were announced in the early 2000s, strong local public
2
opposition followed. People organized local protests, and most of the municipalities organized local
referenda in which sweeping majorities voted against the repository. Partly as a result of this
opposition, in 2004 the Minister of Industry and Trade announced a five-year moratorium on the
site selection process. After the moratorium ended in 2009, RAWRA resumed negotiations with the
municipalities in the six preselected areas. Most recently, a new candidate site was added to the list.
It is situated very close to two uranium mines, one of which is still in operation. At present,
RAWRA emphasizes the need to carry out geological research at the preselected sites in order to be
able to see whether they are really suitable or not. It tries to negotiate with the municipalities to
obtain their consent with the research. However, none of the municipalities has agreed so far.
At the national level, a “Working group for dialogue about geological disposal” was
established. It is a formalized group whose creation was initiated by RAWRA. It brings together
representatives from the parliament, several ministries, RAWRA, national and local NGOs and the
affected municipalities. The group has a formal statute and is to a large extent inspired by the
“Riscom” model for public participation.2
It has formulated its goal to be to “strengthen the
transparent process of site selection for geological disposal..., respecting the interests of the public.”
(Pracovní skupina pro dialog o hlubinném úložišti 2010, p. 1). In practice, since its inception the
group has focused on legislative matters and is trying to find a way of implementing a “veto” right
for the municipalities in the site selection process.
The emphasis on site selection in the process of negotiating geological disposal
It can be observed that the Czech effort to construct geological disposal is characteristic by looking
for a site for the repository. This is apparent for example in the schedule that RAWRA endorses:
according to the schedule, it is necessary to find the primary and a backup site first (and rather
soon). Then there will be quite a lot of time to work on the site, confirm its suitability, and construct
the repository there. Representatives of RAWRA confirm this vision: for instance, at a public
discussion at one of the preselected sites, the director of RAWRA said that although it is not clear
whether in the end the Czech Republic will need its geological repository, the task of RAWRA now
is to identify sites that are suitable for the construction of geological repository. In other words, site
selection – the where question – is the main and often the only visible part of the Czech geological
disposal development programme. This fact has wider implications for the way the future repository
is negotiated. Perhaps most notably, when the prevailing question is where to build the repository,
nature comes into play.
Natural conditions in site selection, and how to make a geological repository mobile
In the general deep geological disposal concept, the long-term safety is provided by the natural
environment that the containers with the waste will be placed into. Although the steel or copper
containers may last for thousands of years, their long-term durability cannot be guaranteed. The
really long-term safety lies in the scientific proof that the geological environment will remain stable
and will keep the dangerous waste away from living organisms even when the containers corrode or
break. Geology is supposed to provide the long-term safety of the repository, and natural science is
supposed to provide the certainty of this safety.
Thus, quite obviously, geological conditions play a prime role when one talks about the
safety of the future repository. For instance, at a conference held in 2009 in Prague, FrançoisMichel
Gonnot, the president of the French radioactive waste management agency ANDRA, said:
“It is better to rely on geology than on society. Which is a point difficult to accept but which is ...
2 For more information on the Riscom model, see for instance
<http://www.karita.se/our_approach/riscom_model.php >. Vojtěchová (2009) reports on the inittial application of
the model in the Czech Republic within the „Argona“ project.
3
unfortunately the truth. We have to trust geology more than the people.“ (RAWRA 2009) Mr.
Gonnot continues to say that the concept of geological repository is technically feasible and that its
safety can be scientifically demonstrated. He also adds that “a geological repository project is not
only a scientific and technical project, it's a challenge for the society“ (Ibid.). Nevertheless, he
makes a clear distinction between geology and society, and when talking about the long-term safety
of geological disposal, he emphasizes that it is the geology that people need to rely on. In this
perspective, it is reasonable to look for a place with the best possible geological conditions when
searching for a site for the future repository.
Such was the Czech strategy in the early 1990s, when the Czech Geological Survey was
looking for the most suitable sites based on geological criteria. However, this site selection strategy
gradually started to change. Soon after RAWRA was created, it started the process of “regional
mapping”, where geological conditions still played primary role, but other criteria were considered
as well. Reducing the number of the 27 areas meant many choices made, for instance related to
transport infrastructure, proximity to cities, or the distance from neighbouring countries. Also, some
rather practical choices related to the geology were made – RAWRA chose to focus on areas in
granite, perhaps because of their availability, but perhaps also because much of the related
international research is carried out in granite environments (such as at the Grimsel test site in
Switzerland, or at Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory in Sweden), and some of the most advanced
geological disposal programmes are situated in granite environment as well.
Thus, the quest for the site for geological repository has moved from looking for a place
with the best geology to looking for “the most suitable site”. This is not to say that geological
criteria necessarily had to become compromised. The geologists involved in the site selection
process would say that all of the preselected sites possibly provide excellent geological conditions
for the repository (interview with a member of staff at RAWRA). Nevertheless, in the beginning,
the siting of the repository was a geological problem, a problem of the best natural conditions.
Gradually, it became a problem of a combination of “good enough” geological conditions and other
circumstances. What has changed is the boundary between what in the planning and negotiation
process belongs to nature, and what does not. While in the beginning it seemed that the location of
the repository will be fully determined by natural conditions and their scientific investigation, now
it seems that natural conditions are not so deterministic. As far as natural conditions are concerned,
all of the preselected sites are “good enough”. As a matter of fact, the director of RAWRA said at a
public meeting that should negotiations on all of the preselected sites fail, RAWRA could “go back”
and consider other sites than those that are currently in the selection (public meeting in Věžná, 16th
April 2012). Thus, it can be inferred that the redrawing of boundaries of natural conditions in the
site selection process has contributed to making the project of geological repository more mobile
than it seemed at its inception.
Elam and Sundqvist (2011) have made a similar observation in the Swedish context. They
show how the Swedish KBS programme for radioactive waste management was made a “mutable
mobile” (Latour 1987, De Laet and Mol 2000 ) by separating the “how” question from the “where”
question. According to them, this separation was achieved partly by freeing nuclear waste
management technology from geology (Elam and Sundqvist 2011, p. 257-258): in the subsequent
developments of the KBS concept, more focus was put on the engineered barriers, which resulted
into less strict criteria for siting, to the extent that instead of looking for a site with the best possible
geology as they had done before, the Swedish implementer SKB invited every municipality in
Sweden to participate in a local “feasibility study” (Elam and Sundqvist 2011, p. 258).
It is interesting to compare the Swedish case described by Elam and Sundqvist with the
Czech case. The Czech history of radioactive waste management is shorter than the Swedish one,
and the prevailing Czech focus on site selection could be compared to the Swedish situation in the
middle of 1980s, when SKB insisted on carrying out geological research at various sites across the
4
country in the quest for the best possible site (Elam and Sundqvist 2011, p. 257-258). Still, the
situation is not exactly the same. The Czech programme does not emphasize technology that would
demonstrate the feasibility of the repository and provide for the mobility of the concept. At the same
time, we have seen that since the 1990s, the project of the Czech repository, although still
concerned mainly with looking for a suitable site, has become somewhat more flexible and mobile.
There seems to be a paradox: while the Swedish programme was successful at separating the
“where” question from the “how” question and focus on the latter in order to become more mobile,
the Czech programme is still predominantly concerned with the “where” question. Nevertheless, by
changing boundaries of the role of natural conditions, it has recently made more room for
negotiations and finding its place. One reason why this is possible in the Czech case so far may be
that so far, the Czech geological repository development programme has never really had to prove
anything. While the Swedish programme had to prove its feasibility to the government back in the
middle of 1980s when it was concerned mainly with looking for the best site, yet unable to find one,
the Czech programme will need to prove the safety of the repository only when the site is identified,
chosen, and research at the site is carried out. Therefore, so far the Czech programme is currently
flexible in that in a sense it has little immediate obligations, and it has limited the deterministic
character of natural conditions – that is, at least at the rhetorical level in public debates and
seminars, to which we shall now turn.
Mobilizing nature during public discussions
Since the moratorium ended in 2009, the Czech geological disposal development programme has
been manifesting itself mostly by “public” work that representatives of RAWRA carry out. RAWRA
has asked all the municipalities from the preselected sites to organize public debates; they have
organized an international conference as well as several larger public meetings, most recently in the
parliament. At a first glance, nature does not seem to play an important role during these
discussions. Similarly to the perspective of Mr. Gonnot, RAWRA representatives do acknowledge
that radioactive waste management is also a social problem, but they also draw and maintain the
dividing line between the “social” part of the problem and the “technical” part of the problem.
When they come to a debate in a certain municipality, it is assumed to be clear that they came there
because the area is expected to have good geological conditions for the repository. The nature is
expected to be favourable there, which already makes the interest of RAWRA in the area legitimate.
At the same time, this nature is not a subject of the discussion. The progress of a typical debate is
that RAWRA representatives give a presentation on the general technical concept of deep geological
disposal, and then address questions related to the technical implementation (again, at a very
general level) and “social” aspects of the project, such as the demands on transportation, or the
financial compensations that the municipality could receive (such was the case for instance in
Věžná on 16th April 2012, in the Senate on 24th April 2012, or in Jihlava on 14th February 2012).
Despite the apparent absence of nature (in terms of natural conditions) during the debates,
it is an important resource: it legitimises the very presence of RAWRA in the municipality. Geology
is immobile and hidden under the surface, and therefore, it allows people from RAWRA to say:
“based on geological data, we think that your site may be good. But we need to do research, that is
why we need access to your land.” In this way, by being there but being unknown, it legitimises
technical intervention – geological research – in the area.3
However, carrying out geological
research is not “innocent” – it is often seen by the local people not as mere research, but as the first
step in the implementation of the geological repository itself, and it can also be something of a
“test” of the acceptability of the repository (Konopásek and Svačina, forthcoming). The fact that
the implementers consider the geological conditions at all of the preselected sites as “excellent”
(interview with a member of staff of RAWRA) only supports this reasoning. Thus, to sum up this
3 And allow the researchers “to maintain a degree of control” (Soneryd 2007, p. 308-309).
5
part, in public discussions, nature often plays a quiet role of an entity that is immobile and hidden,
and needs to be accessed to and scrutinized. At the same time, it is not disputed during the debates,
and is rarely brought up as a topic for discussion, as if it were the domain of expert geologists. In
this sense, it seems to be quite an important political resource, one that legitimises the access to the
preselected site.
Nature against nature
So far, this paper has been concerned with only one conception of nature – that which relates to the
geological conditions for constructing deep geological repository. However, there is a different
conception of nature that also comes up during the negotiation process, and especially during public
debates in the affected municipalities: it is perhaps a coincidence that most of the areas that were
preselected for geological disposal in the Czech Republic could be described as “beautiful”. They
are usually rolling landscapes with forests and meadows, parts of which are often listed as nature
protected areas. The local people often express their fondness for this nature. This conception of
nature is brought up quite often during the public debates: people argue that this nature is important
to them. Nevertheless, this conception of nature does not seem to be strong enough. It is perhaps the
particular framing of the public debates or the scientific and research interests that support framing
nature in terms of geological conditions rather than a beautiful and valuable landscape.
It may be interesting to relate this observation to Asdal's account of public hearing
institutions (Asdal 2008). Asdal argues that “material arrangements are crucial in enabling agency”
(Asdal 2008, p. 21), and goes on to show that a public hearing institution enacts difference and
multiplicity, and may take part in enacting uncertainty (Ibid.). Contrary to Asdal's account of public
hearing institutions, the public debates organised by RAWRA seem to inhibit rather than enact
difference and multiplicity – for instance, they enact a specific notion of nature, that of “geological
conditions”. In this sense, they could also be seen as means to avoid uncertainty by inhibiting
difference and multiplicity.
Cutting nature from the public debate by means of socio-technologies
Public debates that have been discussed so far are not the only means of public discussion on the
project of geological disposal in the Czech Republic. Since its creation in 2010, an important
element is also the “Working group for dialogue on geological disposal”. It is the only body that is
devoted to the geological disposal, operates at the national level, and includes representatives of the
NGOs as well as the civil society. It has been noted that the Working group has been focusing on
how to implement the right of veto for the municipalities. The group does not discuss matters such
as natural conditions or engineered barriers. Therefore, it can be seen as cutting questions of nature
from the public debate.
More generally, social scientists have long been called to take part in the process of
negotiating geological disposal. However, in the Czech Republic, their role is limited to carrying
out public opinion surveys and to help make the planning process more “transparent”, which is done
mostly by means of implementing “political technologies” of deliberation. Thus, rather than
pointing out the problematic nature of the divide between “nature” and “society”, social scientists
help to maintain this divide. Perhaps even more surprisingly, environmental organisations seem to
be no less vigorous in this endeavour: they seem to voluntarily take up a limited role of either public
protest at a local level, or involvement in formalized participatory mechanisms, but they do not
seem to raise issues of nature in order to bring it “back to collective, political life” (Asdal 2003, p.
71; cf. also Latour 2004).
6
Conclusion
This paper tried to explore some ways in which nature is dealt with in the process of planning and
negotiating geological disposal for highly radioactive waste in the Czech Republic. The Czech
disposal development process is characteristic by its focus on site selection. In site selection, natural
conditions – that of geology – play a prime role. However, the paper showed that the role of
geological conditions in the planning process has gradually changed, which made the whole project
somewhat more flexible and mobile. Further, it was shown that although not an issue as such, nature
is an important resource when arguing for technical intervention at a specific site, which may
conversely be seen by some as the first step in the implementation of the repository itself. Third, it
was suggested that the public debates organized in the process of negotiating the Czech geological
disposal often enact only one vision of nature, that of “geological conditions”, while other possible
visions are deemed irrelevant. Finally, it was suggested that a national “Working group for dialogue
on geological disposal” participates on the separation of nature from politics by means of
implementing certain technologies of deliberation and public participation, which NGOs
participating in the group do not seem to contest. As a result, it can be concluded that in spite of the
fact that the boundary between nature and engineering is being changed and moved, the divide
between nature and politics seems to be well maintained and kept in the same place – for instance,
the forms of public participation seem to be thus “frozen into” the well orchestrated public debates
and meetings of the formalized Working group. Last but not least, in many situations, nature is not
raised as an issue for public discussion; rather, dealing with nature is often delegated to natural
scientists and certain conceptions of nature do not seem to be contested when negotiating geological
disposal in the Czech Republic.
References
Asdal, K. 2003. The Problematic Nature of Nature: The Post-constructivist Challenge to
Environmental History. History and Theory 42 (4), 60-74.
Asdal, K. 2008. On Politics and the Little Tools of Democracy: A Down-to-Earth Approach.
Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 9 (1), 11-26.
de Laet, M. & Mol, A. 2000. The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology. Social
Studies of Science 30 (2), 225-263.
Elam, M. & Sundqvist, G. 2011. Meddling in Swedish success in nuclear waste management.
Environmental Politics 20 (2), 246-263.
Eurobarometer. 2008. Attitudes towards radioactive waste. Special Eurobarometer 297. European
Commission.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. 2004. Politics of nature: how to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University
Press.
MPO ČR (Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic). 2001. Koncepce nakládání
s radioaktivními odpady a vyhořelým jaderným palivem v ČR. Praha: MPO ČR.
Pracovní skupina pro dialog o hlubinném úložišti. 2010. “Statut.” Praha: Pracovní skupina pro
dialog o hlubinném úložišti.
RAWRA. 2009. “Přepis příspěvků na konferenci Nekonfliktně k hlubinnému úložišti 2009, která se
konala 26.11.2009 v Praze.“ Prague: RAWRA.
Soneryd, L. 2007. Deliberations on the Unknown, the Unsensed, and the Unsayable? Public Protests
and the Development of Third-Generation Mobile Phones in Sweden. Science, Technology,
& Human Values 32 (3), 287-314.
Svačina, K. & Konopásek, Z. 2012. “Identifying remaining socio-technical challenges at the
national level: Czech Republic .” InSOTEC working paper, available online from
7
<http://www.insotec.eu/publications/file-cabinet/WP1%20MS4%20CR
%20Czech_Republic_Final.pdf>
Vojtěchová, H. 2009. “Application of the RISCOM model in the Czech Republic.” ARGONA
Deliverable 14. Řež: NRI.
8