The Perception of Radioactive Waste in France in 2021

International audienceAs the Cigéo project of geological disposal for high-level waste (HLW) progresses, the radioactive waste issue as a whole remains a preoccupation for the French. For decades now, it has been controversial, eliciting much debate and often concern from the public. As the authorities and the waste management organizations attempt to engage the public on these matters, a better understanding of how radioactive waste is perceived and for which reasons is needed to address the preoccupations of the public and manage the waste in the best possible way.The Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) possesses an invaluable tool for that endeavour: its Barometer on risk and security perception by the French. The Barometer is based on an annual survey conducted among a yearly renewed sample of 2,000 people representative of the French population. It has been providing data since 1990 on the evolution of risk perception in France, with a particular focus on the risks associated with nuclear power. Radioactive waste has been a key topic from the start. The Barometer puts it into perspective with the perception of 35 other risk situations such as chemical waste, nuclear power plants (NPPs), but also forest fires, domestic accidents, pesticides or radon.The 2021 Barometer provides us at once with updated data on the questions asked every year and with exclusive data gathered through new questions on radwaste. In terms of perceived risk level, radioactive waste receives high scores again, with 48 % of “high/very high” risk perceived. This is however below the historical average of 57 % recorded from 1997 to 2018 and tends to confirm the historical low recorded in the 2019 survey (44 %). Meanwhile, the “low/very low” replies reach a historical high of 23 %. The French people see radioactive waste as carrying a high risk level, but less so than in the previous decades. The perceived risk still remains higher than the one associated with NPPs, which gather 41 % of “high/very high” replies. It has always been the case but is still notable and potentially intriguing. Compared to the 30 other risk situations featured in the 2021 Barometer, radwaste ranks 14th, which is a little lower than its customary 11th or 12th position. It is lower than the risk associated with chemical waste as well as pesticides, ground pollution or endocrine disruptors, but higher than the risk associated with heat waves, radon, nanoparticles or GMOs.Radioactive waste is seen as a bigger risk source than NPPs, but not – as usual – when considering the risk of a catastrophic event. Questioned about the industrial activity most likely to cause a catastrophe in France, the French rank radwaste second among 11 with 21 % of replies: above chemical plants (19 %) but clearly below NPPs (31 %), which have been a solid first since the question has been asked, in 2005. This tells us the concerns associated with radioactive waste are of a different nature from the ones associated with NPPs.This year however, for the second time only since 2002 “the production of radioactive waste” tops “the risk of an accident” as the strongest argument against nuclear power, with respectively 36 % versus 27 %. The scores from last year were 23 % and 35 %. The future will tell if this shift is merely a one-year bump or if it signals a new trend.A new question introduced this year tested the level of knowledge the public has of very low-level waste (VLLW) management. Presented with four possible options, 49 % provided the correct answer, stating that VLLW was “placed permanently in a surface disposal facility”, while 27 % replied it was sent to other countries, 13 % that it was reused in nuclear construction and 10 % it was dumped at sea.The 2021 Barometer also questioned the French about the vraisemblance of four events next to a HLW disposal: contamination of agricultural products, air pollution, irradiation of the population, and underground explosion. They ranked in that order, with “very believable/somewhat believable” replies of 63 %, 60 %, 55 % and 39 %. A modest experiment which was conducted showed that after having read a short sentence explaining how the HLW was planned to be managed, the replies showed lower scores except for the underground explosion, the new results being: 48 %, 41 %, 41 % and 40 %.The 2021 Barometer data on radwaste demonstrates once again the complexity of radioactive waste perception. It is perceived as carrying a high but decreasing risk level and has simultaneously become the strongest argument against nuclear power. The actual risks it carries and the way it is managed aren’t well known, as indicated by replies to the new questions on VLLW and confirmed by those on HLW