PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE APPROACHES RELATED TO BACK?END    TRANSPORT BETWEEN EUROPE AND JAPAN 

Plutonium is indispensable for a Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR). Since 1960s Japan has been developing FBRs, thus Japan chose reprocessing. When light water reactors (LWR) were fully introduced in early 1970s, the Japanese utility companies made long-term contracts with UK/French state-owned reprocessing companies for 7000 tons of spent fuel. Japan is far away from the reprocessing site, so some states outside of Europe could be “en-route”. In 1992 plutonium shipment from France to Japan faced 35 “coastal states’” objection. In 1995 fifteen “coastal states” opposed or concerned about the safety of the first high level radioactive waste (HLW) transport from France. In 1999 when MOX fuel (Uranium and plutonium oxide fuel) transport from France and UK started, 8 states advocated 3 regional organizations to issue objections, saying that the transport fatally endangers coastal population and environment. The voices did not occur spontaneously. Strong agitations and negative campaigns by international anti-nuclear organizations led them. In 1992 Greenpeace International ‘warned’ all the possible routes states and traced the transport convoy by two vessels, releasing hour by hour the location, saying that they are warning coastal people the fatal dangers coming. In1995, in1999 and in2002, the similar spectacular campaigns were observed. In most small island developing ‘coastal states’ neither nuclear business nor nuclear expert exists. Objective domestic scientific resource is not available for the local media and residents. It must be provided from outside. Nuclear industries involved in the transport understood the necessity to organize continuous public acceptance activities for these ‘coastal states’. Once political leaders have ridden on the ‘anti-nuc’ bandwagon, there are few domestic needs for them to change the position. In IMO and IAEA the authorities denied the ‘Unresolved Safety Issues’ claimed by anti-nuclear groups. The ‘issues’ were solved. But ‘evidence of safety ‘ is rarely carried to coastal residents by their government, whereas ‘ evidence of danger ‘ is vocally announced by them. Based on the fact that transport is an essential part of any industry and considering that nuclear generating states is a minority in international society, nuclear industry needs to continue the international public acceptance efforts.