Referenda and Nuclear Power Plants - A Historical Overview

In many countries referendum laws exist which give the population of a particular region, or the even the whole country, the right to make decisions. Given the fact that the nuclear power industry has a history of accidents. and the people who suffer most if an accident does happen are those living closest to the nuclear power plant, it is logical that decisions concerning the construction and operation of reactors should be taken by public referendums. In this way, the local population can decide if they want to accept the dangers that a nuclear reactor will pose to their community.

1.  S W E D E N  1 9 8 0

In early 1980, six commercial reactors were in operation in Sweden. Four others were ready to begin operating and two were still under construction. The opposition to nuclear energy was growing fiercer every day. On March 23 1980, shortly after the Three Mile Island accident in the USA, the Swedish people were asked for their opinion concerning the future of nuclear power. The result was that a majority wanted to "keep the 12 reactors in operation, but to shut them down at a later date by taking into consideration the welfare of the country and its economic development and the supply and demand of power in Sweden."

Although this outcome was not legally binding for the government, the Swedish Parliament decided to keep the 12 reactors operating while setting the year 2010 as a final date for the complete phase-out of nuclear power. This announcement was unconnected to any laws but remained a parliamentary decision which can be revised at any time.

After the Chernobyl accident the discussions began to heat up again, and the parliament decided that the first reactor should be closed in 1995 and the second one in 1996. However, in the meantime this decision has been overruled and postponed. As the year 2010 looms closer, discussions are becoming more intense again, and the governing Social Democratic Party is spilt on this subject. The major trade unions are in favour of nuclear energy. The Centre Party, a potential partner for the Social Democratic Party, is strictly opposed.

On December 18th, 1995, the Swedish Parliament's all-party Energy Commission issued its analysis and recommendations for the nations future energy policy. It listed a number of mostly economic problems and obstacles in connection with the nuclear phase-out. However, the Commission also suggested that if the parliament decides to proceed with the phase-out programme, it should begin soon to allow the maximum of time for adjustment.

In the spring of 1996, the Swedish Prime Minister, who is also head of the Social-Democratic Party, announced the need to begin the phase-out of operating nuclear reactors before 1998, within the framework of a transition programme in Sweden towards sustainable development.

2.  A U S T R I A   1 9 7 8

In the late 1960s, the Austrian Government decided to embark on a nuclear energy program. The parliament voted unanimously to order a nuclear power plant. In 1972, the German company, KWU (AEG and Siemens) began construction of the Zwentendorf nuclear power plant on the Danube, just 30 kilometres upstream of the Austrian capital, Vienna. It was designed as a boiling water reactor with a capacity of 700 MW(e), and was expected to generate about 10% of the Austrian electricity production. In the autumn of 1976, the government launched an information campaign with the aim of justifying an extensive nuclear program. The effect, however, was exactly the opposite. The campaign started public and media discussions about the problems and risks of nuclear power.

The main arguments against the operation of Zwentendorf were:

• Hazards to human health connected with the release of radioactivity
• A number of unsolved technical problems of the reactor
• The unsolved questions of nuclear waste management and disposal
• The connections between so-called peaceful nuclear energy and the nuclear military industry
• Inadequate emergency planning (in the vicinity of Vienna) in case of a nuclear catastrophe
• The fact that a big earthquake had already occurred in the region.

In 1977, the first big demonstrations against Zwentendorf took place. To avoid clashes with opponents, the shipment of the fuel elements was postponed to early 1978. When the shipment was finally made, the fuel rods had to be transported by army helicopters and the site was barricaded by the police. It is important to stress that all anti-nuclear demonstrations and activities in Austria were completely non-violent.

Zwentendorf became a very political issue. During parliamentary hearings several questionable safety aspects and the lack of important studies were disclosed by the opponents of nuclear power.

The main opposition party, the Conservative People Party, also began to reconsider its pro-nuclear position. Even within the ruling Socialist Party, MPs from the western most federal state of Vorarlberg were anti-nuclear. In Vorarlberg there was massive, very successful, opposition to the Swiss plans for constructing Ruethi nuclear power plant, just adjacent to the Austrian border.

The people of Vorarlberg feared that the operation of an Austrian nuclear power plant would weaken their position on opposing the Swiss plans.

The anti-nuclear minority among Austrian voters was now enough to tilt a general election against any party which would permit the completed Zwentendorf nuclear power plant to operate. Therefore in June 1978 the Socialist Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, announced a referendum to be held on November 5th, declaring that he was certain that there would be a clear majority in favour of nuclear power.

The pro-nuclear lobby had enormous financial backing. The state-owned utilities spent 30 million ATS (3 million US-$) of taxpayers money on campaigning. Further millions of dollars were poured into the campaign by Industrial lobby groups, the trade union umbrella organisation and the Socialist Party.

The opposition was made up of a very wide and diverse group of organisations and individuals. A number of co-ordination centres - one of which was operated by the Austrian Students Union - and two umbrella organisations were established. Against all predictions, a slim majority voted against the operation of Zwentendorf. Nearly two thirds of the voters went to the polls (3.26 million). Of these, 49.5% voted for, but 50.5 % against nuclear power. This was a majority of less than 20,000 votes. The political establishment reacted promptly: On December 15, 1978 the Austrian Parliament unanimously passed a law prohibiting the use of nuclear energy for the production of electricity.

Only a few months after the referendum, the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, USA occurred. Yet, despite this accident, the utilities kept Zwentendorf mothballed and joined together with the trade unions and other sectors of the nuclear lobby to launch several attempts at overruling the decision of the people. The definitive end of their dreams came with the Chernobyl accident.

3.  S W I T Z E R L A N D  1 9 9 5

In Switzerland, the constitution guarantees the right of "people's initiatives", which are followed by Referenda. A total of 100,000 signatures are needed to enforce a nation-wide referendum resulting from a "people's initiative". Rights for Referenda also exist at canton (Swiss-state) and local community levels. The results are subsequently binding for the policy-making authorities.

Until now there have been three Referenda at federal Republic level with the aim of stopping nuclear energy. Each of these were defeated. The first (February 18, 1979) with a majority 51.5%, the second one (September 23, 1984) with 55% and the last one (September 23, 1990) with 52.9%. In the referendum on September 23, 1990, the Swiss public also had to decide on an initiative for a moratorium of nuclear energy. According to this initiative "For a period of 10 years no more licenses of installations for the production of nuclear energy shall be granted."

The moratorium was accepted with 946,007 votes against new plants and 789.209 votes in favour, with 22 Cantons against and only four in favour. This means that licenses for construction of nuclear power plants cannot be granted in Switzerland until September in the year 2000. However, it is almost certain that another initiative for an extension to the moratorium will be launched before the end of the existing one.

Since nuclear energy is governed by the Swiss Atomic Law, which is Federal, there are no Referenda on this issue at Canton level. However, there was a Canton referendum which indirectly forced a decision on a Federal nuclear waste project: The Swiss Government wanted to built a (Federal) final repository for short lived low-and medium level nuclear waste in the village of Wolffenschiessen in the canton of Nidwalden. The first step of this project would have been building an underground tunnel, an activity covered under (canton) mining law rather than (federal) atomic law. The canton held a referendum on the issue in June 1995. The result was 9,460 votes against the granting of a license and 8,563 in favour. The federal government must now start to look for another site.

4.   S L O V E N I A  1 9 9 6

In Slovenia there are two methods for holding a referendum. The first is that a certain number of members of the Slovenian parliament may demand a referendum. The second option is to start a motion in a similar way to the Swiss "peoples initiative". 40,000 signatures are required to get a referendum under way. The outcome of this plebiscite is binding.

Recently both methods were used to try to demand a referendum for the early shut-down of the Krsko nuclear power plant in Slovenia. Both of these initiatives failed. The only referendum to date took place on the 23rd December 1990 where the breakaway of this Republic from Yugoslavia was decided.

In the autumn of 1995, the Slovenian MP Leo Seserko announced that he had gathered enough parliamentary signatures to demand a referendum, which was to be held around Christmas time. Due to internal problems and political pressure, several members of the parliament withdrew their signatures. This lead to the failure of this attempt. In the spring of 1996 Seserko began a new initiative by introducing a bill into the parliament. According to this law Krsko nuclear power plant should be closed due to safety risks within 10 years. Simultaneously he started a "peoples initiative" to demand a referendum on this law. The period for Slovenian citizens to sign this demand lasted for 45 day. When the period for signature had ended on May 1996, the target of 40.000 signatures had not been reached.

There are two main reasons for this result:

• (1) The procedure for collecting signatures was very complicated and not well communicated. Citizens had to file their demand at the local police station, where they had to complete complicated papers, which had to be sent back to the organisers of the initiative. As a result thousands of signatures collected were invalid.
• (2) The Slovenian environmental movement was not united on this campaign. Due to internal problems and conflicts between people many groups did not join the campaign. The lack of a grass-root movement to motivate the people "on the street" was very obvious. In the end Greenpeace was the only organisation that worked continuously on this issue.

5.  J A P A N  1 9 9 6

Maki is a town of 30,000 people on the coast of the Sea of Japan in the Niigata prefecture. In Japan's first municipal referendum on nuclear power on August 4th 1996, 60% of the town's residents voted against providing land needed for the construction of a nuclear power plant. "The town s future direction does not include co-existence with a nuclear power plant" declared Takaaki Sasaguchi, mayor of Maki. He was voted into office in January 1996 after promising to hold a plebiscite on the issue.

Since 1983, the Tohoku Electric Power Company has been seeking to build an 825 MW boiling-water reactor on the coast of Maki, the first of four planned for the site. Construction was held up because the town refused to sell a piece of land it needed to build the reactor. Despite government promises of large monetary subsidies, the referendum, with a turnout of 88%, reinforced this position. This democratic decision has caused concern for the Japanese Government. The Ministry of Trade and Industry stated "Building nuclear power plants is a matter of state policy and holding a referendum on it is unsuitable for such policy". However, in the meantime, five municipalities across Japan have passed by-laws requiring referenda to be held on nuclear proposals affecting their towns.