[ad_1]
After years of searching, possible regions for new nuclear waste dumps are presented. Gorleben is apparently out of the running. The dispute over the repository is predictable, this is already evident from a Bavarian teaser.
By Sandra Stalinski, tagesschau.de
A white map. Without predeterminations. That was the goal when the search for a nuclear deposit began again three years ago. Too many doubts had been raised that the Gorleben Salt Dome, which had been explored for decades as a future deposit, was a suitable location for a deposit. The protests were too bitter.
Especially in Wendland in Lower Saxony, where Gorleben is located, many people will look spellbound at the screens on Monday when the Federal Association for Final Storage (BGE) presents its “Interim Report Subareas”, with a press conference that is broadcast live. by Internet. Then the map will go dark in many places, as numerous places will be removed due to being unsuitable.
Apparently it’s impossible for Gorleben to stay running as a repository. The BGE did not put the location on the list of possible locations, it said according to matching media reports. Shortly before, the BGE had informed parliamentary groups, state governments and the federal government of its decision on a telephone line.
Storage period: one million years
We are looking for a camp in a deep mountain geological formation, at least 300 meters below the earth’s surface. Stable layers of rock are required, be it crystalline rock (eg granite), rock salt, or clay rock. Around 1,900 containers with highly radioactive waste will be stored in this repository, because that is the amount of nuclear waste that will have been generated when the last nuclear power plant goes offline in 2022. Safety must have the highest priority in the search: unimaginable storage period of a million years.
It should be a number in the high two-digit range in regions and locations that the BGE will propose for further examination. Large tracts of land could be included, even cities, because only geological factors are considered in the first step of the test. Only later are other criteria taken into account, such as settlements, nature reserves or cultural monuments.
No definition yet
The interim report is not yet a binding stipulation, emphasizes a spokeswoman for the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (Base), the supervisory authority for the search process. The specific areas to be investigated will only be determined with the subsequent decision of the Bundestag, once further investigations have been completed and the public has participated.
The mistakes that were made at Gorleben should not be repeated this time. In 1977, the then Prime Minister of the Lower Saxony CDU, Ernst Albrecht, named the town of Wendland as the location of a “nuclear waste disposal center”. It was a political decision, it was not guided by technical, scientific criteria. There was also no public participation. He did not expect the violent protests. Gorleben now considers himself “politically burned out.”
The promise of the greatest possible transparency
This time, this will be avoided with the promise of the greatest possible transparency, scientific character and public participation. In a first step, the BGE has evaluated more than a million data sets on what it looks like in individual underground regions. The data comes from the federal states. Areas where the subsoil has been damaged by mines, where volcanoes have been active or where there is a risk of earthquakes, for example, falls.
However, this white-map process does not appear to be equally accepted by all federal states. Even before the interim results are announced, Bavaria fundamentally questioned the process. With Gorleben there is already a well-explored location for a secure and almost turnkey warehouse, Bavarian Environment Minister Thorsten Glauber told “Spiegel”. And the coalition agreement between CSU and Free Voters also says: “We are convinced that Bavaria is not a suitable place for a nuclear deposit.”
In front of tagesschau.de Glauber justifies his attitude with the protection of the population. “In the end, we want the repository with the best possible security, where geology decides, not ideology. Science must be the center of all decisions,” he says. “The search for an absolutely safe geological barrier takes precedence over technically improved protection.” According to the coalition, the granite available in Bavaria does not optimally meet safety requirements. But Glauber assures that Bavaria will still face responsibility in the process.
Political scientist: “Bavaria is politicizing the search for a repository”
Political scientist Achim Brunnengräber, who researches highly radioactive waste disposal in Germany, criticizes Bavaria’s position. “Bavaria is doing exactly what should be avoided in the current search process: it is politicizing the search for a repository,” he says. “That is not a good sign. If Bayern say now that we want to eliminate us, others will say so too.”
Because you have to say goodbye to an idea: “There will not be an absolutely safe repository, there will always be a risk,” says Brunnengräber in an interview with tagesschau.de. There will be advantages and disadvantages in all places. “Ultimately, it’s about scientifically exploring where the greatest advantages and the least disadvantages lie.”
Bavaria couldn’t just walk away like this anyway. The CDU, CSU, SPD and Greens jointly negotiated and decided on the new edition of the Site Selection Law. Once the interim report has been presented, there will now be specialized conferences and consultations with the participating public. Other criteria and requirements are weighed for the locations in question and their number is gradually reduced. Eventually, aerial and underground explorations will be carried out. The search should be completed in 2031. In the end, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat must agree.
