|
|
|
Disposal > ... > Nuclear waste only safe underground in the long run
|
|
Nuclear waste only safe underground in the long run – however, waste ought to be stored in such a way that it can be recovered with the help of mining techniques
|
|
Nuclear waste can only be safely disposed of in deep geological formations. However, the knowledge of the site of the mine which has been sealed in the post-closure phase needs to be handed down for a very long time. The waste containers must keep intact for at least 500 years, BfS president König told the “Tagesspiegel”. If required, it would then be possible to recover them with the help of mining techniques over a long period of time. Long-term interim storage, that is, the option to store the waste in a way that it can be retrieved at any time, was associated with considerable cut backs to requirements on safety. If nothing else, we live in a world where there are protagonists who wish to get their hands on weapons-grade material, König continued.
A translation of the interview in its full length as published in the “Tagesspiegel” on 29 December 2010:
Wolfram König, president of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection
"I am against long-term interim storage"
The president of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection talks with the “Tagesspiegel” about derelict salt mines and responsibility for the German nuclear waste.
The argument about nuclear energy has started again, as the fights about CASTOR transports and the contended Gorleben repository showed. Why shouldn’t we just export our nuclear waste instead of continuing to argue about a site in Germany?
The simple answer is: We have caused this waste. Therefore, in all conscience, we need to face the task to store the radioactive waste in such a way that it won’t possibly affect future generations. By the way, for safety reasons, no other country has offered to take such waste so far.
Where such offers were made, for example by Russia, focus was put on economical interests. And that is possibly the worst basis for handling such problematic materials. Because not only are they a danger to the environment but being in the wrong hands, they can also become weapons. Therefore we are well advised to take care of the issue ourselves and not to evade responsibility.
You had to take over the responsibility for two nuclear waste repositories that quite obviously don’t work, the former salt mines of Morsleben and Asse. What is the status?
It is now my task to prove the contrary, that is to find a safe way for decommissioning the facilities. For the Asse mine the Federal Office for Radiation Protection took over responsibility on 1 January 2009. In Morsleben the former GDR repository is located which has many parallel features to the Asse mine. Despite of great safety concerns right from the start, a court had to stop the emplacement of low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste in 1998. Incidentally, after German reunification more waste was stored than in the GDR time and the nuclear waste from West Germany originated solely from the nuclear power plants. In contrast to the Asse mine, in Morsleben we have the benefit that the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, under my responsibility, started stabilising the mine already years ago. Thus we have gained time to carry out and complete with care a plan-approval procedure for the safe decommissioning of the repository. One year back our decommissioning concept was laid open to public inspection within the scope of public participation. We are opining that the necessary proofs of safety can be furnished, even if the waste will remain in the mine. I ask the licensing authority in Saxony-Anhalt that the procedure be now continued speedily and that the federal state schedule the public hearing promptly.
And what about Asse?
There we’ve got significantly higher inflows of saline solution than we do in Morsleben and there are massive stability problems which had been ignored over years by the people who were responsible then. Thus the conditions in the Asse mine are much worse. We are trying now to stabilise the mine. And we are in the process of gaining further knowledge of the actually stored waste and the situation in the mine. According to today’s state of knowledge the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act can only be complied with by retrieving the waste. A challenge that has been unparalleled so far. Whether it will be possible to implement this challenge depends on the time we’ve got, weighing the risks, the state of the waste and of the emplacement chambers. The currently running investigation phase serves to gain findings about the conditions that the retrieval of the waste is feasible under.
Do you still find anything concerning Asse amazing?
I feel that the failure of science to catch up seriously on the issue is lacking. Science had declared the repository to be a research repository over years, one reason for this being to circumvent the safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. It is, however, not only the problem of the former operator, Helmholtz Zentrum. The question needs to be posed why in the end none of the control systems did work. Over decades the entire public, politicians, administrations up to the anti-nuclear movement and the media widely ignored the problem.
In view of the problems associated with the planned retrieval of the waste from Asse, the concept to store the nuclear waste immediately in a way that it can be retrieved at any time sounds rather attractive. Why are you against it?
Already in the case of an open facility such as Asse it was not possible to take care that the necessary attention was paid to it over a longer period of time. Asse shows that we ask too much of us and of future generations when we expect them to be able to solve the problems. On top of that there is the proliferation risk. We live in a world where there are many protagonists who wish to get their hands on weapons-grade material. Apart from this, there is no guarantee that our political system will remain stable. Storage involving retrieval – I refer to it as long-term interim storage – is furthermore associated with considerable cutbacks in safety requirements. However, what we ought to make possible is that the waste can be recovered from a sealed repository with the help of mining techniques. Should we arrive at the conclusion in the future that the way we have taken, that is to store nuclear waste in sealed deep geological formations, appears to be no more responsible, it should be possible to recover the nuclear waste. For this purpose the containers need to be fabricated in such a way that they will remain intact for at least 500 years. If the waste had been stored in the Asse mine in a recoverable way we would not have as many problems with it today: However, those who demand that nuclear waste be not only stored in a way that it can be recovered with the help of mining techniques but also in a way that it can be retrieved permanently, accept a clearly lower safety level.
What will happen next in Gorleben?
The federal government decided to continue the exploration in Gorleben only. That had already been announced by the government-forming parties in their election campaigns. It is no secret that I have recommended for legal reasons yet that alternative sites be searched for in parallel. Also in order for an exploration of Gorleben without predefined outcome to remain credible. The worst case would be if Gorleben proved to be a geologically suitable site for hosting a repository but, for example 20 years later, an administrative court would withdraw the licence for lack of an examination of alternatives. My task is now to bring the project forward in such a way that as many of the experiences gained with the other repository projects as possible will be integrated in the works. This also includes the open and transparent procedure announced by Norbert Röttgen, Federal Environment Minister. Whether the offer made by policy is sufficient to reach the people in the region is open.
The interview was conducted by Dagmar Dehmer.
|
|
Printer safe version
|
|
|
