The spatial and planning aspect of solving the issue of radioactive waste disposal in the Republic of Serbia

In the Republic of Serbia, radioactive waste has been stored for many years at the Vinca location near Belgrade. However, the location is not suitable for this purpose. It is necessary to define a location for radioactive waste disposal in Serbia in accordance with international criteria, strict spatial conditions and planning solutions of national interest. The need to conduct research that will define potential zones for radioactive waste disposal is the basic starting point in this paper. The framework of the research is the development of the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia from 2021 to 2035, on the basis of which it is possible to determine potential zones for the construction of a radioactive waste disposal. In this paper, the authors present the results of research on spatial constraints from the aspects of geological and hydrological conditions, spatial protection, and distribution of the population, settlements and buildings, etc. A special contribution it makes is the additional analysis of conditionality in relation to the planned purposes and activities of national and priority importance in Serbia. The collection, processing and presentation of spatial data is the result of analyses conducted with the support of geographic information systems. The research contributes to a definition of potential zones, within the scope of which it is necessary to conduct further research and select the optimal location for a radioactive waste disposal. The paper provides methodological guidelines for further scientific research into the spatial aspects of radioactive waste disposal in Serbia, at the same time pointing out possible directions for further resolution of this issue in practice.

Download Full-text

A tentative useful-for-all definition of “safety” in the context of radioactive waste disposal

Safety of Nuclear Waste Disposal ◽

10.5194/sand-1-195-2021 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 ◽

pp. 195-196

Author(s):

Stephan Hotzel

Keyword(s):

Radioactive Waste ◽

Waste Management ◽

Waste Disposal ◽

Common Ground ◽

Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽

National Programmes ◽

Geological Repository ◽

Safety Case ◽

Definition Of

Abstract. Most, if not all, national programmes for radioactive waste management pledge their overall commitment to safety or – in the case of radioactive waste disposal – to long-term safety. Therefore, it may be somewhat surprising to find that the term “safety” is hardly defined in these programs. The same holds for some of the core international guidance literature on the deep geological repository (DGR) “safety case” concept. With respect to stakeholder concern over the safety of geological disposal, it seems, however, advisable to seek common ground in the understanding of the idea of “safety”. Hotzel and Schröder (2018) reviewed the most relevant international guidance literature for explicitly or implicitly provided definitions of “safety” in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Based on this study – and on the finding that a practical, useful-for-all definition of “safety” is not provided in the scanned literature – they developed a tentative dictionary-style definition of “safety” that is suitable for everyday use in the DGR context. In the current contribution I embed, expand and update the 2018 study at both ends: As an enhanced introduction to the 2018 study, I lay out a basic concept of “sound” glossary definitions, namely glossary definitions being both practical and correct (and what this means). The thesis is that sound glossary definitions can facilitate mutual understanding between different stakeholder groups. As an update to the actual proposal for the definition of “safety” from the Hotzel and Schröder (2018) paper, that was presented and discussed at the Waste Management Conference 2018, I review the latest international guidance literature and the stakeholder concerns raised at the 2018 conference in order to present a revised definition. As a seed of discussion, it may help to eventually expose possible mismatches in the base assumptions of safety experts and other stakeholders and thereby support meaningful communication.

Download Full-text

Improving participation for the German search for a nuclear waste repository site: an interactive map as a transdisciplinary approach

10.5194/egusphere-egu21-10969 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Lucas Schwarz ◽

Paula Bräuer

Keyword(s):

Radioactive Waste ◽

Focus Groups ◽

Waste Disposal ◽

Spatial Data ◽

Power Plants ◽

National Level ◽

Salt Dome ◽

Radioactive Waste Disposal ◽

Nuclear Waste Repository ◽

Interactive Map

The political and social debate on nuclear energy in Germany has been characterized for many decades by a high potential for conflict and dissatisfaction. Especially the controversies surrounding the Gorleben salt dome gained international attention and changed the relationship between citizens and political decision-makers from the local to the national level. With the Repository Site Selection Act of 2013 (StandAG, first amendment in 2017) a new approach was chosen to implement a participative, inclusive and transparent search process for the best possible repository for high-level radioactive waste in Germany. In this context, a self-learning process was proclaimed, based on a white (unbiased) map, which should give citizens an active role. However, the first interim report of the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal and the publication of the colorful map, in which geologically suitable areas were identified on a large scale, already revealed a massive potential for conflict. Many citizens and activists who were already protesting against the Gorleben salt dome criticized in this early phase of the process, the lack of transparency and opportunities to have a say on the possible sitting regions.To address this criticism, we want to provide an interactive map as an online platform that presents existing geographic data, that enables people to contribute spatially-located information (geological, on-surface), and thus a possibility for people to interact and participate regarding the possible siting regions. Therefore, we collect existing spatial data that is relevant to the ongoing process, such as possible siting regions (declared by the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal), nuclear power plants (active/inactive, research facilities, etc.), storage facilities (on-site, central, interim, etc.), historically relevant locations (places of protest, uranium enrichment & processing facilities, etc.) as well as basic data for orientation. We implement two possibilities for participatory interaction: (1) adding spatially-located notes that contain own experiences or local knowledge (e.g. reports, concerns, suggestions) and (2) initiating a platform for a spatially-located discussion. Against the background of transdisciplinary research, in an iterative process, we want to evaluate the participatory value of this application by consulting civic as well as scientific actors. We, therefore, employ focus groups with a transdisciplinary support group of citizens beforehand and surveys after using the application. For this panel we want to present our primary results from a first test with the aforementioned focus groups.Aside from testing the suitability of such a mode of participation, we aim to analyze where problems emerge, and which information is necessary and/or might lead to conflict. Finally, we want to gain insight into how such modes of participation influence the quality of dialogue and how it contributes to the overall perception of a procedurally just process.

Download Full-text