It will hardly be a surprise, but Drenthe says en masse no to the storage of radioactive waste in the soil. This is evident from many views that have been submitted to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.
Anloo, Gasteren, others, Gasselte, Drouwen, Schoonloo and Hooghalen feel nothing for the storage of nuclear waste in salt umbrellaurs among their villages. The province, the municipalities of Aa and Hunze and Midden-Drenthe have also sent a ‘no-go’ to The Hague. Waterbedrijf WMD and Hunze Hen Aa’s Water Board have shared great concern with the ministry.
Yesterday was the last day that visions could be submitted at the Ministry on the National Radioactive Waste Program (NRPA).
State Secretary Chris Jansen (PVV) wants to make a decision much earlier about where we definitively leave our nuclear waste. Not only in 2100, but in the coming years it must become clear where the final storage of radioactive waste should be. 75 years earlier.
The argument of the state secretary is: the nuclear power plant in Borssele stays open longer, the Netherlands will have two large nuclear power plants and possibly a number of little ones (Small Modular Reactors), so there is more nuclear waste.
And with that the Drenthe salt umbrella organizations are again in the picture as a storage place, because the cabinet wants to place the waste in the deep surface. This is only possible in our country in clay or salt umbrellas in the soil. But several Drenthe authorities don’t see that storage in Drenthe.
Dorpsbelangen Anloo points out that the storage of nuclear waste in salt layers in Germany went wrong twice and almost went wrong once. “In Asse and Morleben, the vessels with radioactive waste leak. This is because groundwater penetrates. Water and salt form brine together and that affects the barrels. That is why this has been stopped,” said Gijs Dercks of Dorpsbelangen Anloo.
“In Gorleben, a salt umbrella turned out to be completely unsuitable, the preliminary phase used incorrect facts. A large environmental disaster in Asse and Gorleben was prevented because the storage room was not yet closed.” In the plans of the Ministry, the Dutch storage is full with concrete, so that no one can never reach it anymore.
The chairman of Dorpsbelangen Schoonloo also points to the dangers of closing the storage. “Even after closure, unforeseen processes in the earth can endanger the safety of the storage,” says Dennis Bardie.
“Salt domes are relatively young, soil movements can undergo and are sensitive to water. That is why a comparison with a location in Finland is difficult to make. There is a stable deep granite low with very low permeability of water.”
The salt umbrellas also move, Derckx continues. “In Anloo there are fractures in the salt umbrella, so that water can enter. And then there is the chance of earthquakes, due to gas and salt extraction in the neighborhood,” Derckx argues. Dorpsbelangen Anloo finds this an “unacceptable risk”.
Chairman Henk Boer of Dorpsbelangen Hooghalen, Laaghalen and Laaghalerveen points to studies that have been done in the United States, Germany and Denmark.
“This shows that this way of storage in salt umbrellas is insufficiently reliable and causes problems. This way the salt umbrellaurs are slowly coming up. The nuclear waste will therefore be closer to the earth’s surface. This may result in the salt material breaking and water leaks in. This may result in radioactive waste leaking away,” said.
The chairman also points to the earthquakes in his region through gas extraction. “In October there was an earthquake in our village of 1.9 on the Richter scale.”
For local interest Gasselte-Kostvlies, the environmental and radiation risk also weighs the most. Chairman Carlo Hadderingh also provides the above -ground damage to the landscape, because an estimated area of 2.5 square kilometers is needed at storage.
“In the middle of an area with special ecological, geological and tourist value. Such as Geopark de Hondsrug, Natura-20000 area Drouwenerzand and the National Park De Drentse Aa. Apart from that, a large part of Gasselte or Drouwen must be sacrificed.”
Hadderingh also sees the irreversibility of storing in salt umbrellas not and you saddle your future generations with a problem that you might resolve differently in the future. For example, the State Secretary should conduct more research into recycling (neutralizing or reuse) of nuclear waste, says Hadderingh.
Aa and Hunze summarize it in concrete terms: no rumbling in the soil. Mayor Anno Wietze Hiemstra writes in the view: “Our municipality already has to do with the consequences of gas and salt extraction and the scheme for wind farms. We have more than contributed and opposed to further rumbling in the soil. We do not want to saddle our residents with the dangers of radioactive waste.”
Midden-Drenthe is also opposed to storage of nuclear waste in the subsurface. “Because we do not consider this sustainable. There are safety and health risks. We are also not positive about the required space above ground due to the underground storage.”
The province of Drenthe finds storage in the soil “not sustainable” and has established that underground storage of nuclear waste is excluded. Deputy Henk Jumelet wants to talk to The Hague about the nuclear waste problem, but underground storage is a “dead -end road” for the province that the cabinet should not take. Jumelet said earlier.
Waterbedrijf WMD and Water Board Hunze and Aa’s are worried about the water. Hunze and Aa’s do not say hard no to the storage in the reaction. “Given the high demands set for water quality, we want to emphasize that the underground storage of radioactive waste may not lead to a deterioration of the living environment or an increased risk of this. We therefore request that you take water management aspects, including the possible effects on the underground and groundwater, close -out in further investigations and decision -making.”
The WMD taps out of a slightly different keg. “Any risk for drinking water extraction in relation to underground end mountains of radioactive waste is unacceptable.” According to the water company’s management, the ministry in the Environmental Effect Reporting (EIA) did not take into account the protection of water -carrying packages and reserve supplies of water in the soil.
The WMD believes that the ministry should treat the effects of storage of nuclear waste in the soil just like mining activities. “In drinking water-wing areas, the risk of contamination due to mining activities is not acceptable. A contamination has major consequences for the current drinking water supply.”
But despite the fact that the WMD is firmer than the water board, the drinking water company also says no hard no against storage. Except in groundwater protection areas and future water extraction, it is not negotiable. “Underground storage of radioactive waste in salt umbrellas and clay layers is at odds with the security of the public drinking water supply,” the management concludes.
There is a lot of criticism of the information from the ministry. For example, the procedure was only published in the Government Gazette and tucked away on the website of the Ministry. Many proposers of the views tap the ministry about the way in which they “are surprised” or “did not know” that the government will bring the decision on the storage of nuclear waste for 75 years. Let alone that you could submit your vision about it.
Chairman Gijs Derckx of Dorpsbelangen Anloo makes the “urgent request to directly inform Dorpsbelangen Anloo in the future.” His colleague Henk Boer from Hooghalen speaks of a “non-careful procedure”, which means that village interests “had insufficient time to read”.
Earlier, Mayor Hiemstra van Aa and Hunze, Deputy Jumelet and Village Chairmen Bardie van Schoonloo and Hadderingh van Gasselte already criticized the approach to the ministry.
Various political parties from municipalities have also submitted an individual opinion, which also applies to the Drentsche Aa National Park and Nature and Environmental Federation Drenthe. NMFD also does not want new nuclear power stations, which already helps to reduce the future radioactive waste.
There are also neighborhoods and individual residents who have submitted an opinion. RTV Drenthe has no insight into the individually submitted views.