Denmark is in a state of indecision regarding how to deal with its nuclear waste problem. There are currently two proposed solutions. A final repository by the government, and an intermediate storage solution by the public. The negotiations between these two actors have no common ground in sight, and a consensus between them seems impossible.
The purpose of this master thesis is to uncover the motives that have lead to this situation, and these two proposed solutions. It does so by applying Callon’s concept of translation, to investigate how these two actors have problematized the Danish nuclear waste problem. To further investigate and evaluate these motives, we have chosen to include Mol’s concepts of options, sites and interferences. These concepts have allowed us to analyse the motives in a structured way, which have lead to the discovery of a way to potentially resume the negotiations between the government and the public. Article 21 of the EURATOM directives requires Member States to dispose of low to medium level waste with a specific solution - a surface-near final repository. And the public is adamantly against any solution that will deposit the waste beneath the surface. However, considering article 24 of the EURATOM directives, there may be a way to undo article 21. But it requires the Member State to be able to demonstrate that an underground repository will put undue burden on future generations. This may then allow the government to investigate above ground repositories, which will create a common ground with the public.
We conclude that, even though our plan is full of ifs and mays, then it might be enough for the public and the government to begin a joint collaboration with the purpose of finding a solution they can both consent to.