Search for a repository in Germany

The search for a repository is intended to find a suitable location in a deep geological formation for a repository for highly radioactive waste . The search process for the Federal Republic of Germany is described in the Site Selection Act , which was amended in mid-2017. The main criteria were previously drawn up by the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste from 2014 to mid-2016.

The final disposal process is divided into the “stages” selection of the disposal facility, construction of the disposal facility, storage of radioactive waste and closure of the mine.

The site selection should be divided into the three phases selection of the site region , surface and underground exploration .

At the same time as the technical selection process, a multi-stage, democratically legitimized decision-making and conflict management process is proposed with the aim of enabling the most extensive and generational consensus possible.

history

The working group for the selection procedure for repository sites (AkEnd) existed from February 1999 to December 2002 and for the first time in Germany developed scientifically based criteria for disposal. The German Working Group on Final Storage Research (DAEF) is currently dealing with the problems of the possibilities of safe disposal.

Site selection principles

Permanent security should have absolute priority when looking for a location. The aim is storage with the "best possible security" for a period of one million years.
The selection process aims to achieve a result that is oriented towards the common good.
The search for a repository should be accompanied by broad public participation. For this purpose u. a. held events and online forums during the repository commission's working hours.
The search for a location should be carried out quickly, as the interim storage locations can only be used for a limited period of time. However, security and participation have priority.
The search should start with a "white map", i.e. H. there are no locations that should be excluded from the outset.
The final storage is to take place underground in a mine.
The storage should be reversible and meet the concept of retrievability or recoverability, that is, the radioactive waste should be able to be retrieved again within a period of 500 years if complications should arise.
The final disposal should take place within the borders of Germany.
Final storage is a government responsibility. The costs are to be borne by the operators of the nuclear power plants or their legal successors.
The Repository Commission recommends that all information be made publicly available during the decision-making process and processed in such a way that it is understandable for both laypeople and experts.

Type of radioactive waste

Primarily, highly radioactive waste should be stored (approx. 27,000 m³ according to BMUB , the number is often rounded to 30,000 m³). Low-level or medium-level radioactive waste should only be stored if negative interactions with the high-level radioactive waste can be ruled out and if there is sufficient space (volume forecast: a total of approx. 600,000 m³).

time planning

According to the Site Selection Act, the aim is to determine the repository site for the year 2031. The repository commission considered this schedule to be "unrealistic". The commission did not set its own timetable.

Phase I: Selection of the location regions

Step 1: Exclusion of areas (/ regions) using defined exclusion criteria and minimum requirements

Step 2: Weighing up the remaining regions using geological weighing criteria

Step 3: Narrowing down to sub-areas (sub-regions) that are justifiable under planning law

Phase II: Above-day exploration

Phase III: Underground exploration

With regard to phase I, the developer publishes the result in an interim report and sends it to the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management . In the interim report, all facts and considerations relevant to the decision are presented. If there are areas that cannot be classified due to insufficient geological data, these must also be listed and a recommendation for further handling of these areas must be included.

With regard to phases II and III, the German Bundestag and the Bundesrat decide by law which locations should be taken into account for surface and underground exploration.

BGE report on potential repository regions

In September 2020, the Federal Association for Final Storage (BGE) published its interim report on sub-areas , a report on regions in Germany that could in principle be considered for the final storage of highly radioactive substances. According to the report, 54 percent of the area of the Federal Republic of Germany is suitable for a final storage of nuclear waste from a geoscientific perspective. According to the Site Selection Act , soil regions with occurrences of rock salt , clay and crystalline rocks were taken into account in the investigation on which the report is based . Regions that have exclusion criteria such as earthquake hazards, influences from mining activities or a low age of the groundwater apply - regions that would represent a risk for a permanent disposal of up to a million years.

Decision criteria

Geological exclusion criteria

Large-scale vertical movements
Active fault zones
Influences from current or previous mining activity
Seismic activity
Volcanic activity
Groundwater age

Minimum geological requirements

Mountain permeability
Thickness of the effective mountain area: at least 100 m, for the host rock crystalline (granite): also less thick
Depth of the effective containment area: at least 300 m
Area of the repository
Findings on the effective containment mountain area with regard to the detection period:> 1 million years of safety

Geological assessment criteria

According to the recommendation of the site commission, the various criteria should not be weighted arithmetically; rather, the criteria should be weighed up with arguments.

There are three weighting groups:

Criteria for the quality of the containment capacity and the reliability of the corresponding evidence
Criteria for the question of how well the rock maintains the enclosure under stress
Criteria for the quality of confinement for an indefinite period

Security requirements and requirements for security investigations

Corresponding test criteria should be defined in the course of the procedure. In order to be able to determine them, the results of geological investigations must first be available.

Planning-related weighing criteria

These criteria are used for the first time in phase I / step 3 to narrow down potentially suitable sub-areas. There are three weight groups:

Weighting group 1 - Protection of humans and human health:

Distance to the existing built-up area of residential areas and mixed areas
Emissions (noise, radiological and conventional pollutants)
Groundwater resources close to the surface for the production of drinking water
Floodplains

Weighting group 2 - Protection of unique natural and cultural assets from irreversible damage:

Nature conservation and Natura 2000 areas
Significant cultural assets (e.g. UNESCO World Heritage )
Deep groundwater resources for drinking water production

Weighting group 3 - Other competing uses and infrastructure:

Systems subject to the Hazardous Incident Ordinance
Extraction of natural resources, including fracking
Geothermal use of the subsoil
Use of geological formations as underground storage (compressed air, CO ₂ injection, gas)

Public institutions

The Federal Agency for Final Storage (BGE) was founded to act as the developer for the location, construction and operation of the repository . (First of all, the BGE should be called the Federal Society for Nuclear Disposal , which is how it is named in the figure.) The BGE is monitored by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE).

Participation formats

The repository commission stated that "the acceptance of parliamentary negotiated solutions ... has decreased significantly" and therefore more social participation should be provided than was previously usual in order to be able to deal with the conflict issue of repository in a socially accepted manner. The aim is a “generation-proof solution” in a “broadest possible” social consensus.

The Commission expects that the entire search process will be shaped by conflicts and sees it as a “driver”, a “challenge” and an “opportunity to eliminate weak points”. The commission is convinced that the decision-making process can only succeed if all those involved get involved in a “new culture of conflict in society”.

Overall, a “self-questioning”, adaptive participation system is to be created that reacts flexibly to conflicts and is thus capable of “self-healing”.

National Advisory Committee (NBG)

The National Advisory Committee (NBG) is a body supervised by the Federal Administration Office and partly made up of (former) politicians and scientists. The range of members should reflect the diversity of society. The aim is to mediate the search for a repository for highly radioactive waste between the government and the population.

The NBG consists of recognized public figures who have been appointed by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, and citizens who have been nominated in a participation process and appointed by the Federal Environment Minister. The NBG had its first constituent meeting with 12 members in December 2016. The NBG has been fully occupied with 18 members since March 2020.

The work of the NBG is based on Section 8 of the Site Selection Act. This law lays down the procedure and the criteria for the selection of the site which is to guarantee the best possible safety for the final storage of high-level radioactive waste in Germany. It also regulates the participation of the public and the NBG in the search for a location.

The NBG sees itself as a social authority that is independent of authorities, parliament, participating companies and expert institutions. Its members may not belong to any federal or state legislative body or government. In addition, they must not have any economic interests in terms of site selection or final disposal.

The NBG would like to convey trust through specialist knowledge and neutrality, explain the process of location selection and arbitrate between different actors. In this way, the committee wants to help ensure that the best possible location for a repository for high-level radioactive waste is found in a transparent and fair comparative selection process.

Current Members:

Günther Beckstein - former Prime Minister D. of the Free State of Bavaria, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Klaus Brunsmeier - Federation for the Environment and Nature Conservation Germany (BUND), former member of the Repository Commission, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, member of the committee since December 2016

Markus Dröge - former bishop of the Evangelical Church Berlin-Brandenburg - Silesian Upper Lusatia, member of the EKD Council, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Marion Durst, qualified pedagogue for physics, astronomy and mathematics, citizen representative, member of the committee since July 2018

Lukas Fachtan - student of political science and philosophy, citizen representative / representative of the young generation, on the committee since July 2018

Tobias Flieger - trainee communications and user experience research, citizen representative, member of the committee since December 2019

Rainer Grießhammer - chemist, honorary professor at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Armin Grunwald - Head of the Technology Assessment Office at the German Bundestag , former member of the Repository Commission, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, member of the committee since December 2016 and co-chair since May 2020

Jo Leinen , former member of the European Parliament, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Annette Lindackers - freelance journalist, citizen representative, member of the committee since December 2019

Monika CM Müller - Head of Studies for Natural Sciences, Ecology and Environmental Policy at the Evangelical Academy Loccum, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since December 2016

Werner Rühm - Group Leader Medical and Environmental Dosimetry at the Institute for Radiation Medicine at Helmholtz Zentrum München, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Roland Sauerbrey - Professor of Quantum Optics at the Technical University of Dresden, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth - Geologist, Director of Department 4 Geosystems at the Helmholtz Center Potsdam - German Research Center for Geosciences, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, on the committee since March 2020

Miranda Schreurs - Professor for Environment and Climate Policy, University of Politics at the Technical University of Munich, former member of the Advisory Council for Environmental Issues, member elected by the Bundestag and Bundesrat, member of the committee and co-chair since December 2016

Jorina Suckow, doctoral student and graduate lawyer, citizen representative / representative of the young generation, on the committee since December 2016

Manfred Suddendorf, independent management consultant and lecturer, citizen representative, member of the committee since July 2018

Former members:

Bettina Gaebel (November 2016 - November 2019)
Hendrik Lambrecht (November 2016 - February 2019; mandate resigned)
Kai Niebert (November 2016 - March 2020; mandate suspended from July 2018)
Michael Succow (March 2020 - May 2020)
Klaus Töpfer (November 2016 - March 2020)

Participation Officer

The national advisory body appoints a participation officer who takes on the task of identifying possible conflicts at an early stage and developing proposals for resolving them in the location selection process. The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management , the project promoters and those conferences that serve to inform and involve the public can consult the participation officer if they have any questions about the participation procedure. The National Advisory Committee appointed Hans Hagedorn as participation commissioner.

Specialist conference sub-areas

Before locations are selected, a specialist conference should take place and deal with the recommendations for the selected sub-areas (/ sub-regions) after phase I / step 2.

Regional conferences

In all regions that are proposed as location regions to be explored above ground after phase I, regional conferences are to take place that are accessible to all citizens. Each regional conference (“ General Assembly ”) is assigned a representative group. The representative group should consist of representatives of the municipalities, social groups and individual citizens who, with the exception of the municipal representatives, should be elected by the general assembly. Both committees should accompany the entire selection process and should be included "regularly" in the decision-making process.

One of the main tasks of the regional conference is to review the proposals and decisions at the end of each of the three phases of the selection process. If the questions that have arisen cannot be clarified, the regional conference has the right to formulate a "review request" before the Bundestag decides and thus to return the decision to the BGE.

Opinion procedure and discussion

After the conclusion of the treatment by the regional conferences, the proposal is to be submitted to the public and to the public bodies for comment.

Expert conference Council of the Regions

The specialist conference should enable an exchange between the regional conferences and stimulate a change of perspective among the actors.

Location agreement

In the opinion of the repository commission, the siting region should be put in a position to compensate for loads caused by the repository.

Criticism of the proposed decision-making process

There is widespread criticism that the Gorleben site was not removed from the selection process. The disagreement with Gorleben is also expressed in the final report of the repository commission through two text variants. It is also criticized that the planned broad social participation was very short due to time pressure.

Greenpeace criticizes that alternatives to final storage in mines have not been adequately examined.

A statement signed by over 50 organizations and initiatives criticized and a. the lack of opportunity for associations to take legal action within the selection process.

In addition to the BUND , the federal states of Saxony, Bavaria, the Die Linke parliamentary group , the scientist Wolfram Kudla and the two industrial representatives Bernhard Fischer and Gerd Jäger submitted a special vote. Saxony advocates that the minimum requirements for the thickness of the geological formation in the case of granite should not differ from those in the case of salt or clay deposits.

Subsequent public participation for the 2016 repository report

Since Bundestag President Norbert Lammert did not want to extend the consultation schedule a second time, the planned public discussion on the repository report could not take place for time reasons, but was made up for with moderate participation in the period from July 18, 2016 to September 11, 2016.

Web links

Responsibility for the future, a fair and transparent procedure for the selection of a national repository site , final report of the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste, preliminary draft, July 4, 2016
National Advisory Committee
Interim report for sub-areas in accordance with Section 13 StandAG , report by the Federal Association for Final Storage on potential repository regions in the Federal Republic of Germany, September 28, 2020

Individual evidence (final report of the repository commission)

Responsibility for the future, a fair and transparent procedure for the selection of a national repository site , final report of the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste, preliminary draft, July 4, 2016
Responsibility for the future, a fair and transparent procedure for the selection of a national repository site , final report of the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste, version not yet edited, ( BT-Drs. 18/9100 ), July 5, 2016

↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e final report, p. 32.
↑ Final report, p. 64.
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d final report, p. 25.
^ Final report, p. 458.
^ Final report, p. 379.
↑ ^a ^b ^c final report, p. 23.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 39.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 30.
↑ Final report, p. 35.
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f final report, p. 37.
↑ Final report, p. 19.
↑ ^a ^b ^c final report, p. 31.
↑ ^a ^b ^c final report, p. 40.
↑ Final report, p. 87.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 27.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 29.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 244 f.
↑ Final report, p. 48.
↑ Final report, p. 49.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 50.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 52.
↑ Final report, p. 54.
↑ Final report, p. 55.
↑ Final report, p. 47.
↑ Final report, p. 38.
↑ Final report, p. 44.
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d final report, p. 42.
↑ ^a ^b final report, p. 45.
↑ Final report, p. 46.
^ Final report, p. 161
↑ Final report, p. 496 ff.
^ Final report, p. 514 f.
↑ Final report, p. 513f.
↑ Final report, p. 515 ff.

Individual evidence (other)

↑ ^a ^b Gorleben on a “white” location map , by Nadine Lindner, Deutschlandfunk, July 5, 2016.

↑ In search of a safe repository , by Katrin Czerwinka, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, July 2, 2008.

^ German working group for repository research

↑ ^a ^b Online consultation on the final report of the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste ( Memento of August 18, 2016 in the Internet Archive ), Endlagerbericht.de, on behalf of the Commission for the Storage of Highly Radioactive Waste, accessed on July 20, 2016

↑ Site Selection Act

↑ ^a ^b tagesschau.de: Half of the republic is a possible repository. Retrieved September 28, 2020 .

↑ Susanne Götze, DER SPIEGEL: Nuclear waste disposal: How researchers look for a safe underground for a million years - DER SPIEGEL - Wissenschaft. Retrieved September 28, 2020 .

↑ Hendricks announces important personnel decisions regarding the reorganization in the repository area , BMUB, August 3, 2016

↑ Bundesrat.de: Election of members of the National Advisory Committee according to § 8 Paragraph 3 of the Site Selection Act

^ Election proposal of the CDU / CSU, SPD, Die Linke parliamentary groups. and Alliance 90 / The Greens , November 21, 2016

^ Members of the National Advisory Committee , The German Bundestag, November 23, 2016